Most dominant NFL franchise ever?

[Hostile]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

Genghis, I always like it when you are posting. Don't forget they were also the Chicago Cardinals and you are right. The epitome in all sports for futility.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Most dominant NFL franchise ever?

Cowboys.

End of discussion.

 

[Seven]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

And that's a fact........ Jack.

 

[ghst187]

I didn't put Miami there because they had a number of close calls against lesser-caliber teams.

The Cowboys in the 1990s were great, but they weren't clearly dominant. From 1992-1995 you had to share the spotlight with the 49ers and it was never clear cut who would be making the Super Bowl.

The 1985 Bears were blowing out playoff teams both in the regular season and in the playoffs. They beat the Commanders, Giants, and Dallas that year by a combined margin of 110-10. And neither of those 3 teams were slouches.

Yeah but Miami won all of them....that ain't easy. Chicago lost that season. I'm arguing quantitative you're arguing qualitative....
16-0 is pretty darn dominant no matter how you slice it. I can see your argument for Chicago but really hard to put someone over a team that was 16-0.

I wasn't arguing that the 90's Dallas teams were as dominant as the '85 Bears....but I still think they would've beaten the '85 Bears.
The Fridge would've been a fat, slow lightweight against our 90's OLs and DLs.

 

[genghiskhan]

5 wins in 5 appearances is 100%.

5 wins in 6 appearances is 82.5%

5 wins in 8 appearances is 62.5%.

There are always arguments against.

Then there is always the counter argument for:

8 appearances in 40 years is 20%.

6 appearances in 40 years is 14.1%. (I think that's correct off the top of my head)

5 appearances in 40 years is 12.5%.



If you are going simply by successful seasons (not successful appearances, which I think is an entirely different argument), then basically every SB appearance is a 1 and every non-appearance is a zero. The missed Super Bowls have to be accounted for. And we have less zeroes than anybody.

 

[Haley94]

5 wins in 5 appearances is 100%.

5 wins in 6 appearances is 82.5%

5 wins in 8 appearances is 62.5%.

There are always arguments against.

I'm not talking about winning percentages in the super-bowl. A person could easily weight the numbers for win and appearances dramatically higher to make the case. I get your point, Pub arguments always seem to end in a cat's game. I still thinks it's fun, and any ammo i can get here will be used to dominate my Giant fan friend.

 

[Haley94]

Then there is always the counter argument for:

8 appearances in 40 years is 20%.

6 appearances in 40 years is 14.1%. (I think that's correct off the top of my head)

5 appearances in 40 years is 12.5%.



If you are going simply by successful seasons (not successful appearances, which I think is an entirely different argument), then basically every SB appearance is a 1 and every non-appearance is a zero. The missed Super Bowls have to be accounted for. And we have less zeroes than anybody.

Thanks. good post. logic seems sound

 

[MONT17]

Marino showed what u could do to the 85 bears if u had a quick release and some WRs willing to cross the middle!!!


the 92 Cowboys never had a chance to mature as a group... free agency killed what could have been the greatest team ever to play!


but getting back to the 85 bears they played some sorry teams all year and parlayed that to Homefield advantage... Troy Aikman would have lit the 85 Bears up using Jay and Harper... Irvin would have owned the middle and Emmitt would have put the game on Ice!

 

[The30YardSlant]

I don't know about that one. I wouldn't even say the 1991 Commanders (who allowed 9 sacks that entire season and had the best offensive line ever), were more dominating then the 85 Bears.

It would be unfair to match the 1992 Boys or 1991 Skins against those Bears though, because the "46 defense" was no longer a novelty.

I don't think a team has dominated more within one season, then the 1985 Bears did.

Cute, but no. Again, that honor falls to the 90s Cowboys (specifically, the 1993-1994 team).

 

[jackrussell]

any 90's Cowboy SB team + the '94 team would destroy the '85 Bears.

Great games, but destroy would not apply.

just for the record...
Honestly, I don't think the '85 Bears could beat the two Denver SB-winning teams, they were too good on defense and too balanced overall.

Now here is where destroy would come into play, as in the Broncos would have been destroyed by those Bears.

 

[RiggoForever]

Cute, but no. Again, that honor falls to the 90s Cowboys (specifically, the 1993-1994 team).

Did you allow single digit sacks that year? Perhaps you were a better run-blocking line but in pass protecting the 1991 Skins line was the best. I mean hell, Mark Rypien made the Pro Bowl!

 

[The30YardSlant]

The 1992 Cowboys were the best team in the SB era. They dominated in maybe the most talent-rich era in the history of the sport. Think of all the great teams: SF, Dallas, Buffalo, Washington, etc. all of whom would completely dominate in todays NFL. I'd even go as far as to say that the early-mid 90s Eagles teams with Cunningham and Reggie White would have won the SB, fairly easily, in today's NFL. The salary cap completely destroyed the GREAT team aspect of football. The 2001 Patriots would have been lucky to even make the playoffs in the early 90s.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Did you allow single digit sacks that year? Perhaps you were a better run-blocking line but in pass protecting the 1991 Skins line was the best. I mean hell, Mark Rypien made the Pro Bowl!

Dallas had the biggest O-Line ever. During the 90s, Dallas had Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Erik Williams (who was on his way to becoming maybe the greatest tackle EVER before his career was cut short), Mark Tuinie, Mark Stepnoski, Kevin Gogan, etc. That is ungodly amount of lineman talent in about a 4 year span. Emmitt Smith could have run for 1200 yards and 15 TDs on one leg behind that line. Hell, TROY HAMBRICK could have run for 1200 yards and 15 TDs behind that line.

As for pass blocking, we gave up something like 15 sacks one of those years, so they were no sloutches.

 

[RiggoForever]

The 1992 Cowboys were the best team in the SB era. They dominated in maybe the most talent-rich era in the history of the sport. Think of all the great teams: SF, Dallas, Buffalo, Washington, etc. all of whom would completely dominate in todays NFL. I'd even go as far as to say that the early-mid 90s Eagles teams with Cunningham and Reggie White would have won the SB, fairly easily, in today's NFL. The salary cap completely destroyed the GREAT team aspect of football. The 2001 Patriots would have been lucky to even make the playoffs in the early 90s.

The point I will concede is that from 92-94 the 49ers would won 3 straight Super Bowls if not for the Cowboys. For those 3 years, nobody else in the NFL was close and the Super Bowl was really the NFC Championship game.

I agree about the salary cap effect. The Patriots won 3 of 4 Super Bowls, but they had to play smart and didn't dominate in doing so.

 

[ghst187]

Great games, but destroy would not apply.



Now here is where destroy would come into play, as in the Broncos would have been destroyed by those Bears.

Jim McMahon vs Troy Aikman....seriously
Charles Haley would've sacked McMahon at least 4x, Deion would've intercepted McMahon 2x, and the one of the greatest and definitely the deepest DLs in NFL history would not have given Payton much room to run.
Our DL would've outweighed their OL. The '85 Bears didn't have a WR that could've caught more than 2 passes on our secondary and McMahon wouldn't have time to find them.

The Broncos DL their SB-winning years would've been too much for the Bears' OL. Once again...a hall of fame QB vs a Dilfer-like QB? Denver also had one of the best OL's assembled, hence Terrell Davis's big numbers.
The '85s Bears were the greatest team of the 80s and best team up until that time, but I'm not sure they could've competed in the early 90's. With the NFC East the way it was in the 90s, the 49ers, and Buffalo....there would be no super bowl shuffle for the Bears.
Saying the '85 Bears could beat the early 90's Cowboys is like saying Wilt Chamberlain could beat Shaq 1 on 1. The game changed, the athletes got bigger, faster, and stronger and the teams got better, esp prior to FA.

 

[peplaw06]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

It's hard to argue against the Cards as the worst ever, but Super Bowl era wise... I think the Lions are gaining ground. Right now, it looks like AZ will win a SB before Detroit. Really the only halfway decent teams they had were when Barry Sanders was there.

 

[THUMPER]

I was arguing with a friend who is die-hard Giants fan. He has been voicing his opinion, in his arrogant New Jersey way, that the Giants dominated the Cowboys the last two seasons, and in his skewed opinion, are the better franchise. He wants me to honor the fact that they are division champs. I countered by saying that only matters in the playoffs (the Giants were roasted 0-23) and that this is a new year and reminded him of the head to head record of 51-35-2 and 5 Superbowl wins to their 2 and 8 conference championships to their 3. That got me thinking, with all the list that seem to be the sports writing norm these days, how could you argue against the Cowboys being the most dominant NFL franchise in the Superbowl era? I don't think one can do it in a logical way. I knowing I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, but if anyone can point out a counter argument one might use I would appreciate it. To further extend the argument I would have to say that The Cowboys are the most dominate franchise in the history of the NFL because I do believe that about any team in the NFL today would beat any championship team in say the 1950"s. Of course, that up for debate.

I have a spreadsheet I made to decide who the most successful franchises were, both from 1933-2005 and from 1966-2005 (the SB era).

For the all-time list the top-10 are:

1. Packers
2. Browns
3. Cowboys
4. Bears
5. Giants
6. Steelers
7. 49ERs
8. Commanders
9. Rams
10. Raiders

The list above is based on the regular season win %, playoff years, and titles won. Since for a lot of those years they didn't have playoffs, just a championship game, there wasn't a fair way to include them for some and not for others so I didn't include them.

Also, I disregarded the years prior to 1933 since there was no championship game to decide who would win the title. It was based solely on their regular season record and teams played different schedules as well with one team playing as many as 16 games while others might only play 5 or 6 in a season.

Starting in 1933 the NFL divided the league into two divisions, established consistent schedules (for the most part), and instituted a championship game to decide the champion.

For the SB era the top-10 are:

1. Cowboys
2. Steelers
3. 49ERs
4. Raiders
5. Dolphins
6. Broncos
7. Commanders
8. Packers
9. Vikings
10. Rams

I took into account more than just the number of titles they won (although those did have carry the most weight) but it is based on their regular season win %, Playoff seasons, playoff win %, Division titles, Conference titles, SB games, and SB wins.

The bottome-10 are:

Texans, Saints, Cardinals, Lions, Falcons, Jags, Seahawks, Chargers, Bengals, and Panthers.

I can send the Excel spreadsheet to anyone who wants it. PM me with your e-mail and I'll shoot it to you.

Or if someone knows how to post it so that it is formatted correctly then let me know and I'll send it to you so you can post it here.

 

[Haley94]

Wow! Good info. I always seem to forget how good the Browns were. And to think they are one of the franchises not to make it to the Superbowl, at least I can't think of anytime they made it.

 

[THUMPER]

Wow! Good info. I always seem to forget how good the Browns were. And to think they are one of the franchises not to make it to the Superbowl, at least I can't think of any time they made it.

Nope, they've never been to the SB but they had a LOT of winning seasons from 1946-1973. I believe they only had two losing seasons in that stretch (will have to check on that) and one of those put them in position to draft Jim Brown so I don't know that I would truly call that a "losing" season.

 

[LeonDixson]

I have a spreadsheet I made to decide who the most successful franchises were, both from 1933-2005 and from 1966-2005 (the SB era).

For the all-time list the top-10 are:

1. Packers
2. Browns
3. Cowboys
4. Bears
5. Giants
6. Steelers
7. 49ERs
8. Commanders
9. Rams
10. Raiders

The list above is based on the regular season win %, playoff years, and titles won. Since for a lot of those years they didn't have playoffs, just a championship game, there wasn't a fair way to include them for some and not for others so I didn't include them.

Also, I disregarded the years prior to 1933 since there was no championship game to decide who would win the title. It was based solely on their regular season record and teams played different schedules as well with one team playing as many as 16 games while others might only play 5 or 6 in a season.

Starting in 1933 the NFL divided the league into two divisions, established consistent schedules (for the most part), and instituted a championship game to decide the champion.

For the SB era the top-10 are:

1. Cowboys
2. Steelers
3. 49ERs
4. Raiders
5. Dolphins
6. Broncos
7. Commanders
8. Packers
9. Vikings
10. Rams

I took into account more than just the number of titles they won (although those did have carry the most weight) but it is based on their regular season win %, Playoff seasons, playoff win %, Division titles, Conference titles, SB games, and SB wins.

The bottome-10 are:

Texans, Saints, Cardinals, Lions, Falcons, Jags, Seahawks, Chargers, Bengals, and Panthers.

I can send the Excel spreadsheet to anyone who wants it. PM me with your e-mail and I'll shoot it to you.

Or if someone knows how to post it so that it is formatted correctly then let me know and I'll send it to you so you can post it here.

Please run those numbers again factoring in the number of years each team has been in the league. I'm willing to bet it swings to the Cowboys favor in most categories.