What is the worst franchise in the NFL? (1 Viewer)

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I was wondering who you think the worst franchise in the NFL is?

I include the Raiders because of Al Davis. They were one of my favorite team's growing up, but now they are a laughingstock. They can't even fire their head coach because they can't find a replacement, or Al is paranoid about Adam Schefter being one of Mike Shanahan's lackies.

I've tried to pick teams that have been picking early in drafts consistently over the past couple of years, that haven't won a Super Bowl.

And tradition/nostalgia be damned on this....

 

[aDingoAteMyBaby]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

My bad for not clarifitying...I'm talking in the past few years and in the coming years. The Niners almost made the playoffs this year, and Cincy made it last year.The Raiders ARE worthy - and it pains me to type that - but the fact of the matter is THEY ARE A RUDDERLESS SHIP.With that said, I didn't vote for them. I think they're defensive is VERY underrated, and they've got a great group of young LBs and DBs.

 

[Ben Stiller]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

Just out of curiousity, who was the Pro Bowler.I also find it hysterical that when they were 'resurrected' their first rushing TD was by their flippin KICKER at midseason.

 

[Ben Stiller]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

Just out of curiousity, who was the Pro Bowler.I also find it hysterical that when they were 'resurrected' their first rushing TD was by their flippin KICKER at midseason.

It was the helmet-tosser, Jamir Miller. Heck the Browns even fired this generation's Vince Lombardi, Bill Belichick.

 

[Boston]

The fact Detroit is bringing back Millen not only means they deserve this award but that they are actively pursuing it.

 

[chris1969]

The Pro Bowler was Jamir Miller. He had a career ending injury shortly after that.

The Browns had a few guys that should have been pro-bowlers, but players on losing teams don't get alot of looks. Davis should have been picked in 2004 or 2005, Bodden should have went last year and KW2 and Cribbs deserved a shot this year.

It depends on the time frame, in the last decade I would say AZ, CLE and Det are tied.

If your looking at next year, I'd say the Raiders have the least amount of hope. They pretty much have to blow up their entire offense and with Davis making the picks it'll be a while to reuild.

 

[Despyzer]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl.

The Cardinals started in 1920, and have almost nothing to show for it. They haven't reached .500 in the last seven years and have only had three winning season in the last 30 years.

 

[Cookiemonster]

AZ and Det have to be my picks. I am a Raider fan, and I have to say that while Al Davis' mental and physical health decline, his franchise mirrors the owner. Nonetheless, he has a plan that can work (one which I disagree with), and has in the last few years. It was the '03 Superbowl that they lost.

AZ has had ONE memorable playoff victory that I am old enough to remember. Det has had some excellent players - about a decade ago and seems to have no clue as to what makes a team competitive. As much as I despise Al Davis and the way he runs his toy, I feel sorry for Lion's fans every time they post on this board. The desert chickens, I feel are close to being able to do something year after year, only can't seem to find the formula to bring it together. Detroit, under current ownership will be lucky to sniff the playoffs. Sorry Lions' fans, you get my vote.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl.

The Cardinals started in 1920, and have almost nothing to show for it. They haven't reached .500 in the last seven years and have only had three winning season in the last 30 years.

But hasn't Arizona hosted more Super Bowls?

 

[BGP]

Victories in the last 4 seasons:

Raiders: 15

Browns: 19

Lions: 19

Cardinals: 20

Texans: 20

49ers: 20

Next closest:

Redskins: 26

Bills: 27

 

[Capella]

man, 15 wins in 4 seasons. jeebus.

 

[x260bm]

The Cardinals have won 1 playoff game in the last 59 years. Formed in 1898 the Cardinals have an all-time postseason record of 2-5. They have to be the worst team in professional sports history.

 

[MSULions]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl.

The Cardinals started in 1920, and have almost nothing to show for it. They haven't reached .500 in the last seven years and have only had three winning season in the last 30 years.

the Lions are obviously the chic choice...but the Cardinals are clearly the runaway winner in this category. The Lions will win the poll based on the last few years...but the Cardinals overall record of futility is truly staggering.

 

[Riffraff]

I remember this poll from a few years ago asking the same question, but had teams like Cincinnati and San Diego winning the majority votes.

 

[LHUCKS]

The Cardinals have won 1 playoff game in the last 59 years. Formed in 1898 the Cardinals have an all-time postseason record of 2-5. They have to be the worst team in professional sports history.

At least Detroit had Barry Sanders.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I went with Cleveland. They have nothing to build that team around. I just read Jurevicous calling out Braylon Edwards. That can't be a good thing.

It seems no matter what that team touches, it turns out bad. Point in case, LeCharles Bentley - who's now been proclaimed out for the '07 season. They've got the opposite of The Midas Touch.

and fwiw..... The Raiders offense scored 12 TDs, while committing 46 turnovers. NOT GOOD!

 

[Despyzer]

I remember this poll from a few years ago asking the same question, but had teams like Cincinnati and San Diego winning the majority votes.

But I bet the Cardinals were among the nominees.

 

[lions327]

The Detroit Lions have this locked, especially when you combine both short term and long term.

A 24-72 record in the last 6 years.

ONE Millen draft pick has made the pro bowl from his 6 drafts, and it wasn't even a first rounder (Shawn Rogers).

ONE pro bowl QB since 1970.

The Lions are 1-10 in playoff games since their last title in 1957.

Top that.

 

[Despyzer]

The Lions are 1-10 in playoff games since their last title in 1957.

Top that.

The Cardinals have only made the playoffs four times since their last title in 1947.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

Andra Davis should have gone to the probowl at least once in the past few years but it is amazing to think that the Browns are that bad. Another negative point to the browns is that they have won ONE divisional game in the past two years...

 

[Smeagol]

Its got to be either Oakland or Detroit. I'll go with Detroit since atleast Oakland gets nice weather.

 

[H.K.]

Its got to be either Oakland or Detroit. I'll go with Detroit since atleast Oakland gets nice weather.

Detroit plays in a dome though.RAIDERS

 

[PMENFAN]

The fact Detroit is bringing back Millen not only means they deserve this award but that they are actively pursuing it.

 

[Smeagol]

Its got to be either Oakland or Detroit. I'll go with Detroit since atleast Oakland gets nice weather.

Detroit plays in a dome though.RAIDERS

Playing in a Dome has nothing to do with it. If you live in Detroit, you will freeze your ### off between November-February.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

You do realize that the current version of the Cleveland Browns is nothing more than an expansion team, don't you?

 

[H.K.]

Its got to be either Oakland or Detroit. I'll go with Detroit since atleast Oakland gets nice weather.

Detroit plays in a dome though.RAIDERS

Playing in a Dome has nothing to do with it. If you live in Detroit, you will freeze your ### off between November-February.

True.I think the Raiders are still worse based on Al Davis being completely out of touch. Also, the Raiders play in a much tougher division and conference. Despite the idiocy of Millen, the Lions have a better chance of turning it around sooner, IMHO.

 

[culdeus]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

Slow down holmes. Every Texans game has sold out since the franchise started.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

Raiders deserve the title of worst franchise of the new millenium (despite solid '00 thru '02 results), there's no way they deserve to be called worst franchise in the history of the NFL record. Not with 3 Superbowl wins, countless HOF-ers, etc, etc.

It's time for this thing to get turned around though, and fast. And yes I'm a Raider fan.

Voted for the Cards btw.

 

[Righetti]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

WRONGCleveland has NOT been in the NFL since the merger.. the team that plays in Cleveland is an expansion team while the team in Baltimore was in the NFL since the merger and they did win a championship

 

[Godsbrother]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

WRONGCleveland has NOT been in the NFL since the merger.. the team that plays in Cleveland is an expansion team while the team in Baltimore was in the NFL since the merger and they did win a championship

I understand what you are saying but according to the NFL the Ravens were a new team in 1996. In a compromise deal, the NFL allowed Modell to move his club to Baltimore but he would not take the Browns history with him. In addition he was required by the NFL to change the name and uniforms of the franchise and Cleveland was guaranteed a team in 1999 that would resume the history of the Browns. Look at any publication by the NFL and you will see that the NFL regards the current Browns team as the owners of the Browns history and record book.In any case I think it is time to drop the expansion label on the Browns. They've played 8 full seasons now - plenty of time to build a decent franchise.

 

[BGP]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

WRONGCleveland has NOT been in the NFL since the merger.. the team that plays in Cleveland is an expansion team while the team in Baltimore was in the NFL since the merger and they did win a championship

Yes. The city of Cleveland was OUT of the NFL for three years from 1996-1998.

 

[redman]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

You're kidding, right? Let's not confuse the quality of a team with the quality of an organization. The Raiders have been dysfunctional for more than two decades, but managed to hide it for years. They were exposed by the salary cap which required a much more organized approach to management, and they got a brief respite with Gruden . . . who they managed to drive out of town. If you list the names of the Raiders coaches since Madden, you see one distinct theme: all of them are guys (at least as perceived when hired) who seem distinctly unlikely to challenge Davis' authority within the organization. Frankly, even Madden who was very young and who to this day defends Al Davis fits that mold to a degree, but he was obviously able to do the balancing act better. The two guys who weren't loyal subordinates and who actually wanted to assert their own control on the team they were coaching - Shanahan and Gruden - not coincidentally butted heads with Davis and were shown the door. Also not coincidentally they were by far the two best head coaches the Raiders had during that period. In short, the fact that the Raiders got to the Super Bowl a few years ago means very little in light of how many entrenched problems they have. As with the Chargers in 1994, that Super Bowl appearance has to be seen as an aberration.

 

[redman]

It's interesting to me that the last two expansion teams are rightfully on this list, but the prior two expansion teams, who predate Cleveland by only four years, are (also rightfully) not. The league greatly tightened up on the benefits they gave to expansion clubs, and it's showed.

 

[Godsbrother]

It's interesting to me that the last two expansion teams are rightfully on this list, but the prior two expansion teams, who predate Cleveland by only four years, are (also rightfully) not. The league greatly tightened up on the benefits they gave to expansion clubs, and it's showed.

True. However the Browns were a playoff team in 2002. It is through horrible management that the team has posted double digit losses every season since.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

You're kidding, right? Let's not confuse the quality of a team with the quality of an organization. The Raiders have been dysfunctional for more than two decades, but managed to hide it for years. They were exposed by the salary cap which required a much more organized approach to management, and they got a brief respite with Gruden . . . who they managed to drive out of town. If you list the names of the Raiders coaches since Madden, you see one distinct theme: all of them are guys (at least as perceived when hired) who seem distinctly unlikely to challenge Davis' authority within the organization. Frankly, even Madden who was very young and who to this day defends Al Davis fits that mold to a degree, but he was obviously able to do the balancing act better. The two guys who weren't loyal subordinates and who actually wanted to assert their own control on the team they were coaching - Shanahan and Gruden - not coincidentally butted heads with Davis and were shown the door. Also not coincidentally they were by far the two best head coaches the Raiders had during that period. In short, the fact that the Raiders got to the Super Bowl a few years ago means very little in light of how many entrenched problems they have. As with the Chargers in 1994, that Super Bowl appearance has to be seen as an aberration.

Fully agree with what you're saying here, however, I'm talking about results on the field.I would love for this team to get a new owner/GM and a young bright coach, like Payton (remember how he turned them down), Mangini or Gruden.

 

[redman]

It's interesting to me that the last two expansion teams are rightfully on this list, but the prior two expansion teams, who predate Cleveland by only four years, are (also rightfully) not. The league greatly tightened up on the benefits they gave to expansion clubs, and it's showed.

True. However the Browns were a playoff team in 2002. It is through horrible management that the team has posted double digit losses every season since.

Well, they were a 9-7 wildcard team (read "barely") in what was then a weak division (both Pittsburgh and Baltimore were rebuilding, and Cincy was still pre-Marvin). Frankly, 2002 was a poor year for the conference . . . interesting that that was the year that Oakland emerged as the conference champion . . .Every team in the league in the salary cap era with the exception of maybe four or so each year can reach 9-7 with good coaching and a break here and there; the Bears who were comparable to the Browns that year in terms of overall talent IMHO, went 13-3. Like I said, when I'm evaluating organizations, I look at more than a single year or even a couple of years.

 

[redman]

There's no way the Raiders should be on this list. A few bad years can't make this one of the worst franchises in the NFL. If that's the case, the 49ers should be on the list along with the Bungles and other teams that have gone through a down period. Teams without a history, without a fan base, and without hope qualify (Cardinals and Texans sure fit that mold).

You're kidding, right? Let's not confuse the quality of a team with the quality of an organization. The Raiders have been dysfunctional for more than two decades, but managed to hide it for years. They were exposed by the salary cap which required a much more organized approach to management, and they got a brief respite with Gruden . . . who they managed to drive out of town. If you list the names of the Raiders coaches since Madden, you see one distinct theme: all of them are guys (at least as perceived when hired) who seem distinctly unlikely to challenge Davis' authority within the organization. Frankly, even Madden who was very young and who to this day defends Al Davis fits that mold to a degree, but he was obviously able to do the balancing act better. The two guys who weren't loyal subordinates and who actually wanted to assert their own control on the team they were coaching - Shanahan and Gruden - not coincidentally butted heads with Davis and were shown the door. Also not coincidentally they were by far the two best head coaches the Raiders had during that period. In short, the fact that the Raiders got to the Super Bowl a few years ago means very little in light of how many entrenched problems they have. As with the Chargers in 1994, that Super Bowl appearance has to be seen as an aberration.

Fully agree with what you're saying here, however, I'm talking about results on the field.I would love for this team to get a new owner/GM and a young bright coach, like Payton (remember how he turned them down), Mangini or Gruden.

It won't happen until Davis dies (or maybe becomes incapacitated). It sounds crude to say, but it's also true because I just don't seem him giving up control of that team to anyone voluntarily. Let's also define our terms here: by "worst franchise" we're talking about the franchise that has shown the least ability to consistently build and field a winning team. The Cowboys and Redskins are the two most profitable teams (or at least highest revenue-generating), but I don't believe they're even close to the best run teams. By those standards IMHO the obvious answer is the Cardinals, who can't point to expansion or a tough division or any other excuse. The Bidwell's flat out suck. Frankly, unless Marvin Lewis shows me more, I still look almost as skeptically at the Brown (family) in Cincy. The Raiders and Lions are in that category too. Then I'd consider the two expansion teams because they're expansion teams - I actually think the Texans aren't as bad of an organization as they've looked, they've just had some bad luck on a few prominent picks. I think that there are a number of organizations that would be discussed more heavily in this thread than they are but for one key person that's propping them up (in no particular order):Chargers (AJ Smith)Redskins (Gibbs)Cowboys (Parcells)Cincy (Lewis)Buffalo (Levy)Jets (Mangini)New Orleans (Payton)Chicago (Smith)Carolina (Fox)Baltimore (Newsome)

 

[Despyzer]

I think that there are a number of organizations that would be discussed more heavily in this thread than they are but for one key person that's propping them up (in no particular order):Cincy (Lewis)

Cincinnati is really getting off easy in this one. They have had ONE winning season since 1990!

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Detroit for a variety of reasons.

1. They have never moved from where they are. AZ, Cleveland, and Houston all have hiccups in their history and Houston hasn't been around that long.

2. Detroit has had HoF players like Barry Sanders and never were able to realy go anywhere with him.

I think the fact Detroit is one of the original teams in the NFL and have done nothing in the modern era...and I mean just nothing puts them head and shoulder over everyone.

 

[PMENFAN]

It's interesting to me that the last two expansion teams are rightfully on this list, but the prior two expansion teams, who predate Cleveland by only four years, are (also rightfully) not. The league greatly tightened up on the benefits they gave to expansion clubs, and it's showed.

True. However the Browns were a playoff team in 2002. It is through horrible management that the team has posted double digit losses every season since.

Well, they were a 9-7 wildcard team (read "barely") in what was then a weak division (both Pittsburgh and Baltimore were rebuilding, and Cincy was still pre-Marvin). Frankly, 2002 was a poor year for the conference . . . interesting that that was the year that Oakland emerged as the conference champion . . .Every team in the league in the salary cap era with the exception of maybe four or so each year can reach 9-7 with good coaching and a break here and there; the Bears who were comparable to the Browns that year in terms of overall talent IMHO, went 13-3. Like I said, when I'm evaluating organizations, I look at more than a single year or even a couple of years.

Try to spin it how you want, but give the guy his point. The expansion Browns made the playoffs. It may have been a down year, but that Raiders team was pretty decent, and barely lost the prior year to the eventual Superbowl Champions, weak conference or not. My gosh, we have an 8-8, non-expansion team in this year, and a few 9-7's. I was quite impressed with how quickly they built the team in Cleveland. Poor longterm planning, the Couch pick not panning out long term (imagine a franchise QB on any team, and the stability it brings) really hurt them. As for the Raiders. I'd agree that they're one of the worst run at this point, but not over the last 20 years. In fact, if you go back about 5 or 6 years, you will find that they were one of the most successful franchises in all of sports. I only know this, because I hate the Raiders, and one of my best friends is a huge Raider fan, and used to bring it up, constantly. Their demise hasn't gone unmentioned in our friendship. They're in a bad place now, but it's not a historic bad place. I agree with your premise of why it's bad. Davis has not adjusted to parity, and the cap era. He's still in a time when there were 7-8 good teams in the league, not 20. I think he believe's by hitting a few homeruns with players he can be good enough to dominate, rather than hitting solid singles all the way through the roster. Our view on the remedy is the same. They need a modern thinking GM who can have a symbiotic relationship with the coach. My view at this point is the worst franchise in the league is Detroit. Somebody mentioned they actually appear to be actively pursuing the title. I couldn't agree more. I compare them to Arizone. You can have all the talent in the world at the skill positions, but if you don't have a line to pretect. Or a scheme to utilize the talent, it's useless. I like the hiring of Martz to give the offense better form, but they're still quite short on strength up front to give the Martz scheme/plays time to develop. ANYBODY is going to find improvement off of where they've been in the time Millen's been there. There's no where to go but up. But, how long are they going to give him?

 

[PMENFAN]

I think that there are a number of organizations that would be discussed more heavily in this thread than they are but for one key person that's propping them up (in no particular order):Cincy (Lewis)

Cincinnati is really getting off easy in this one. They have had ONE winning season since 1990!

But, they're absolutely imrproving, and there are far better choices. Take this poll five years ago, and they get a lot of votes. Today, they're not even close to the worst franchise.

 

[Tornacl]

As a Lions fan, I can vote for them with confidence. As a team, they have no expectation of winning. This weekend's game against Dallas was a perfect example. They showed that they can play inspired football, but why did it take until week 17?

Arizona is a close second, but they at least seem to be putting the pieces in place to make a change.

 

[Gr00vus]

Lesseee...

Raiders: in super bowl too recently to consider

Lions: at least had the wherewithal to draft Barry Sanders (hey they could have screwed that up you know)

Texans: still too close to inception, could be on the verge of mediocrity here

Browns still too close to reinception, though not seemingly on the verge of mediocrity

which leads me to....

The Arizona Clippers - super pathetic.

 

[renesauz]

I voted based on the past few years, and general outlook forward. ON that basis I went with Oakland.

Expand to 10 years, and Detroit gets the nod.

Expand to include all of NFL history, and Arizona RUNS AWAY with the title. 100 years of futility is impossible to overlook.

Cleveland and Houston have hope (at least a little bit of it). Both have a few exciting young players and have managed to look not so bad in most of their games this year.

 

[Despyzer]

I think the fact Detroit is one of the original teams in the NFL and have done nothing in the modern era...and I mean just nothing puts them head and shoulder over everyone.

Arizona has been in the league ten years longer and has half as many titles. Arizona has spent more years out of the playoffs than Detroit has in the modern era.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I voted based on the past few years, and general outlook forward. ON that basis I went with Oakland.Expand to 10 years, and Detroit gets the nod.Expand to include all of NFL history, and Arizona RUNS AWAY with the title. 100 years of futility is impossible to overlook.Cleveland and Houston have hope (at least a little bit of it). Both have a few exciting young players and have managed to look not so bad in most of their games this year.

...and that's how this should be viewed. Cincy has very solid offensive players to build around. They just have get players, not criminals - on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[chris1969]

Cleveland and Detroit have been in the NFL since the merger and neither has played in a Super Bowl. The Browns haven't won a playoff game in 12 years, the Lions in 15 years. The Browns have have had 1 Pro Bowler in the past 11 years! Throw in the real Browns relocating to Baltimore and I think Cleveland is the easy choice.

Just out of curiousity, who was the Pro Bowler.I also find it hysterical that when they were 'resurrected' their first rushing TD was by their flippin KICKER at midseason.

It was the helmet-tosser, Jamir Miller. Heck the Browns even fired this generation's Vince Lombardi, Bill Belichick.

Absolutely wrong! Dwayne Rudd was the helmet tosser. As far as firing Bill goes, Rain Man kinda got himself fired by firing the hometown hero after he single handedly won the game by changing Bill's play and the way his interviews resembled those of someone that had their jaw wired shut. At least in NE, he talks in complete sentences every now and then.

I voted based on the past few years, and general outlook forward. ON that basis I went with Oakland.Expand to 10 years, and Detroit gets the nod.Expand to include all of NFL history, and Arizona RUNS AWAY with the title. 100 years of futility is impossible to overlook.Cleveland and Houston have hope (at least a little bit of it). Both have a few exciting young players and have managed to look not so bad in most of their games this year.

That's a pretty good analysis

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Now do you guys know why I included Oakland in this poll?

I loooved this team as a kid. What the hell happened?