Greatest NFL Franchise of All-Time? (1 Viewer)

[Husker]

Fine, fine - my spreadsheet now goes back to 1920. Including predecessors (e.g. the Indianapolis Colts include the Baltimore Colts):(1) Green Bay Packers - 333(2) Chicago Bears - 265(3) New York Giants - 222(4) Cleveland Browns - 203(5) Dallas Cowboys - 182(6) Washington Redskins - 174(7) San Francisco 49ers - 165(8) Pittsburgh Steelers - 142(9) Oakland Raiders - 124(10) St. Louis Rams - 115(11) Philadelphia Eagles - 114(12) Indianapolis Colts - 112(13) New England Patriots - 101(14) Detroit Lions - 98(15) Miami Dolphins - 95(16) Buffalo Bills - 92(17) Tennessee Titans - 90(18) Denver Broncos - 85(19) Cleveland / Canton Bulldogs - 75(20) Kansas City Chiefs - 74(21) San Diego Chargers - 64(22) Arizona Cardinals - 62(23) Minnesota Vikings - 60(24) New York Jets - 43(25) Tampa Bay Buccaneers - 38(26) Baltimore Ravens - 28(27) Providence Steam Rollers - 25(28) Frankford Yellow Jackets - 25(29) Akron Pros - 25(30) Cincinnati Bengals - 19(31) Atlanta Falcons - 18(32) Seattle Seahawks - 11(33) Jacksonville Jaguars - 9(34) Carolina Panthers -8(35) New Orleans Saints - 6

 

[raidergil]

This Vikings fan votes for the Steelers.

The Packers were just too bad of a team from the late 70' through the mid-90's for consideration for the top spot.

But weren't the Steelers the worst franchise in the NFL until Noll was hired? They went 40 years without winning anything (and having to merge with other teams a couple years to stay afloat). They dominated the 70s and were one of best teams of all time, but no way best franchise of all time. All time, its hard to beat GB's history BUT choosing from just a franchises history its hard to beat the contiunued success of the Cowboys. Man, I hate to admit that.

 

[dgreen]

Fine, fine - my spreadsheet now goes back to 1920. Including predecessors (e.g. the Indianapolis Colts include the Baltimore Colts):

Looks pretty good. I might change the value of a championship; 5x losing in the championship seems a little much. And, a lot of people tend to think large gaps of suckiness should bring down a franchise's ranking. So, maybe take away points for every x-year span of missing the playoffs or being below .500 or something.

 

[Husker]

dgreen - the "X" years between playoff appearances is not easy to incorporate (with my limited excel skills).What do you propose as the value of a championship, if not 25?

 

[dgreen]

What do you propose as the value of a championship, if not 25?

I'm just here to criticize.

 

[3MTA3]

Voted "Other" = Steelers

 

[stevec]

dgreen - the "X" years between playoff appearances is not easy to incorporate (with my limited excel skills).

What do you propose as the value of a championship, if not 25?

How are you sorting the data? I can probably whip you up an Excel formula real quick that would give you a range. If you want to penalize for each 5 year gap, you could use a bunch of formulae that will do what you want.

 

[bro1ncos]

I know it only covers a small portion of the years but interesting none the less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...10/nflstandings

NFL Standings, 1979-2005

(form doesn't fit going accross so categories going accross are -)

Team

Wins

Losses

Pct.

Playoff

Super Bowls

SB wins

Most wins

Most losses

1. San Francisco 260 163 .615 18 5 5 15 14

2. Denver 258 165 .610 15 5 2 14 11

3. Miami 253 170 .598 15 2 0 14 12

4. Pittsburgh 246 177 .582 15 2 1 15 11

5. Tennessee 81 63 .563 4 1 0 13 12

6. Philadephia 232 189 .551 14 2 0 13 13

7. Dallas 231 193 .545 15 3 3 13 15

8. Washington 230 193 .544 10 4 3 14 13

9. Kansas City 226 196 .536 9 0 0 13 11

10. Minnesota 227 197 .535 13 0 0 15 13

11. Jacksonville 94 82 .534 5 0 0 14 12

12. Raiders 226 198 .533 11 3 2 12 12

13. Green Bay 220 201 .523 11 2 1 13 12

14. N.Y. Giants 220 202 .521 11 3 2 14 12

15. Chicago 220 204 .519 11 1 1 15 12

16. Buffalo 218 206 .514 12 4 0 13 14

17. New England 218 206 .514 11 5 3 14 15

18. Seattle 211 214 .496 8 0 0 13 14

19. Indianapolis 168 183 .479 9 0 0 14 15

20. St. Louis 147 163 .474 6 2 1 14 12

21. Carolina 82 94 .466 3 1 0 12 14

22. San Diego 198 227 .466 8 1 0 12 15

23. N.Y. Jets 194 228 .460 9 0 0 12 15

24. New Orleans 191 233 .450 5 0 0 12 15

25. Cleveland 167 208 .445 9 0 0 12 14

26. Houston 150 194 .436 9 0 0 13 14

27. Baltimore 99 132 .429 3 1 1 12 14

28. Atlanta 179 243 .424 7 1 0 14 3

29. Tampa Bay 176 247 .416 9 1 1 12 14

30. Cincinnati 176 248 .415 5 2 0 12 14

31. Detroit 172 251 .407 8 0 0 12 14

32. Arizona 100 188 .347 1 0 0 9 13

 

[Doug Drinen]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league. If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against. In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship. The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.Count 'em up...The Packers should have won 4.5 championships. They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good. They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships. The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9. The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8. The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack). But whatever. I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

 

[Joe T]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league.

If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against.

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship. The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.

Count 'em up...

The Packers should have won 4.5 championships. They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good. They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.

I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships. The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9. The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8. The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack).

But whatever. I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.

I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

you lost me at 1.9.I'm no math major, but I'd like to see the work behind that.

 

[Doug Drinen]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league.

If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against.

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship. The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.

Count 'em up...

The Packers should have won 4.5 championships. They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good. They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.

I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships. The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9. The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8. The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack).

But whatever. I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.

I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

you lost me at 1.9.I'm no math major, but I'd like to see the work behind that.

Start here:

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship.

Now do that same thing for every season the Cowboys have been in the league.Then add those numbers up.

The result is the number of Championships Dallas should have been expected to win in their history if every game were a coin flip.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Pretty damn impressive that Oakland finished in the Top 10 in the revised (1920) figures.

 

[Joe T]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league. 

If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against. 

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship.  The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.

Count 'em up...

The Packers should have won 4.5 championships.  They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good.  They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.

I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships.  The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9.  The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8.  The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack). 

But whatever.  I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.

I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

you lost me at 1.9.I'm no math major, but I'd like to see the work behind that.

Start here:

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship.

Now do that same thing for every season the Cowboys have been in the league.Then add those numbers up.

The result is the number of Championships Dallas should have been expected to win in their history if every game were a coin flip.

Ahhhhhhhh... I skipped over the "should have" part.I thought you were saying their 5 championships really were the equivalant of 1.9 championships.

For example, USC's 9 College National Championships are the equivalant of 2.6 real championships.

 

[Rhino]

The revisionist history going on in this thread is really entertaining. Ask a history teacher what the great dynastys of all time were. He's probably not going to say, "Well, the British Empire was really great, but the United States of America has really dominated for the last 200 years, so yeah, I think you can throw out everything before the late 1700's."You can throw all the "what if's" out the door and just look at the "what is".We are talking about the All-Time history of the National Football League. A league that has been in existance for nearly 100 years. Of those 100 years only a handfull of teams still existing today and those teams have a LOT of very solid history behind them. Multiple championships and multiple Hall of Fame players.No - we're not talking about the AFL here, so basically anything those teams did before they became a part of the NFL is moot. The NFL doesn't put players into the Hall of Fame for great college careers... it's about what you do in the N. F. L.Again, you can argue that "since the merger", or "since 1970", or "since they started the Super Bowl"... it's all irrelevent to the question asked. The question posed by the original poster was:"Greatest NFL Franchise of All-Time"I find it very telling that when Husker modified his spreadsheet to basically include the ENTIRE history of the NFL there was the Packers and then there was everyone else. Not surprisingly, the Bears and Giants, two teams also with a very long history in the league, were also at the top.Now if you don't like the question, then start a new poll. Greatest Franchise since the merger? Probably Dallas, Pittsburgh or San Fran. Greatest Franchise since 2000, no question the New England Patriots. But All-Time? You can't possibly convince me it's not the Packers.

 

[sevrock]

It is rather offensive that you would overlook the Steelers like that.

 

[raidergil]

It is rather offensive that you would overlook the Steelers like that.

I think Steeler fans are overlooking that 167-284-19 record from 1933 - 1972.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league.

If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against.

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship. The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.

Count 'em up...

The Packers should have won 4.5 championships. They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good. They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.

I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships. The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9. The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8. The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack).

But whatever. I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.

I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

Great point, which is exactly why Championships won before the merger aren't nearly as impressive as those won since the Super Bowl was created.

 

[CalBear]

The revisionist history going on in this thread is really entertaining. Ask a history teacher what the great dynastys of all time were. He's probably not going to say, "Well, the British Empire was really great, but the United States of America has really dominated for the last 60 years, so yeah, I think you can throw out everything before 1941."

Fixed.

 

[Autumn Wind]

No - we're not talking about the AFL here, so basically anything those teams did before they became a part of the NFL is moot. The NFL doesn't put players into the Hall o

Actually it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and does include players who achieved a lot in the AFL. In fact, one of the members played exclusively in the AFL.

 

[Tony Jabroni]

TitleTown, USA.**FlaVVed however, as I am a blind, drooling, homer.

 

[CrossEyed]

All-time - PackersSince the merger -

 

[jwvdcw]

I voted Other-Redskins because I'm a homer.You really should've included as many choices as possible. Beginning poll makers often make mistakes like that and it results in a ton of other votes. Let me know if you want me to do the poll for you next time.

 

[Irish]

Bogus poll - Steelers not on list.

 

[wharf rat]

more food for thought...

Most Seasons League Champion

12 Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996

9 Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985

6 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990

Most Times Finishing First, Regular Season (not including 2005)

20 N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1933-35, 1938-39, 1941, 1944, 1946, 1956, 1958-59, 1961-63, 1986, 1989-1990, 1997, 2000

Green Bay, 1929-31, 1936, 1938-39, 1944, 1960-62, 1965-67, 1972, 1995-97, 2002-04

19 Dallas, 1966-1971, 1973, 1976-79, 1981, 1985, 1992-96, 1998

Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-34, 1937, 1940-43, 1946, 1956, 1963, 1984-88, 1990, 2001

Green Bay, 1929-31, 1936, 1938-39, 1944, 1960-62, 1965-67, 1972, 1995-97, 2002-03

18 Clev. Browns, 1950-55, 1957, 1964-65, 1967-69, 1971, 1980, 1985-87, 1989

Cleveland/L.A./St. Louis Rams, 1945, 1949-1951, 1955, 1967, 1969, 1973-79, 1985, 1999, 2001, 2003

I think that this discussion starts and ends with Green Bay, NY Giants and Chicago. Any talk of any one else is just silly.

 

[Rhino]

No - we're not talking about the AFL here, so basically anything those teams did before they became a part of the NFL is moot.  The NFL doesn't put players into the Hall o

Actually it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and does include players who achieved a lot in the AFL. In fact, one of the members played exclusively in the AFL.

And Again... you're not reading the question.It's not "Greatest Pro Football Franchise of All-Time" - it's "Greatest NFL Franchise of All-Time"

The AFL is not the NFL. It is a defunct league that was merged into the NFL.

Yeah, I realize that at the time of the merger the AFL was as popular as the NFL and they were competing at the same level as the NFL. But there must have been a good reason that after the merger they decided to call the league the NFL and not the AFL... my guess would be because of the HISTORY behind the NFL and the lack thereof with the AFL.

 

[Autumn Wind]

No - we're not talking about the AFL here, so basically anything those teams did before they became a part of the NFL is moot. The NFL doesn't put players into the Hall o

Actually it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and does include players who achieved a lot in the AFL. In fact, one of the members played exclusively in the AFL.

And Again... you're not reading the question.It's not "Greatest Pro Football Franchise of All-Time" - it's "Greatest NFL Franchise of All-Time"

The AFL is not the NFL. It is a defunct league that was merged into the NFL.

Yeah, I realize that at the time of the merger the AFL was as popular as the NFL and they were competing at the same level as the NFL. But there must have been a good reason that after the merger they decided to call the league the NFL and not the AFL... my guess would be because of the HISTORY behind the NFL and the lack thereof with the AFL.

Agreed about the history aspect. But if memory serves, the NFL does recognize AFL stats from before the merger. Now, that is for individual players. Obviously things get murkier when talking about teams. I'll just say that personally, I consider anything a team did in the AFL to be just as valid as what an NFL team did during the '60s.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

No - we're not talking about the AFL here, so basically anything those teams did before they became a part of the NFL is moot.  The NFL doesn't put players into the Hall o

Actually it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and does include players who achieved a lot in the AFL. In fact, one of the members played exclusively in the AFL.

And Again... you're not reading the question.It's not "Greatest Pro Football Franchise of All-Time" - it's "Greatest NFL Franchise of All-Time"

The AFL is not the NFL. It is a defunct league that was merged into the NFL.

Yeah, I realize that at the time of the merger the AFL was as popular as the NFL and they were competing at the same level as the NFL. But there must have been a good reason that after the merger they decided to call the league the NFL and not the AFL... my guess would be because of the HISTORY behind the NFL and the lack thereof with the AFL.

Agreed about the history aspect. But if memory serves, the NFL does recognize AFL stats from before the merger. Now, that is for individual players. Obviously things get murkier when talking about teams. I'll just say that personally, I consider anything a team did in the AFL to be just as valid as what an NFL team did during the '60s.

There were only 8-9 teams in the AFL. Winning the AFL is roughly the same as winning in the Division round today.

 

[Autumn Wind]

There were only 8-9 teams in the AFL. Winning the AFL is roughly the same as winning in the Division round today.

The AFL playoff system reflected the fact that they had fewer teams. And there were plenty of scrub teams in the NFL while the AFL was getting established. Their stats still count.

 

[wharf rat]

There were only 8-9 teams in the AFL.  Winning the AFL is roughly the same as winning in the Division round today.

The AFL playoff system reflected the fact that they had fewer teams. And there were plenty of scrub teams in the NFL while the AFL was getting established. Their stats still count.

There are plenty of scrub teams in the league EVERY year...

 

[houndirish]

Given the Patriots inclusion in the poll I can only come to the conclusion that the originator isn't looking for a serious answer.Thus I voted OTHER - Ny Giants.However If I was seriously voting I'd go with Green Bay. My hatred of the Cowboys helps the Pack in this case.

 

[kevthegrad]

Went to Green Bay for the 1st time this year, and saw a game. In terms of the community living and breathing their team, the respect the franchise commands, and the respect the franchise shows it's fan-base, the Super Bowl wins in different generations, and having been competitive for good long stretches, the Packers are the best franchise of all time.

 

[adesai]

I really dig Drinen's idea of giving differential values to championships based on the number of teams in the league. Husker, would you care to make your sheet available to the masses? I'd love to see what a few tweaks would make it look like.

 

[dslaw]

I had it down to GB & Dallas, much as I hate Dallas. GB has the longer history and I voted for them but what Dallas has done is pretty good. The first 4 or 5 years they were an expansion team (TRIVIA - who went winless in a season first, Dallas or Tampa Bay? It was Dallas) but since then they were good for 20 years, bad for 5 and then their 1990s Super Bowl runs.GB is the only team to win 3 NFL Championships in a row.GB has the most overall championships.Hard to vote against them.

 

[Challenge Everything]

1. Green Bay2. NY Giants3. Chicago2 and 3 could be interchanged as well as 1. All in all with the amount of history that each franchise has anyone else but these three is being short sighted to proclaim them as the best franchise. This poll should have had these 3 teams in it and only these 3 teams. The real question then becomes... which franchise is the 4th best in the NFL?

 

[Husker]

There is nothing secret about my spreadsheet. I can send it to whomever.Note, there is also nothing very pretty or fancy about it. So, if you are o.k. with ugly and only moderately functional, you can have it.

 

[wharf rat]

1. Green Bay

2. NY Giants

3. Chicago

2 and 3 could be interchanged as well as 1. All in all with the amount of history that each franchise has anyone else but these three is being short sighted to proclaim them as the best franchise. This poll should have had these 3 teams in it and only these 3 teams. The real question then becomes... which franchise is the 4th best in the NFL?

This is a great question.

As much as it pains me i would have to put Dallas at #4.

 

[Mike Crimes]

The Packers winning their championships in the beginning of history is impressive, however, there were only like 5 other teams to contend with. Thats tremendous odds to win.Teams like Dallas who have won it multiple times in the modern era, with more teams and less percentage/odds to win and repeat to me is more impressive.Just b/c Packers were the first, don't mean they were the best!

 

[Husker]

Seems to be some support for recent success being worth more. Just to keep it simple, let's assume the value of a championship drops by 1% per year.For example a championship in 2004 = 100%, 2003=99%, . . ., 1920 = 16%. So the value of a championship in 2004 = 25 points and the value in 1920 = 4 points.The new list is:(1) Green Bay Packers - 169.7(2) Dallas Cowboys - 144.4(3) San Francisco 49ers - 136.6(4) New York Giants - 116.6(5) Chicago Bears - 116.4(6) Cleveland Browns - 110.0(7) Washington Redskins - 109.5(8) Pittsburgh Steelers - 108.4(9) New England Patriots - 94.6(10) Oakland Raiders - 94.5

 

[dgreen]

As a few people have pointed out, it's not as hard to win a championship in a 10-team league as it is to win a championship in a 32-team league.

If you go back to 1933 (the first year in which there was a championship game), and simply compute how many championships each team would have won if all teams were equal every year, you can get a measure of how many championships each team "should have won" given how long they've been in the league and how many teams they had to compete against.

In 1975, the Cowboys played in a 26-team league, so if everything were random we'd expect them to win 1/26 of a championship. The Packers played in a 9-team league, so they "should have won" 1/9 of a championship that year.

Count 'em up...

The Packers should have won 4.5 championships. They have actually won 9, so that's pretty good. They've got 4.5 "real" championships, the first 4.5 should have been expected.

I am pretty sure that the Packers also lead the league in "extra" championships. The Cowboys have won 5 and "should have" won 1.9. The 49ers have won 5 and should have won 2.8. The Redskins have won 5 and should have won 4.5 (same as the Pack).

But whatever. I think it's more reasonable to say the Packers lead over the Cowboys iin the championship department is more like 1.5, not 4.

I really, really hate both of them, by the way, so don't start with all that.

I'm working on something and should have it up tomorrow. I've calculated the expected number of playoff appearences, championship/SB games, and championship/SB wins.

 

[malaka]

Just wondering on this spreadsheet, are we going to incorporate Cleveland Browns with the Balitmore Ravens and then back again with the New Cleveland Browns?Or does the Baltimore Ravens get incorporated with the Baltimore Colts or do they go with the Indy Colts. Does the LA Rams and St Louis Rams stay together. How are you coming up with numbers to assign playoff, superbowl appearances? Does it count when a team was playing in a weak division as much as a team that played in a dominant division the same (looking at playoff appearances).I just can't see a legit formula that can prove anything one way or the other.Teams rich in history without scumbag owners who move the team (Packers have the right idea on ownership) have a edge.I voted Cowboys but I am bias. The Packers have the right idea. The Browns might be in the running but with the team moving and it is now a new franchise, I am not sure where their history really is. Can we conisder the LA Rams and LA Raiders as a history of the LA franchise? Not that they would be in the running.

 

[matt jones]

Got to go with the 49ers. Big Steve Young fanatic here. Oh and Montana and Rice weren't too shabby either.

 

[wharf rat]

Got to go with the 49ers. Big Steve Young fanatic here. Oh and Montana and Rice weren't too shabby either.

Did you ever watch a 49er game in the 70's...

 

[dgreen]

Just wondering on this spreadsheet, are we going to incorporate Cleveland Browns with the Balitmore Ravens and then back again with the New Cleveland Browns?

Or does the Baltimore Ravens get incorporated with the Baltimore Colts or do they go with the Indy Colts. Does the LA Rams and St Louis Rams stay together. How are you coming up with numbers to assign playoff, superbowl appearances? Does it count when a team was playing in a weak division as much as a team that played in a dominant division the same (looking at playoff appearances).

I just can't see a legit formula that can prove anything one way or the other.

Teams rich in history without scumbag owners who move the team (Packers have the right idea on ownership) have a edge.

I voted Cowboys but I am bias. The Packers have the right idea. The Browns might be in the running but with the team moving and it is now a new franchise, I am not sure where their history really is. Can we conisder the LA Rams and LA Raiders as a history of the LA franchise? Not that they would be in the running.

What I'm doing is just basic calculations as Drinen described. It assumes each team has an equal chance at the playoffs and the championship each year. So, if there are 10 teams, each team has a 0.10 probability of winning the championship each year. Over a 10-year span, each team would be expected to win one championship (0.10 x 10). I still need to enter some more data and the spreadsheet is at work, so I'll have it up tomorrow. As of now, I only go back to 1933 because that's the first year there was a championship game. I'll probably go back to 1920, though, once I find out who was named champion 1920-1932. But, it won't have a huge impact since most of those franchises playing prior to 1933 aren't around today. (If anyone here is a Pottsville Maroons fan, you'll be disappointed I'm not recognizing your "championship.")

As of now, I'm just doing current franchises and their history. I use the historical links as shown at pro-football-reference.com for each franchise. So, the Arizona Cardinals go back to the Chicago Cardinals and the St Louis Rams go back to the Cleveland Rams. The Baltimore Ravens are treated as an expansion team, while the current Cleveland Browns are linked to the former Cleveland Browns.

Also, for AFL teams, I'm only go back to 1966 because that's the first SB year. Anything before that, I won't count.

All this will do is show how many times a franchise has reached the playoffs or the championship game or won the championship compared to how many you'd expect[/] them to reach and win.

 

[SteelerDestiny]

I don't know if they're the greatest all time, but not even making the Steelers a choice in this poll is insulting.

4 Super Bowl Trophies.

Loads of Hall of Famers.

One of the most respected owners in the NFL.

Consistency and Loyalty.

Amen brother!! Not to mention how many times Cowher had us in the playoffs in the last 14 year since becoming our coach - 11 I believe!! How many teams can say that, that they've been competitive for almost 15 straight years. Oh yeah and we owned a decade and fews years back. Who posted this poll a Browns or Niners fan? LOL The niners have only had 1 good stretch for a couple of years, how did they make the list?

 

[Autumn Wind]

I still need to enter some more data and the spreadsheet is at work, so I'll have it up tomorrow. As of now, I only go back to 1933 because that's the first year there was a championship game. I'll probably go back to 1920, though, once I find out who was named champion 1920-1932. But, it won't have a huge impact since most of those franchises playing prior to 1933 aren't around today. (If anyone here is a Pottsville Maroons fan, you'll be disappointed I'm not recognizing your "championship.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nfl_champions

 

[Rhino]

...

I still need to enter some more data and the spreadsheet is at work, so I'll have it up tomorrow. As of now, I only go back to 1933 because that's the first year there was a championship game. I'll probably go back to 1920, though, once I find out who was named champion 1920-1932. But, it won't have a huge impact since most of those franchises playing prior to 1933 aren't around today. (If anyone here is a Pottsville Maroons fan, you'll be disappointed I'm not recognizing your "championship.")

Actually, this probably will have quite an impact on our results. Prior to 1933 the league champion was decided by the team who had the best record at the end of the season. Three years straight between 1929 and 1931 that team was the Green Bay Packers.So eliminating three of Green Bay's championships will most likely be what is needed to bump them out of the top spot. I say this because if you've read this entire thread you'll notice a trend. No matter how much people "weight" the valuse of a championship, the Packers still come out on top of all the totals. I think Husker's version was the most fair (counting a championship today as 100% and one in 1920 as 16%...) But it still put the Packers ahead of everyone else.

Again - Revisionist History is alive and well in this thread. Skew the numbers however you like.

 

[dgreen]

Okay, here's what I did. I calculated the probability a team would win a championship, appear in a championship, and play in the postseason in each season; added them all up for a total expected value for each accomplishment; added up all actual accomplishments; divided actual by expected to get a ratio ranking for each category.I went back to 1920. I started with all current franchises. I found what year the franchise began and calculated their expected values back to that year. For AFL teams, I only went back to 1966 because that's the year of SB I.From 1920-1932, the league named a champion, based on best record. (In 1932, the Chicago Bears and the Portsmouth Spartans played an extra game against each other to determine the champ, leading to an NFL Championship Game starting in 1933. But, I did not consider that to be a postseason game.) So, for those years, I simply calculated 1/n, where n is the number of teams in the league that year. This gave me the probability you would win a championship in those years. However, I did not calculate "Championship Appearances" or "Postseason Appearances" for those years since there was no postseason or championship game.From 1933-1965, the league had a Championship Game. So, for these years, I was able to calculate all three accomplishments, counting the Championship Game as both a Championship Appearance and a Postseason Appearance. However, what I didn't count is the Divisional Games and Third-Place Games in that era. The Divisional Games were used as tiebreakers to see who would play in the Championship Game and not real, regularly scheduled postseason games.From 1966-1969, I include both AFL and NFL playoffs as Postseason Appearances.From 1970-2004, I did the obvious.So, Championships = Championships awarded by best record from 1920-1932 + NFL Championship Game wins from 1933-1965 + Super Bowl wins from 1966-2004Championship Appearances = NFL Championship Games from 1933-1965 + Super Bowls 1966-2004Postseason Appearances = NFL Championship Games from 1933-1965 + AFL playoffs 1966-1969 + NFL playoffs 1966-2004Results coming in the next three posts. I'm having some trouble with the formatting right now, trying to get everything to lineup right.All Actual data was counted by hand, so I hope I didn't miss anything.

 

[dgreen]

Playoff Appearances:

Team             Year  Expected  Actual  RatioDallas           1960    14.8      25     1.69Minnesota        1961    14.6      23     1.57Miami            1966    13.9      21     1.51Oakland          1966    13.9      21     1.51Cleveland        1950    16.4      22     1.34San Francisco    1950    16.4      21     1.28St. Louis        1937    19.1      24     1.26New York Giants  1925    19.9      24     1.21Denver           1966    13.9      16     1.15Tennessee        1966    13.9      16     1.15Green Bay        1921    19.9      22     1.11Indianapolis     1953    15.9      17     1.07Chicago          1920    19.9      21     1.06Pittsburgh       1933    19.9      21     1.06Jacksonville     1995     3.9       4     1.03Buffalo          1966    13.9      14     1.01Washington       1932    19.9      20     1.01Philadelphia     1933    19.9      19     0.96Kansas City      1966    13.9      12     0.86New England      1966    13.9      12     0.86Baltimore        1996     3.5       3     0.86New York Jets    1966    13.9      11     0.79Tampa Bay        1976    11.1       8     0.72Detroit          1930    19.9      14     0.70Seattle          1976    11.1       7     0.63Atlanta          1966    13.9       8     0.58San Diego        1966    13.9       8     0.58Carolina         1995     3.9       2     0.51Cincinnati       1966    13.9       7     0.50New Orleans      1967    13.7       5     0.36Arizona          1920    19.9       6     0.30Houston          2002     1.1       0     0.00

One additional note for the calculations. For 1966-1969, I just calculated the expected value as the total number of AFL and NFL teams to make the postseason divided by the total number of AFL and NFL teams because each league had different numbers from eachother each year and I didn't think it would make a big difference in the data. From 1970-2004, I did the number to make it from each conference by the number of teams in each conference.

 

[Rhino]

Playoff Appearances:

Team             Year  Expected  Actual  RatioDallas           1960    14.8      25     1.69Minnesota        1961    14.6      23     1.57Miami            1966    13.9      21     1.51Oakland          1966    13.9      21     1.51Cleveland        1950    16.4      22     1.34San Francisco    1950    16.4      21     1.28St. Louis        1937    19.1      24     1.26New York Giants  1925    19.9      24     1.21Denver           1966    13.9      16     1.15Tennessee        1966    13.9      16     1.15Green Bay        1921    19.9      22     1.11Indianapolis     1953    15.9      17     1.07Chicago          1920    19.9      21     1.06Pittsburgh       1933    19.9      21     1.06Jacksonville     1995     3.9       4     1.03Buffalo          1966    13.9      14     1.01Washington       1932    19.9      20     1.01Philadelphia     1933    19.9      19     0.96Kansas City      1966    13.9      12     0.86New England      1966    13.9      12     0.86Baltimore        1996     3.5       3     0.86New York Jets    1966    13.9      11     0.79Tampa Bay        1976    11.1       8     0.72Detroit          1930    19.9      14     0.70Seattle          1976    11.1       7     0.63Atlanta          1966    13.9       8     0.58San Diego        1966    13.9       8     0.58Carolina         1995     3.9       2     0.51Cincinnati       1966    13.9       7     0.50New Orleans      1967    13.7       5     0.36Arizona          1920    19.9       6     0.30Houston          2002     1.1       0     0.00One additional note for the calculations. For 1966-1969, I just calculated the expected value as the total number of AFL and NFL teams to make the postseason divided by the total number of AFL and NFL teams because each league had different numbers from eachother each year and I didn't think it would make a big difference in the data. From 1970-2004, I did the number to make it from each conference by the number of teams in each conference.

So that is your ranking? That is how you would rate the franchises All Time? Three teams who have never won a Super Bowl ahead of a team that has won three?If these results prove anything it's that you can't mathmatically solve EVERY question... a little good old fashioned common sense has to be applied.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Playoff Appearances:

Team             Year  Expected  Actual  RatioDallas           1960    14.8      25     1.69Minnesota        1961    14.6      23     1.57Miami            1966    13.9      21     1.51Oakland          1966    13.9      21     1.51Cleveland        1950    16.4      22     1.34San Francisco    1950    16.4      21     1.28St. Louis        1937    19.1      24     1.26New York Giants  1925    19.9      24     1.21Denver           1966    13.9      16     1.15Tennessee        1966    13.9      16     1.15Green Bay        1921    19.9      22     1.11Indianapolis     1953    15.9      17     1.07Chicago          1920    19.9      21     1.06Pittsburgh       1933    19.9      21     1.06Jacksonville     1995     3.9       4     1.03Buffalo          1966    13.9      14     1.01Washington       1932    19.9      20     1.01Philadelphia     1933    19.9      19     0.96Kansas City      1966    13.9      12     0.86New England      1966    13.9      12     0.86Baltimore        1996     3.5       3     0.86New York Jets    1966    13.9      11     0.79Tampa Bay        1976    11.1       8     0.72Detroit          1930    19.9      14     0.70Seattle          1976    11.1       7     0.63Atlanta          1966    13.9       8     0.58San Diego        1966    13.9       8     0.58Carolina         1995     3.9       2     0.51Cincinnati       1966    13.9       7     0.50New Orleans      1967    13.7       5     0.36Arizona          1920    19.9       6     0.30Houston          2002     1.1       0     0.00One additional note for the calculations.  For 1966-1969, I just calculated the expected value as the total number of AFL and NFL teams to make the postseason divided by the total number of AFL and NFL teams because each league had different numbers from eachother each year and I didn't think it would make a big difference in the data.  From 1970-2004, I did the number to make it from each conference by the number of teams in each conference.

So that is your ranking? That is how you would rate the franchises All Time? Three teams who have never won a Super Bowl ahead of a team that has won three?If these results prove anything it's that you can't mathmatically solve EVERY question... a little good old fashioned common sense has to be applied.

These are even funnier because Arizone (1920) was not even around. They were Chicago but for this result I understand why it says the 1920. These results are pathetic. Like I posted earlier. The three teams that should be considered for 'best NFL franchise' should be:Green Bay

Chicago

New York Giants

I would give nods to Green Bay because they are the only team publically owned and are the smallest community to have a team and hold onto a team. In today's society that has to count for something. The only other question then becomes which franchise is the fourth best?