NFL - All-time Franchise Rankings Part 2

Jedini · Post #1 » by **Jedini** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:49 pm

EDIT: You can read the entire article here

travis minor · Post #2 » by **travis minor** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:31 pm

are you.. serious?

Post #3 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:00 pm

Odd, I think I’ve read this somewhere before:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Ar ... Four!.html

1. Please link sites you get your content from. Plaigarism makes baby Jesus cry.
2. Parse it to at least 5 paragraphs if you are going to copy their stuff.

UrbanLegendMD · Post #4 » by **UrbanLegendMD** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:17 pm

They put too much emphasis on things that happened before 1980.

Jedini · Post #5 » by **Jedini** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:29 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:Odd, I think I’ve read this somewhere before:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Ar ... Four!.html

1. Please link sites you get your content from. Plaigarism makes baby Jesus cry.
2. Parse it to at least 5 paragraphs if you are going to copy their stuff.

Wow. I wasn't trying to steal anything from anyone. Just thought it was a great article. My bad that I missed to post their link. :-?

Post #6 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:24 pm

No worries. Just wanted to make sure a friendly mod (me) caught it before an evil one (JKim) locked it and suspended you and your future grandchildren from the site.

Post #7 » by **Da Schwab** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:59 pm

Why exactly are the Raiders higher than the Steelers?

Did I miss something?

Post #8 » by **Icness** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:18 pm

Da Schwab wrote:Why exactly are the Raiders higher than the Steelers?

Did I miss something?

Before the mid 1970s the Steelers were consistently among the worst teams, for nearly 40 years. That's part of what earned those Noll-era teams so much respect and praise--think if the Kansas City Royals suddenly won 4 of the next 6 World Series. The Raiders have obviously fallen on hard times lately but for the first 40 years of their existence the "Commitment to Excellence" was pretty true a statement. Look at all those HOFers.

FWIW I think the Cowboys should be #1.

Post #9 » by **J.Kim** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:16 am

Basketball Jesus wrote:No worries. Just wanted to make sure a friendly mod (me) caught it before an evil one (JKim) locked it and suspended you and your future grandchildren from the site.

Only the truly evil ones would say such things and try to deceive posters.

Post #10 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:13 am

Yes!! We ain't last!! :clap:

WTF, how are the Texans ahead of anyone?

LakerFanMan · Post #11 » by **LakerFanMan** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:02 am

Nothing that occured before the merger should count for anything.

hermes · Post #12 » by **hermes** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:28 pm

YES vikes are 15th not bad, ahead of the chiefs

Vikings claim to fame: Fielded three of the most dominant teams in modern history – regular-season history – and the No. 2 scoring offense in league history (556 points scored in 1998)

... yet still have zero titles to show for it.

Post #13 » by **Da Schwab** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:14 pm

LakerFanMan wrote:Nothing that occured before the merger should count for anything.

I hope I haven't gone colorblind overnight, because I can't see the green font.

Post #14 » by **studcrackers** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:05 pm

i know pre superbowl era should count but for how much should it count? normally when you see people discussing greatest franchises ever they usually are just discussing the suerpbowl era

Post #15 » by **Icness** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:03 pm

I think the list changes quite a bit if you consider just the Super Bowl era and nothing before it.
My rankings for that criteria:
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. San Francisco 49ers
4. Oakland Raiders
5. Denver Broncos
6. Washington Redskins
7. New England Patriots
8. New York Giants
9. Green Bay Packers
10. Miami Dolphins
11. St. Louis/LA Rams

29. New Orleans Saints
30. Arizona Cardinals
31. Detroit Lions
32. Houston Texans

Skins 2008 · Post #16 » by **Skins 2008** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:25 pm

Icness wrote:I think the list changes quite a bit if you consider just the Super Bowl era and nothing before it.
My rankings for that criteria:
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. San Francisco 49ers
4. Oakland Raiders
5. Denver Broncos
6. Washington Redskins
7. New England Patriots
8. New York Giants
9. Green Bay Packers
10. Miami Dolphins
11. St. Louis/LA Rams

29. New Orleans Saints
30. Arizona Cardinals
31. Detroit Lions
32. Houston Texans

I would make 1 small change on the list I would put the Washington Redskins at No.5 because they have 3 SBs to Denver's 2 SBs

Post #17 » by **Buck You** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:53 am

I agree with that list. :wink:

Ex-hippie · Post #18 » by **Ex-hippie** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:43 pm

With only a couple of exceptions, including their debut 2-12 season, the Seahawks have never been a truly awful franchise. Yet they’ve also done little to distinguish themselves beyond a single token Super Bowl appearance at a time when the NFC was clearly inferior to the AFC. Simply note the outcomes of that game, in which the No. 1 NFC seed Seahawks were outmanned and outmuscled by the No. 6 AFC seed Steelers, 21-10.

BULLS**T.

Everybody who watched that game, other than Bill Leavy, knew the Seahawks were the better team that day. They had the better offense, they had the better defense, they made more plays, they gained more yards.

That is all.

Post #19 » by **Da Schwab** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:20 pm

Ex-hippie wrote:
With only a couple of exceptions, including their debut 2-12 season, the Seahawks have never been a truly awful franchise. Yet they’ve also done little to distinguish themselves beyond a single token Super Bowl appearance at a time when the NFC was clearly inferior to the AFC. Simply note the outcomes of that game, in which the No. 1 NFC seed Seahawks were outmanned and outmuscled by the No. 6 AFC seed Steelers, 21-10.

BULLS**T.

Everybody who watched that game, other than Bill Leavy, knew the Seahawks were the better team that day. They had the better offense, they had the better defense, they made more plays, they gained more yards.

That is all.

Funny. A lot of people were saying that about the Patriots after the last SB, yet they lost to an "inferior" team as well.

What a small world...

Ex-hippie · Post #20 » by **Ex-hippie** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:03 am

Da Schwab wrote:
Ex-hippie wrote:
With only a couple of exceptions, including their debut 2-12 season, the Seahawks have never been a truly awful franchise. Yet they’ve also done little to distinguish themselves beyond a single token Super Bowl appearance at a time when the NFC was clearly inferior to the AFC. Simply note the outcomes of that game, in which the No. 1 NFC seed Seahawks were outmanned and outmuscled by the No. 6 AFC seed Steelers, 21-10.

BULLS**T.

Everybody who watched that game, other than Bill Leavy, knew the Seahawks were the better team that day. They had the better offense, they had the better defense, they made more plays, they gained more yards.

That is all.

Funny. A lot of people were saying that about the Patriots after the last SB, yet they lost to an "inferior" team as well.

What a small world...

I never heard one person say that about the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

I mean, if you want to criticize the Seahawks' performance in Super Bowl XL, you can certainly say a lot of negative things about their execution, particularly clock management. They squandered a number of opportunities. Of course, if the game had been officiated correctly, it wouldn't have mattered if they had missed a few other chances. But to say they were "outmuscled" and "outmanned" in that game? No sane person thinks that.