NFL's best and worst franchises? (1 Viewer)

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Consider:

Stadium

Fanbase

Owner

Front office (free agents, salary cap, draft, hiring and firing, etc)

Head Coach

coaching staff besides head coach (look for assistants being hired for HC gigs elsewhere)

On field product

recent success

reputation within the league top to bottom

My top five in no particular order:

Ravens, Steelers, Seahawks, Patriots, Packers

Bottom five:

Browns, Lions, Redskins, Jaguars, Raiders

 

[Cjw_55106]

Top 5, no order:

Packers, Patriots, Seahawks, Cowboys and Broncos

Bottom 5:

Raiders, Jaguars, Browns, Lions and Bills

 

[jon_mx]

If the question was Super Bowl era history, no one comes close with competing with the Lions for the worst. Current situation the Jags have to be considered in the worst shape.

 

[DocHolliday]

Seems like the OP nailed it.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

I think my Giants were top five a few years back but the front office seems to have some issues. Having a good owner is critical though, I think the franchises who are terrible mostly have bad ownership groups.

 

[BroadwayG]

Jags have a huge up arrow next to their name right now.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Top 5, no order:

Packers, Patriots, Seahawks, Cowboys and Broncos

Bottom 5:

Raiders, Jaguars, Browns, Lions and Bills

really?

did stadium get weighted 90%?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Jags have a huge up arrow next to their name right now.

Because they are moving to LA? As long as they are in Jacksonville, they are screwed IMO. That city should not have an NFL franchise.

 

[Phenomena]

I'll go with unlikely to be mentioned teams:

Best: Giants

Stable management/administration that devotes itself to draft/develop. Two super bowl wins in 5 years. New stadium. Franchise QB. There's too much focus on the negative given the team is in the biggest media outlet in the world, but the Giants are definitely a top franchise.

Worst: Rams

I would throw the Rams in there just because the state/city is basically kicking them out. They made some superficial overtures that they wanted to keep the team, but anyone can blatantly see the city never seriously considered building a new stadium for them. It's not just talk about moving to LA - that's definitely going to happen within the next year or two.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I almost added the Rams and agree with your post. The issue I had was, when I think of losers, the Rams dont come to mind as quick as my five listed.

 

[MattFancy]

Over the history of the leauge? Super Bowl era? Last decade?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Over the history of the leauge? Super Bowl era? Last decade?

Right now

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Over the history of the leauge? Super Bowl era? Last decade?

Based on the OP I'm assuming no more than a few years back. I like the way the OP is phrased since it's coming at it almost from a potential employee's perspective, not a fan's or an investor's - franchise value doesn't matter, nor does how many rings they won in the '60s.

Obvious top four: Packers and Steelers, followed closely by Patriots and Seahawks

Next tier: Broncos, Ravens, Colts

On the decline: Saints, Bears, and - inexplicably but clearly - the 49ers (the move to Santa Clara and the Harbaugh debacle are indicative of serious organizational tone-deafness IMO)

Bottom five:

Jaguars - does anyone doubt that if the NFL were mulling contraction instead of expansion they'd be #1 on the hit list?
Raiders - an absolute train-wreck top to bottom
Browns - in so many ways, the Manziel saga is just so Cleveland
Redskins - I wouldn't trust Daniel Snyder to run my kids' lemonade stand
Rams - seems strange to have them on this list, but the Greatest Show on Turf seems 100 years ago at this point, doesn't it?

 

[MattFancy]

Top 5:

Patriots

Packers

Steelers

Seahawks

Colts

Bottom 5:

Jaguars

Buccaneers

Raiders

Browns

Redskins (as a Skins fan, it pains me to admit)

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Jags have a huge up arrow next to their name right now.

Because they are moving to LA? As long as they are in Jacksonville, they are screwed IMO. That city should not have an NFL franchise.

Moving to LA, huh? Welcome to 2009.

 

[Insein]

Best: Pats, Pack, Steelers, Ravens,

Worst: Oak, Wash, Jax, Clev

 

[McGarnicle]

I'll go with unlikely to be mentioned teams:

Best: Giants

Stable management/administration that devotes itself to draft/develop. Two super bowl wins in 5 years. New stadium. Franchise QB. There's too much focus on the negative given the team is in the biggest media outlet in the world, but the Giants are definitely a top franchise.

Worst: Rams

I would throw the Rams in there just because the state/city is basically kicking them out. They made some superficial overtures that they wanted to keep the team, but anyone can blatantly see the city never seriously considered building a new stadium for them. It's not just talk about moving to LA - that's definitely going to happen within the next year or two.

The Giants should be an obvious choice for all the reasons you mentioned. Anyone who disagrees doesn't have a clue. They are a world class franchise across all sports.

 

[McGarnicle]

Just watching the Bills press conference now.

I feel bad for fans of the inept teams. Really unfair.

 

[Insein]

I'll go with unlikely to be mentioned teams:

Best: Giants

Stable management/administration that devotes itself to draft/develop. Two super bowl wins in 5 years. New stadium. Franchise QB. There's too much focus on the negative given the team is in the biggest media outlet in the world, but the Giants are definitely a top franchise.

Worst: Rams

I would throw the Rams in there just because the state/city is basically kicking them out. They made some superficial overtures that they wanted to keep the team, but anyone can blatantly see the city never seriously considered building a new stadium for them. It's not just talk about moving to LA - that's definitely going to happen within the next year or two.

The Giants should be an obvious choice for all the reasons you mentioned. Anyone who disagrees doesn't have a clue. They are a world class franchise across all sports.

Almost put the Giants in there but they are a bit too stubborn. They will stick to the old ways regardless. They won two super bowls but they also missed the playoffs 5 of the last 8 years too. Not very flexible.

 

[ldizzle]

bottom

1. Raiders

2. Redskins

3. Browns

4. Bills

5. Bucs/Jets

 

[McGarnicle]

I'll go with unlikely to be mentioned teams:

Best: Giants

Stable management/administration that devotes itself to draft/develop. Two super bowl wins in 5 years. New stadium. Franchise QB. There's too much focus on the negative given the team is in the biggest media outlet in the world, but the Giants are definitely a top franchise.

Worst: Rams

I would throw the Rams in there just because the state/city is basically kicking them out. They made some superficial overtures that they wanted to keep the team, but anyone can blatantly see the city never seriously considered building a new stadium for them. It's not just talk about moving to LA - that's definitely going to happen within the next year or two.

The Giants should be an obvious choice for all the reasons you mentioned. Anyone who disagrees doesn't have a clue. They are a world class franchise across all sports.

Almost put the Giants in there but they are a bit too stubborn. They will stick to the old ways regardless. They won two super bowls but they also missed the playoffs 5 of the last 8 years too. Not very flexible.

Yeah, I gotta admit as a Giants fan, just the two Super Bowls in the past 7 years really stings. Hope they can somehow right the ship.

 

[Freelove]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

 

[McGarnicle]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

 

[msudaisy26]

Consider:

Stadium

Fanbase

Owner

Front office (free agents, salary cap, draft, hiring and firing, etc)

Head Coach

coaching staff besides head coach (look for assistants being hired for HC gigs elsewhere)

On field product

recent success

reputation within the league top to bottom

s

I don't know how the Lions aren't in everyones bottom 5. Stadium - ford field is top notch, so I hear.

Fans - you have heard if lovable losers, this fan base isn't that. The whole league is against us and us against the world shtick is so over played and stupid. Misery loves company is how this fan base is. Just look at their reaction to the Dez call this weekend.

Owner - the Fords are loyal to a fault. That is great if you are a factory worker at ford living check to check, but horrible in the NFL where most of these coaches and player should be set finacally after their big pay days. Look at Matt Millen or Wayne Fontz.

Front office - worst in the league. Matt Millen might have been the worst GM in sports history, so after they let him go what did they do? Hired his understudy. People will point to the Lions improvement since Millen left, but there was no where to go but up. Salary cap is still a major problem, drafting is still sub par, despite hitting on most of their free agents this year they are still well below average in that category too.

Head Coach - for the most part this is a train wreck. Almost every head coach the Lions have had in the last 25 years has never had another NFL head coaching job again, that is saying something in a league that recycles coaches constantly. The current staff is still being evaluated. Caldwell won 11 games, but is a questionable game manager and a jerk, Austin was great this year with the defense, but will be gone soon as a head coach. Lombardi was awful this year.

On the field product - the Lions were good this year, but over the years they have been awful for 50+ years. 1 playoff win in that time. In my opinion this year was a lucky year. Several big comebacks, a very weak schedule, an under achieving offense and over achieving defense isn't a recipe for continual success. I think the stars just aligned for the Lions this year. Which is sad, most teams that have the stars align make a playoff run, they aren't the 6th seed.

Recent success - they have made the playoffs twice since the 90's. other than the Browns, who were an expansion team, no one is worse.

League reputation - they used to just be losers, now they are considered dirty too. Suh and Riola have lead the charge and they deserve their reps. After that I am not so sure the ret of the team deserves it. Detriot has earned some respect when playing at home, but any good team on the road won't fear the Lions. Including playoffs they are 0 - 18 or 19 against teams that finished with a winning record since Stafford took the helm.

 

[FUBAR]

I almost added the Rams and agree with your post. The issue I had was, when I think of losers, the Rams dont come to mind as quick as my five listed.

nope, the Rams are probably the best team of the worst franchises.

Freelove nailed it other than the Giants. IMO, that's a fantastic franchise. their ups and downs make them even better as they stick with their program instead of over-responding to what the fans might think. Cowherd mentioned them this morning as a team doing it right. He's right.

 

[McGarnicle]

I almost added the Rams and agree with your post. The issue I had was, when I think of losers, the Rams dont come to mind as quick as my five listed.

nope, the Rams are probably the best team of the worst franchises.

Freelove nailed it other than the Giants. IMO, that's a fantastic franchise. their ups and downs make them even better as they stick with their program instead of over-responding to what the fans might think. Cowherd mentioned them this morning as a team doing it right. He's right.

The coaching carousel gets pretty comical at times, especially when you have teams without a franchise QB and thus no real shot of being successful regardless of coach. And looking at it from the players' perspective, it's downright unfair how many guys never had a chance because they got drafted by an incompetent franchise and never got to play in a pro system with any stability or continuity. The best teams make decisions on a longer timetable and the Giants are consistent in that approach. It's all the more impressive given the pressures of the biggest media market.

 

[dhockster]

I almost added the Rams and agree with your post. The issue I had was, when I think of losers, the Rams dont come to mind as quick as my five listed.

nope, the Rams are probably the best team of the worst franchises.

Freelove nailed it other than the Giants. IMO, that's a fantastic franchise. their ups and downs make them even better as they stick with their program instead of over-responding to what the fans might think. Cowherd mentioned them this morning as a team doing it right. He's right.

The coaching carousel gets pretty comical at times, especially when you have teams without a franchise QB and thus no real shot of being successful regardless of coach. And looking at it from the players' perspective, it's downright unfair how many guys never had a chance because they got drafted by an incompetent franchise and never got to play in a pro system with any stability or continuity. The best teams make decisions on a longer timetable and the Giants are consistent in that approach. It's all the more impressive given the pressures of the biggest media market.

I heard it said that if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere

 

[McGarnicle]

I almost added the Rams and agree with your post. The issue I had was, when I think of losers, the Rams dont come to mind as quick as my five listed.

nope, the Rams are probably the best team of the worst franchises.

Freelove nailed it other than the Giants. IMO, that's a fantastic franchise. their ups and downs make them even better as they stick with their program instead of over-responding to what the fans might think. Cowherd mentioned them this morning as a team doing it right. He's right.

The coaching carousel gets pretty comical at times, especially when you have teams without a franchise QB and thus no real shot of being successful regardless of coach. And looking at it from the players' perspective, it's downright unfair how many guys never had a chance because they got drafted by an incompetent franchise and never got to play in a pro system with any stability or continuity. The best teams make decisions on a longer timetable and the Giants are consistent in that approach. It's all the more impressive given the pressures of the biggest media market.

I heard it said that if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere

Well done.

 

[Freelove]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

 

[ghostguy123]

If the question was Super Bowl era history, no one comes close with competing with the Lions for the worst. Current situation the Jags have to be considered in the worst shape.

Browns. Browns. Browns.

If you say the Browns dont come close you havent been paying attention. It goes beyond just win %

 

[JohnnyU]

Top 5:

Patriots

Packers

Steelers

Seahawks

Colts

Bottom 5:

Jaguars

Buccaneers

Raiders

Browns

Redskins (as a Skins fan, it pains me to admit)

The Colts would be in the top 1 or 2 if they had a different owner. Not that he hasn't done good things for the team, he's done many good things for the team, but having substance abuse problems is somewhat of a black eye to the organization. As far as his executive abilities, they are top notch. He's had his hands in many right decisions for the team since he took over for his deceased father.

 

[Freelove]

I would not want to be in a position where I felt like geography had fated me to be a Jets, Jags, Raiders, Browns, or Redskins fan.

Maybe especially the Redskins, since I think Snyder's reign is already a lot like the darkest depths of the Al Davis era Raiders despair, except there's maybe another three or more decades still on the horizon.

 

[ghostguy123]

I suppos if it wasnt for the fanbase the browns would be the worst franchise by a mile. And this was even before this recent mega disastrous past two months.

 

[dhockster]

The Giants are an interesting case: in the last 21 seasons, they have missed the playoffs 13 times, and were one and done in the playoffs 5 times. The other 3 seasons? 10-1 in the playoffs, winning 2 Superbowls and losing 1. Their two superbowl winning teams were 10-6 and 9-7 in the regular season. Total Regular Season Record during that time? 174-161-1. Not exactly a Juggernaut. However, they took advantage of their opportunities, so you can't take that away from them.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I would not want to be in a position where I felt like geography had fated me to be a Jets, Jags, Raiders, Browns, or Redskins fan.

Maybe especially the Redskins, since I think Snyder's reign is already a lot like the darkest depths of the Al Davis era Raiders despair, except there's maybe another three or more decades still on the horizon.

The thing with the Redskins is, geography no longer fates you to be a fan of them, you can root for the Ravens instead.

 

[Freelove]

The Giants are an interesting case: in the last 21 seasons, they have missed the playoffs 13 times, and were one and done in the playoffs 5 times. The other 3 seasons? 10-1 in the playoffs, winning 2 Superbowls and losing 1. Their two superbowl winning teams were 10-6 and 9-7 in the regular season. Total Regular Season Record during that time? 174-161-1. Not exactly a Juggernaut. However, they took advantage of their opportunities, so you can't take that away from them.

Just thinking about this post and others above, I sincerely believe continuity is the one truly important thing an owner can contribute to a successful NFL franchise, and lack of commitment to it dooms a franchise like nothing else can.

 

[McGarnicle]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset. There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

 

[Bill]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset.There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

Put me down also as someone who would much rather have his team playoff bound just about every single year verses winning 2 super bowls and not being worth watching the opther years.

 

[njherdfan]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset.There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

Put me down also as someone who would much rather have his team playoff bound just about every single year verses winning 2 super bowls and not being worth watching the opther years.

Really? Wow. I totally disagree.

On a side note it's crazy that Washington is pretty much a consensus bottom 5 team. When's the last time they were a consensus TOP 5 team? The day Snyder purchased them?

 

[Bri]

Browns and Bills have a nice fan base.

Browns fans supported them when they had no team even. I'm curious if winning(more) will help things there. There was definitely some life in them this year and they could be in an upswing.

Granted the Bills are a relatively small or less populated area but you flat out know you're near Buffalo(Orchard Park) by all the signs and flags and stuff hanging around. I'd bet other teams don't have as high a % of population, as Buffalo does, that are fans.

 

[Shrugs]

Worst: 49ers. I say that as a fan.

 

[msudaisy26]

Worst: 49ers. I say that as a fan.

This screams of I want a compliment. Trust me I know what that scream sounds like.

 

[FUBAR]

Browns and Bills have a nice fan base.

Browns fans supported them when they had no team even. I'm curious if winning(more) will help things there. There was definitely some life in them this year and they could be in an upswing.

Granted the Bills are a relatively small or less populated area but you flat out know you're near Buffalo(Orchard Park) by all the signs and flags and stuff hanging around. I'd bet other teams don't have as high a % of population, as Buffalo does, that are fans.

Aside from Green Bay that's probably true.

 

[Snorkelson]

I'm just happy I see a couple lists that don't have the Lions on it. As a Lions fan I was having a hard time finding 5 more disappointing teams. Maybe things are turning around, but it's like being in the AFC East- Patriots will be on top as long as Brady is effective (we'll see how things go for BB when he has to roll with another qb, but Cassel did fine), as Rodgers will be hard to unseat the next 5 years as NFC North leaders. Everyone else is happy to get a wildcard. Can't even wrap up the division with a 2 game lead and Rodgers out. Now I'm getting depressed......

 

[Insein]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset.There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

Put me down also as someone who would much rather have his team playoff bound just about every single year verses winning 2 super bowls and not being worth watching the opther years.

Yea put me down for the I'd take 10 years of misery just to have that glorious parade. I.e Philadelphia fan.

 

[Da Guru]

If the question was Super Bowl era history, no one comes close with competing with the Lions for the worst. Current situation the Jags have to be considered in the worst shape.

The Lions are a mix. They had an owner willing to spend but did not know how to get it done. They fire the worst GM in NFL history, yet promote his protégé was sat next to him for seven years.

As far as stadium and fans Ford Field is one of the best venues in the NFL and the fan base..well they are resilient.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset.There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

Put me down also as someone who would much rather have his team playoff bound just about every single year verses winning 2 super bowls and not being worth watching the opther years.

Really? Wow. I totally disagree.On a side note it's crazy that Washington is pretty much a consensus bottom 5 team. When's the last time they were a consensus TOP 5 team? The day Snyder purchased them?

Early 90s. Things started to fall apart in Cooke's last years, made worse when Snyder bought the team.

 

[MattFancy]

Top tier - Pats, Pack, Steelers and Cowboys.

Pats' record of sustained top-level success during the most recent free agent era of high-turnover instability isn't even close to being matched. Best coaching, and a history of players willing to sacrifice to become and remain part of the franchise speaks volumes about what's going on inside.

Pack have the league's best player at the league's most important position, and he's young enough to remain a stabilizing factor for the foreseeable future. To not only have a fanbase of their caliber, but to draw it from that market, in that climate, and have it prove to be that passionate for this long is just...wow.

Steelers have the best ownership in the game, and have an almost obscene track record of stability, identity, and relevance, and don't appear to be going anywhere soon. Also one of the two truly massive national and international fanbases, along with the Cowboys -- an artifact of being one of the two marquee franchises when the NFL first became culturally relevant across the globe.

Cowboys are tops in the league in terms of franchise value, visibility, popularity, and stadium, and now feature an ascendant team as well, with the strength being that offensive line that practically guarantees relevance for a while. The coaching staff appears to be stable, entrenched, and now successful. Only the ownership is a clown show, but there are enough superlatives here to warrant a spot atop any list.

Ravens, Giants, and Seahawks go in the next tier.

Giants, a few too many ups and downs in too big a market to stay front-page relevant year in and year out, but enough success often enough that they warrant a spot at the big boy table. They're what the Bears ought to be, if the Bears could get their heads out of their #####.

Ravens are doing everything right, and have IMO the game's consistently best GM. Another team with a well-established identity, too, and a QB who will steward them for a while yet. Only things that make them not quite marquee are that they're a bit more of a Johnny-come-lately, and have that lack of historical continuity that dooms them to second-tier cultural relevance. They're what the Raiders could have been.

Seahawks are ascendent, but have no real track record yet, so it's silly to put them on a pedestal with franchises that are historically great and also still relevant. Great, passionate fanbase despite all the guff I give them. And the only real demerit, IMO, is the well-hyped accoustic stadium. Bush league, IMO, but only a minor demerit. If they stay on top of the world for another decade like the Pats did, they'll elbow their way in.

KC, Indy just miss.

Very thoughtful analysis, though it doesn't make any sense to knock the Giants down a tier based on recent "ups and downs". Two championships in the past 7 years, while those you have above them have 0 or 1. It is especially puzzling to have the Pats and Cowboys above them. I am not knocking any of the 4 teams in your top tier per se, but the Giants clearly belong near the top. Ask any fan of the Pats or Cowboys if they would trade their teams' performance over the past 7 years with the Giants'.

I tried to follow the spirt of the Q from the original post, and was more interested in years spent as a contender than acutal titles. Titles are great, but any year your team is a contender, you're only a hot streak or a couple lucky breaks away from a title (or a heartbreak). I chalk the actual Lombardis up to luck to a far greater extent than I do winning season after winning season.Still, I can see your point.

I'd rather follow a franchise that had ten 10+ win seasons in a row and zero titles than a team with an aggregate record of .400 and two SB's. But I get that that ain't everybody. (Those numbers are merely examples, and not meant to reflect any actual NFL teams.)

And I want to stress: I clearly do consider the Giants to be in that conversation. There are 20-something teams I didn't think even merited mention, so that list IS the short list.

You'd be very much in the minority of fans, coaches, players and executives not to place championships above every other consideration. But I definitely understand your mindset.There are Giants haters who love to say '07 was a fluke, their record was crap, they got lucky or whatever. But if you were one of the thousands of fans on Broadway as the parade went by, and you got to see Coughlin, Eli and Strahan taking turns hoisting the trophy, I guarantee none of that crossed your mind. It's great to make the playoffs every single year, but if you're not winning Super Bowls, ultimately your seasons are ending in frustration.

Put me down also as someone who would much rather have his team playoff bound just about every single year verses winning 2 super bowls and not being worth watching the opther years.

Really? Wow. I totally disagree.

On a side note it's crazy that Washington is pretty much a consensus bottom 5 team. When's the last time they were a consensus TOP 5 team? The day Snyder purchased them?

Skins have been pretty bad since Gibbs left after the 92 season.

Gibbs was with the team from 81-92. During that stretch, they went to 4 Super Bowls, won 3, made the playoffs 8 times and only had 1 losing record. From 93 until now, the Skins have made the playoffs 4 times, 6 winning seaons and 3 playoff wins.

Also believe the Skins are one of the few teams who haven't been to a conference championship game since 1992 and are one of the few teams without an 11+ win season over that stretch as well. They've won 10 games 3 times since then, but haven't won more than that since 1991.

 

[Freelove]

Worst: 49ers. I say that as a fan.

Obviously too soon to put them in there, but they've clearly left that top tier, and recent organizational decisions seem to have them on a rocket sled toward the bottom.

 

[comfortably numb]

Worst: 49ers. I say that as a fan.

Obviously too soon to put them in there, but they've clearly left that top tier, and recent organizational decisions seem to have them on a rocket sled toward the bottom.

Sorry,

you cant be on the bottom list when only 1 team in NFL history have more SB wins than you.