Most dominant NFL franchise ever?

[THUMPER]

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.

It is already done that way.

 

[LeonDixson]

It is already done that way.

I'm talking about taking the numbers you used for each team and dividing them by the number of years each team has been in the league to get a "relative" success rate. If that's what you did, I apologize. I didn't read it that way.

 

[AdamJT13]

It is already done that way.

Did you consider how many teams were in the league each year? For example, in a 12-team league, if all teams are equal, a team should win the title once every 12 years. In a 28-team league, it's once every 28 years. When you take that into consideration, the Cowboys' championships weigh far more heavily than any other team's titles.

 

[CowboyMike]

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.

Well, technically the original Browns made it to the Superbowl as the Baltimore Ravens. The current Browns franchise is an expansion franchise after the original team bolted for Baltimore.

 

[Qwickdraw]

There are far too many of these foolish threads, IMO.

 

[cowboyuptx]

Dallas has an all-time wining record against 24 of 31 NFL teams!

Our franchise's all-time winning percentage can not be matched by any team!

The Giants, Commanders, and Eagles all have losing records against us and it's not even close!

No question who owns this league!

Dallas is the Mecca of football.

 

[jackrussell]

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.

This argument of 'game has changed and the athletes are bigger and faster' just flies in the face of reality......it's all relative. Just like $10,000 in 1985 money would be like having $20,000 today.

And Wilt Chamberlain would have beat Shaq.

 

[ghst187]

This argument of 'game has changed and the athletes are bigger and faster' just flies in the face of reality......it's all relative. Just like $10,000 in 1985 money would be like having $20,000 today.

And Wilt Chamberlain would have beat Shaq.

flies in the face of reality?!? huh? what part isn't reality? the fact that its true?
you're saying that if the '85 Bears played in '92, then they would be the same size, weight, and speed as the '92 Cowboys? I don't think that was what people were arguing...
Its also important to note that the Bears weren't good enough to repeat, let alone 3 peat or get 3 in 4 years. Even the Ravens were able to win one SB. One might even argue that the league wasn't all that good in '85. Not saying that, but if a team is so great, it should be able to win more than just one SB.

Wilt would get pounded and abused by Shaq in his prime. abused.

 

[THUMPER]

Did you consider how many teams were in the league each year? For example, in a 12-team league, if all teams are equal, a team should win the title once every 12 years. In a 28-team league, it's once every 28 years. When you take that into consideration, the Cowboys' championships weigh far more heavily than any other team's titles.

I considered that but I am mostly concerned with the SB era as trying to come up with an accurate formula to cover all the variances from 1933-2005 would be beyond my meager math skills. That said, there has never been less than 24 teams in the league(s) since 1966 (15 in the NFL and 9 in the AFL that year). It would not be too tough to factor that in from 1966-2005 but I'm not sure that it would affect the results appreciably.

If I could come up with a means of factoring it into the calculations for the 1933-2005 teams it would likely have a positive impact on the Cowboys' ranking compared with the Packers and Browns.

The other problem I had with the all-time rankings is the lack of playoff games other than the Championship Game until 1967. Even after that they have increased in the number of teams involved and the games played. In some years there was a playoff game to decide the division winner, but only in the case of a tie, so one division had a playoff game but the other didn't.

That's why I kept that formula simply and didn't factor in a lot of variables, it's just too complex.

 

[THUMPER]

I'm talking about taking the numbers you used for each team and dividing them by the number of years each team has been in the league to get a "relative" success rate. If that's what you did, I apologize. I didn't read it that way.

Ah, I see what you are talking about now. I am mostly concerned with the SB era as it was easier to come up with the formula since the league has been pretty consistent since then in terms of schedules, number of teams, playoffs, and the number of years most teams have been in the league.

Most of the teams have been in the league since 1968 except the Seahawks & Bucs (1976) and the more recent expansion teams like the Panther & Jags (1995), Browns (1999), and Texans (2002). Since none of those teams have had much success it really isn't worth the effort to me to try to factor it into the formula.

For the all-time rankings, as I told Adam, it would be beyond my ability and availabile time to factor all of that in.

edit - After looking at my formula again I find that I did factor in the number of years for each team in the SB era.

 

[THUMPER]

flies in the face of reality?!? huh? what part isn't reality? the fact that its true?
you're saying that if the '85 Bears played in '92, then they would be the same size, weight, and speed as the '92 Cowboys? I don't think that was what people were arguing...
Its also important to note that the Bears weren't good enough to repeat, let alone 3 peat or get 3 in 4 years. Even the Ravens were able to win one SB. One might even argue that the league wasn't all that good in '85. Not saying that, but if a team is so great, it should be able to win more than just one SB.

Wilt would get pounded and abused by Shaq in his prime. abused.

It is really pointless to try to compare eras and say that one team could beat another or one player was better than another because the game has changed too much as have the players.

Take the players for instance. Most players from the 70s and earlier, other than the top stars, had jobs during the offseason since their salaries weren't enough to live on. Very few players worked out in the offseason other than some running or pickup games to keep in some kind of shape. Weight training was virtually unknown before the mid 60s and only a few football players lifted weights as it was considered a BAD thing by most teams. They thought that too much muscle would make the players slow, stiff, and less flexible resluting in too many injuries.

Players now have enormous salaries and almost no one "has" to work in the offseason although many have various business ventures and investments. Virtually ALL players now have regular workouts during the offseason including personal trainers, therapists, and strength, conditioning, and speed training.

I would also add in the coaching that players receive now compared with back in the day. Back then the coaching staff consisted of maybe 6 guys on a team like the Browns or Giants while many had less. Now players benefit from position coaches who can spend direct, personal time with them. They have mini-camps and practices before Training Camp starts so the actual offseason is very short compared with what it used to be.

After looking at the players you have to consider how the game has changed. Rules are different which can have a HUGE effect on how they play. Take Michael Jordan for instance. If he were forced to play under the same rules as say Elgin Baylor would he still have been as dominant? No way. He was a better athlete by virtue of the factors I mentioned above but he also benefitted from having much more relaxed rules regarding dribbling, traveling, physical contact, etc. Being able to carry or palm the ball, take an extra step or two, and push off to create separation gave him an enourmous advantage over his predecessors.

In the NFL the rules have actually become more strict rather than looser as in the NBA so defensive players like Deacon Jones or Ed Sprinkle got away with murder while guys now are hampered by not being able to hit late, head-slap, or a hundred other "techniques" used by players back then. It seems like every year they are adding more rules to limit what the defense can do. Heck you can't even use the "horse collar" tackle anymore.

The ball has changed to be more aerodynamic and easier to throw but more difficult to kick making the kicking game less important than it used to be and focusing more on the passing game which is more exciting for the fans to watch.

I could go on and on (too late) but the bottom line is that the only way to measure players/teams from different era is to gauge how they did against the competition they faced. How dominant were the 1940 Bears compared with the 1985 Bears? Not who would win of they played because then you would have to decide whose rules the game would be played under and what offseason regimen they would be under, how much they would be paid, etc. and you can quickly see how futile the effort would be.

One last factor in terms of players and their salaries is that back in the day many of the best college athletes didn't play pro sports because they could make a better living in business as well as save their bodies. Living conditions for players back then was pretty much like the military so why would a guy with a college degree subject himself to that as well as being away from his family for extended periods when he could make a better living elsewhere?

Injuries were another factor to be considered. Back then a knee injury pretty much devastated a player. Even if he were able to come back he was never 100% while now a guy can have a complete ACL tear and come back in a year and be just like he was before.

OK, I'll stop now.

 

[THUMPER]

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.

An update after looking at the Browns' record: They had only ONE losing season from 1946-1973 in 1956 when they went 5-7 and drafted Jim Brown after the season. One losing season in a 28-year span is incredible and compares very well with our 20-year winning streak. They also won 8 Championships during that time (4 in the AAFC and 4 in the NFL).

Yet another reason why I rank Paul Brown as the greatest HC of all time.

 

[dreamshatterer]

I would have to say Dallas. Even though the obvious 3 teams have been mentioned already and all 3 have 5 SB's, the Boys have given themselves more chances of getting there and winning more.

 

[Jarv]

Yes but the tiebreaker in my opinion is Superbowl appearances.

Cowboys-8
Pittsburgh-6
San Fran-5

The 2 next teams off the top of my head for apperances is the Vikings and Bills...They were in 4 times each, right. All loss's.

 

[THUMPER]

The 2 next teams off the top of my head for apperances is the Vikings and Bills...They were in 4 times each, right. All loss's.

Nope, the Broncos have been there 6 times and won twice. The Raiders (3-2), Commanders (3-2), and Dolphins (2-3) have been 5 times.

The Packers have also been to the SB 4 times winning 3 of them.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Nope, the Broncos have been there 6 times and won twice. The Raiders (3-2), Commanders (3-2), and Dolphins (2-3) have been 5 times.

The Packers have also been to the SB 4 times winning 3 of them.

Not to mention the Patriots also being 3-2.

 

[Established1971]

The 1992 Cowboys would crush the '85 Bears, and just about every other team that ever was

Im die-hard silver and blue but I have to say I dont think the 92 team could beat those Bears, sorry. I think some Cowboy fans give some hindisght dominance to the 92 team.

 

[THUMPER]

Not to mention the Patriots also being 3-2.

DOH! You're right, I missed them. Nice pickup.

 

[peplaw06]

Most of the teams have been in the league since 1968 except the Seahawks & Bucs (1976) and the more recent expansion teams like the Panther & Jags (1995), Browns (1999), and Texans (2002). Since none of those teams have had much success it really isn't worth the effort to me to try to factor it into the formula.

For the all-time rankings, as I told Adam, it would be beyond my ability and availabile time to factor all of that in.

edit - After looking at my formula again I find that I did factor in the number of years for each team in the SB era.

I'm no math major, but I think if you had factored in number of years for each team, the Texans wouldn't be the worst ever, considering they've only played 4 years.

 

[THUMPER]

I'm no math major, but I think if you had factored in number of years for each team, the Texans wouldn't be the worst ever, considering they've only played 4 years.

Do the simple math then: Going 18-46 over 4 years = 28.1%, the next lowest is the Bucs at 39.5%. They are far and away the worst team.

The good news is that they are likely to improve over the next few years.