CBS: All-Time Best NFL Franchises

[black label]

good

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

how the hell did Oakland end up over GB??????

Super Bowl era is 1960s onward. Raiders being bad is a historically recent phenomenon. They were very good until the 90s. Davis always bragged about winning Super Bowls in every decade. OTOH, after Green Bay won those first Super Bowls they didn't do much until the late 90s when Favre came along. They were pretty bad through the 70s and 80s.

 

[Manster68]

It is not a surprise by me that Dallas gets love from CBS.

The Cowboys brought that corporation a lot of money over the last half century - more than any other franchise.

Example: I grew up in New Hampshire in the 1970s. I only had three (sometimes four) television channels during the 70s. The CBS affiliate was WCAX-TV in Burlington, VT. Throughout the entire decade, that CBS affiliate would preempt New York Giants games to show the Cowboys. This really developed a strong Cowboy fan base in northern New England and upstate Northeastern New York. In 1976, I saw every single Cowboy game! Think about that?

 

[jobberone]

Consistency ...we fans take for granted how good those Landry teams were.....even the down years weren't bad once he got it going, except for his last two. Hopefully last year is the start of another long string of winning.

We are set up for long term success although it could be better. The cap complicates things so much.

In the 'old' days you just took for granted we would be in the hunt for the SB and it was a matter of a bye, division title or WC. The thought of missing the playoffs never really entered the conversation or thoughts.

 

[DallasDomination]

Playoff wins should also come into play and conference championship wins and losses as well.

 

[Rogah]

Assuming we're talking about the Super Bowl era, there is and should be only 1 criteria under discussion when ranking teams:

CRITERIA:
1) Number of Super Bowl wins.

Period, end of criteria.

 

[DFWJC]

Assuming we're talking about the Super Bowl era, there is and should be only 1 criteria under discussion when ranking teams:

CRITERIA:
1) Number of Super Bowl wins.

Period, end of criteria.

Come on Rogah. I know you're better than that.

So in 40 years, if one franchise won 4 Super Bowls but never made the playoffs 36 other years, they would be better than a franchise that won 3 Super Bowls, lost 5, and made the playoffs 25 other times on top of that?

Uh..no.

 

[jazzcat22]

Playoff wins should also come into play and conference championship wins and losses as well.

I thought that too, but could be they figured that in with the points of SB wins and losses.
As each playoff win progresses in points to get to the 5 or 10.

But yes, agree, they should be accounted for, maybe the season win pct. figures for those teams that make the playoffs but don't get to the SB.
But not a lot of teams that have not made it to a SB, so even at that, it wouldn't matter if not consistently getting there. Like the ones only been there ex once or twice.

 

[MichaelValentino]

DALLAS

• Super Bowl wins: 50
• Super Bowl losses: 15
• Hall of Famers: 45
• Division titles: 22
• All-time winning percentage: 32

The Cowboys have the highest regular-season winning percentage in modern NFL history, they are tied for second all time with five Super Bowl wins and are tied for first with eight appearances. They also have 15 Hall of Famers in the Super Bowl era and have won a ridiculous 22 division titles.

The no. 1 ranking is all the more amazing when one considers the "dark ages" (1996 - 2013). Still, I cannot help but think how the Cowboys' total score could/should be higher. Super Bowl V: Cowboys robbed by bad call on fumble recovery in end zone; lucky 75 yd TD by John Mackey. Super Bowl XIII: Steelers were great and loaded with HOF talent, but every single break went Pittsburgh's way in that game; I love Coach Landry, but he should have run Dorsett down Pittsburgh's throat (I'll never understand that reverse on the opening drive resulting in lost fumble and Pittsburgh TD). "The Catch" denies Cowboys a SB appearance (and likely win) vs Cincinnati. 1994 NFCCG: banged up Cowboys dig themselves into 21-0 hole, failed PI call on Sanders vs Irvin, which could have made it 38-35; Cowboys would've crushed SD in the SB that year. Chuck Howley should be in HOF. Erik Williams was headed to Canton until his car hit a retaining wall. That's another 36 points that the Cowboys could/should have. But hey, no. 1 is still no. 1. Just need to win the NFCE and SB 50 to move further ahead of the Steelers.

 

[Rogah]

Come on Rogah. I know you're better than that.

So in 40 years, if one franchise won 4 Super Bowls but never made the playoffs 36 other years,

The fact that you have to resort to a hypothetical that isn't even remotely in the realm of reality does more to hurt, not help, your point. If we are looking at the sum total of all 49 Super Bowls and assigning them equal value, all I care about is rings and I'd rather have 4 than 3.

However, I don't like the idea of putting all 49 Super Bowls into one big pot and assigning them equal value. If people were being honest, they would probably rather have a recent Super Bowl over ones in the past. What do you think the average guy under the age of 40 would prefer: The Dolphins history or the Seahawks history? Dolphins are ranked #8 and have 2 Super Bowls Championships - that each took place before he was born. The Seahawks are ranked #18 and have only one, but at least our 40 year old can say he actually has a living memory of the event and experienced the joy that came with it.

 

[pacy]

I wonder how that list looks like if you would only count the last 20 years.

 

[Nova]

Assuming we're talking about the Super Bowl era, there is and should be only 1 criteria under discussion when ranking teams:

CRITERIA:
1) Number of Super Bowl wins.

Period, end of criteria.

So...
1. Steelers
2. Cowboys/9ers
3. Packers/Giants/Patriots
4. Raiders/Commanders
5. Colts/Ravens/Broncos/Dolphins
6. Rams/Seahawks/Saints/Bears/Buccaneers/Jets/Chiefs
7. 13 others teams

...?

The idea is to come up with some kind of ranking system, just for kicks. Listing teams by Super Bowl wins doesn't exactly allow for that.

 

[Rogah]

So...
1. Steelers
2. Cowboys/9ers
4. Packers/Giants/Patriots
7. Raiders/Commanders
9. Colts/Ravens/Broncos/Dolphins
13. Rams/Seahawks/Saints/Bears/Buccaneers/Jets/Chiefs
20. 13 others teams

...?

Fixed to properly reflect rankings.

The idea is to come up with some kind of ranking system, just for kicks. Listing teams by Super Bowl wins doesn't exactly allow for that.

If the idea is to come up with a ranking system, I did precisely that. I counted what was important and discarded the rest.

Under the ridiculous CBS system, 2 Super Bowl losses = 1 Super Bowl Championship. According to that idiotic logic, 3 Super Bowl losses are actually better than 1 single win. I guess Bills fans must be ecstatic with that.

 

[Nova]

The fact that you have to resort to a hypothetical that isn't even remotely in the realm of reality does more to hurt, not help, your point. If we are looking at the sum total of all 49 Super Bowls and assigning them equal value, all I care about is rings and I'd rather have 4 than 3.

However, I don't like the idea of putting all 49 Super Bowls into one big pot and assigning them equal value. If people were being honest, they would probably rather have a recent Super Bowl over ones in the past. What do you think the average guy under the age of 40 would prefer: The Dolphins history or the Seahawks history? Dolphins are ranked #8 and have 2 Super Bowls Championships - that each took place before he was born. The Seahawks are ranked #18 and have only one, but at least our 40 year old can say he actually has a living memory of the event and experienced the joy that came with it.

But it's not really a hypothetical. Take for instance, the Saints. Or better yet, the Bucs.

The Bucs have 27 losing seasons out of 38 total. But they have 1 Super Bowl win. Should they really be ranked higher than the Vikings who have a top 5 overall record, only trail DAL, PIT, and SF in division titles, and have more conference titles than 20 other teams?

 

[Nova]

Fixed to properly reflect rankings.
If the idea is to come up with a ranking system, I did precisely that. I counted what was important and discarded the rest.

Under the ridiculous CBS system, 2 Super Bowl losses = 1 Super Bowl Championship. According to that idiotic logic, 3 Super Bowl losses are actually better than 1 single win. I guess Bills fans must be ecstatic with that.

Making the Super Bowl means you won a conference championship, which is an accomplishment and that was the point of the ranking system... Ranking the most accomplished teams. Now obviously not all accomplishments are made equal, hence the weighted system.

Which is fine with me, because the single elimination tournament known as the NFL playoffs is a crapshoot. And teams that have had sustained success have also been more unfortunate at times than traditionally poor franchises.

So while a championship is the ultimate goal and every fan's desire, it isn't the best indicator of how strong your franchise has been historically-- especially when a number of teams have the same amount of Lombards and you're wanting to "split hairs".

 

[Rogah]

But it's not really a hypothetical. Take for instance, the Saints. Or better yet, the Bucs.

They have each won 1 single Super Bowl. The hypothetical listed above talked about a team that won **4** Super Bowls and didn't even make the playoffs once outside those 4 seasons.

It is a ridiculous hypothetical.

The Bucs have 27 losing seasons out of 38 total. But they have 1 Super Bowl win. Should they really be ranked higher than the Vikings who have a top 5 overall record, only trail DAL, PIT, and SF in division titles, and have more conference titles than 20 other teams?

Yes they should. I'd rather have 1 single win than 4 losses. You don't think Bills fans would trade appearances in Super Bowls 25, 26, 27 and 28 for 1 single victory? Gimme a break.

Here's is something that proves my point... Let's look exclusively at the past 13 years:

In the past 13 years, the NY Giants have won 2 Super Bowls, and outside those 2 Super Bowls only went to the playoffs 3 times (and didn't win a single one of those games).
In the past 13 years, the Indianapolis Colts have won 1 Super Bowl, but they went to the playoffs 12 times including a Super Bowl loss and a couple AFCCG losses.

Which team would you rather be over that period? The Giants or the Colts? I sure know my answer to that question.

 

[DFWJC]

They have each won 1 single Super Bowl. The hypothetical listed above talked about a team that won **4** Super Bowls and didn't even make the playoffs once outside those 4 seasons.

It is a ridiculous hypothetical.
Yes they should. I'd rather have 1 single win than 4 losses. You don't think Bills fans would trade appearances in Super Bowls 25, 26, 27 and 28 for 1 single victory? Gimme a break.

Here's is something that proves my point... Let's look exclusively at the past 13 years:

In the past 13 years, the NY Giants have won 2 Super Bowls, and outside those 2 Super Bowls only went to the playoffs 3 times (and didn't win a single one of those games).
In the past 13 years, the Indianapolis Colts have won 1 Super Bowl, but they went to the playoffs 12 times including a Super Bowl loss and a couple AFCCG losses.

Which team would you rather be over that period? The Giants or the Colts? I sure know my answer to that question.

The only thing ridiculous was your assessment that one great season should trump.....every other thing.

I used an extreme case to show how silly your statement was....in my opinion, of course.
It is what you said, so I was simply highlighting what to me was a glaring flaw.

If you want to disagree and say that nothing else matters except the number of Super Bowl wins, it your right to do so.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Assuming we're talking about the Super Bowl era, there is and should be only 1 criteria under discussion when ranking teams:

CRITERIA:
1) Number of Super Bowl wins.

Period, end of criteria.

That is entirely too oversimplified for my taste. Too like a frontrunner too.

 

[benson]

They have each won 1 single Super Bowl. The hypothetical listed above talked about a team that won **4** Super Bowls and didn't even make the playoffs once outside those 4 seasons.

It is a ridiculous hypothetical.
Yes they should. I'd rather have 1 single win than 4 losses. You don't think Bills fans would trade appearances in Super Bowls 25, 26, 27 and 28 for 1 single victory? Gimme a break.

Here's is something that proves my point... Let's look exclusively at the past 13 years:

In the past 13 years, the NY Giants have won 2 Super Bowls, and outside those 2 Super Bowls only went to the playoffs 3 times (and didn't win a single one of those games).
In the past 13 years, the Indianapolis Colts have won 1 Super Bowl, but they went to the playoffs 12 times including a Super Bowl loss and a couple AFCCG losses.

Which team would you rather be over that period? The Giants or the Colts? I sure know my answer to that question.

Your logic is crazy flawed.

 

[Rogah]

Your logic is crazy flawed.

How so? Would you rather be the Bills with 4 losses or the Bucs or Saints with 1 win (but no other Super Bowl appearances)?

I notice not a single person criticizing my logic has answered my questions. And my questions are based on things that actually happened, not ridiculous hypotheticals.