Wreckincrew
Footballguy
I think he is referring to the Lions/Cowboys regular season game (1980?) where the Lions had 13 men on the GWFG. Either way, did you miss this part of the first post?UlyssesNorris said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Worst Organization in the NFL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter daveR
- Start date
Memory is a funny thing. It can give you the totally wrong impresssion about something.ah yes, the glory years when they made the playoffs 6 out of 9 years. And they even won a playoff game once.Seriously, look at their playoff history. One win since 1957.
FUBAR
Footballguy
a franchise that has been to 5 Super Bowls, tied for 5th most in the history of the league, only 3 franchises have more Super Bowl victories, started the franchise after the Lions last championship, is one of the most recognized NFL teams world-wide, has the 5th highest winning percentage in NFL history... and the Shark Pool has them as the worst franchise ever in a landslide? 
Now, if the vote is simply "for the last 5 years" or "currently", I can see the vote, but I took this to mean for the organization's history.
Rushmore
Footballguy
They have at least "shown signs of being reasonably productive" this season thus far.
UlyssesNorris
Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child.
You're seriously going to try to argue with a poster named after the 12th guy on that FG attempt? Yeah, I knew what he was talking about. Just having a little fun with him.I think he is referring to the Lions/Cowboys regular season game (1980?) where the Lions had 13 men on the GWFG. Either way, did you miss this part of the first post?UlyssesNorris said:
Voted Oakland for the current state of affairs. But Cincy should be in the conversation. They have lucked into some talent on the field - but the front office is terrible - from Mike Brown to his daughter Katie and her husband - they have no business running an NFL franchise. They skimp on fairly important areas - such as scouting - which is why they consistently are drafting "projects" and guys with on-field talent and off-field rap sheets - negating the on-field talent.
TitusIII
Footballguy
Tell that to Lions fans...On one hand, DET has their "potential" franchise QB, but how many big games has the DET franchise won? Bottom line, both franchises are horrific, I guess we can call it a tie for the worst...
Whiplash Inc.
Footballguy
With better management they surely would've done a lot better than they have since Super Bowl 37. Oakland. 
daveR
Footballguy
We'll see, but I pretty much agree. The Lions added a lot of veteren talent in the off-season. They had nowhere but up to go, but at least they're not "near the bottom heading lower".As far as Al Davis & his previous Superbowls (from various other posters), as OP I intended the question to regard the current/recent state of affairs though I might not have been specific enough.
KnowledgeReignsSupreme
Footballguy
Since the Browns re-entered the league in '99 they have a worse overall record than the Houston Texans.
kaa
Footballguy
I listened to the podcasts of cleveland sports writers this past week. Terry Pluto and Tony Grossi. One of them said the Browns seem to be a victim of the success of Aston Villa FC. Randy Lerner directly oversaw a rebuild of the Premier League soccer club as owner. He's been given a LOT of praise in the UK for that. What it seems to have done is really boosted Randy Lerner's confidence as an owner of a sports franchise. So when he heard that Mangini got fired, he got really excited because he personally thought very highly of him. So he pretty much had enough confidence to make his own decision and hire his own guy, regardless of other input he may or may not have gotten.
So if it does turn out that Mangini is terrible, that perhaps was the genesis of it all. The good news for the Browns is it means it may not be a hopeless situation. Maybe if it all falls apart, Randy Lerner will simply eat some crow, adjust, and leave the coaching decisions to someone else next time. If Randy Lerner was truly a control freak, it would be a much deeper concern. This may be a learning experience for a new owner.
So if it does turn out that Mangini is terrible, that perhaps was the genesis of it all. The good news for the Browns is it means it may not be a hopeless situation. Maybe if it all falls apart, Randy Lerner will simply eat some crow, adjust, and leave the coaching decisions to someone else next time. If Randy Lerner was truly a control freak, it would be a much deeper concern. This may be a learning experience for a new owner.
MAC_32
Footballguy
I'm talking about the current state of affairs on both teams. It's not close. Detroit has a clue, Cleveland does not.Cleveland and Oakland should be neck and neck in this poll with Detroit and Washington a very distant 3rd and 4th.
:X Lucky for you I null voted, or I'dbe putting that chef's vote in now.who the heck voted for Denver....?
coolnerd
Footballguy
Probably because of newness and more a sense of mediocrity than general suckitude.that said, the Texans are off to the worst start of any team since the merger. They have had no winning record, and have not sniffed the playoffs. As bad as some of the others were in the first year or two 8 years in they all had accomplished both of those feats. Right now the Texans are looking to play a meaningful game past Thanksgiving, heck probably past Holloween.
Last edited by a moderator:
FG's obviously counted a bit more back in the day......Hey, i was close though. Those two games were only 10 years apart. Don't know I can confuse Detroit Lions victories, there were so few of them. Of course since then, every playoff apparence by the Lions has been an embarrassment.UlyssesNorris said:
GregR_2
Footballguy
The teams in the poll look nothing like what I'd expect in a list of worst all time franchises. Denver, Washington, Oakland wouldn't make an all time list. The Cardinals would be an obvious one. So one might assume it therefore isn't an all time list.But the list does look exactly like a list of the teams currently or very recently regarded as worst in the league today. Oakland is a poster child for worst right now... Washington just barely beat the Rams and the Lions broke their losing streak against them. Denver looked like the most dysfunctional franchise in the entire league pre-season.
So I'd think it's safe to assume the question is asking is about teams as they exist today, and not based on all-time history.
Edit to add: Ah, missed this post:
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
What criteria are we using? Strictly wins/losses, especially playoff record? If that is the case, then I guess you go with Detroit. They have had good teams in Motown, consistently going to the playoffs in the Fontes/Ross era. It has been horrible being a Lions fan ever since Barry Sanders retired.
While I think regular season winning percentage and playoff wins should be the strongest factors, I also think what puts a couple franchises on a completely different (lower) level is their lack of professionalism. They don't treat their people right - poor facilities, skimp on little things, get into protracted negotiation struggles over petty nuances, lousy stadiums with mediocre amenities, etc. When you step back and factor in all of those ancillary items, I think Oakland is ankles and feet below every other franchise. Cincy isn't too far behind.
In this poll, I don't think anyone can compete with the oddball ways of weird Al or the cheapskate Bungles.
While I think regular season winning percentage and playoff wins should be the strongest factors, I also think what puts a couple franchises on a completely different (lower) level is their lack of professionalism. They don't treat their people right - poor facilities, skimp on little things, get into protracted negotiation struggles over petty nuances, lousy stadiums with mediocre amenities, etc. When you step back and factor in all of those ancillary items, I think Oakland is ankles and feet below every other franchise. Cincy isn't too far behind.
In this poll, I don't think anyone can compete with the oddball ways of weird Al or the cheapskate Bungles.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
The pre and post Dan Snyder Redskins are two complete different franchises though IMO.
UlyssesNorris
Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child.
Heh, yeah, that's an easy mistake to make. Back to the subject at hand, gotta be the Lions here.
spider321
Footballguy
+1Worst money spent to production ratio in the history of EVAR!!!!
money.never.sleeps
Footballguy
I went Browns.. hire guy who takes all draft picks in previous years and tries to deal them then gives away 5th pick in draft to Jets who take Sanchez.. and now they have no QB which they already knew coming in.
They'll stink for years .. at the least the Raiders have some defensive pieces and good running game.. they're def. head of the class but least they're competing.. browns may not win till Nov.
They'll stink for years .. at the least the Raiders have some defensive pieces and good running game.. they're def. head of the class but least they're competing.. browns may not win till Nov.
CincyBengal
Footballguy
Cincinnati has been in TWO Super Bowls and also went 11-5 and won the division the year the Steelers wreck Carson's knee. They lost twice to San Fransisco 1981 and again 1988, perhaps the greatest Super Bowl until the 2007 one. Also the West Coast offense was developed here by an assistant named Bill Walsh, and also Sam Wyche was a great innovator (no huddle!). I would say We get defensive because there has been nothing but crap churned out by Detroit and Cleveland in the modern era and for many years before that. I know the Bengals have sucked for the last 19 years mostly, trust me. My family has original season tickets !
Last edited by a moderator:
The Jerk
Footballguy
Be careful, there, Bengal fan. I'm not sure you really want to dig into the glorious Bengal history, both all-time and recent.Only 11 teams have not won the Super Bowl AND have fewer Super Bowl appearances than the Bengals, and four of those franchises who meet that criteria are younger franchises than the Bengals.Cincinnati has been in TWO Super Bowls and also went 11-5 and won the division the year the Steelers wreck Carson's knee. They lost twice to San Fransisco 1981 and again 1988, perhaps the greatest Super Bowl until the 2007 one. Also the West Coast offense was developed here by an assistant named Bill Walsh, and also Sam Wyche was a great innovator (no huddle!). I would say We get defensive because there has been nothing but crap churned out by Detroit and Cleveland in the modern era and for many years before that. I know the Bengals have sucked for the last 19 years mostly, trust me. My family has original season tickets !
The Browns and Lions are two of five franchises to never play in the Super Bowl, but they won multiple league championships prior to the Super Bowl era (and the Bengals existence, of course). In particular, the Browns made the NFL championship game 11 times in 20 seasons. Granted, it's not the same accomplishment as making the Super Bowl as the number of teams was much smaller; it might be the equivalent of making the conference championship game today. The Lions window was much smaller, making four out of six championship games.
How many AFC championship game appearances do the Bengals have? Two. The ones you mentioned above. Given the shorter history, it is arguably comparable to Detroit, but nowhere near the consistent excellence shown by Cleveland from 1950-1969.
Outside of the two playoffs you mentioned in which the Bengals lost the Super Bowl, the Bengals have exactly ONE WIN in the franchises's other 39 seasons.
If you want to look at modern history, consider this statistic: Since the Bengals last playoff win on January 6, 1991, EVERY OTHER FRANCHISE that existed then has won a playoff game. In fact, two franchises that didn't even exist then have won playoff games. Only the Houston Texans have not won a playoff game since then, and of course, they have only existed for seven seasons compared to the Bengals 18 consecutive seasons without a playoff victory.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gray Hood
Footballguy
I'm not sure if 'organization' is the right word for it, but I voted oakland anyway.
culdeus
Footballguy
This does seem to be the theme. The Bengals fan hates to be considered the absolute worst, but they are totally fine being considered just "bottom 5". It's one of the stranger fanbases in the country.That 11-5 season also generates a huge amount of relief for some reason. Most fanbases (and I belong to one of them) consider 11-5 to be just moderately successful without playoff success and ultimately forgettable. For many Bengals fans when this topic comes up it's as if you guys hung a banner for it or something.Cincinnati has been in TWO Super Bowls and also went 11-5 and won the division the year the Steelers wreck Carson's knee. They lost twice to San Fransisco 1981 and again 1988, perhaps the greatest Super Bowl until the 2007 one. Also the West Coast offense was developed here by an assistant named Bill Walsh, and also Sam Wyche was a great innovator (no huddle!). I would say We get defensive because there has been nothing but crap churned out by Detroit and Cleveland in the modern era and for many years before that. I know the Bengals have sucked for the last 19 years mostly, trust me. My family has original season tickets !
There is really no comparison in the post Brown era to futility. 0-16 not withstanding I still hold the Bengals up as the shining example of what not to do. For one thing it at least appears like the Lions are trying to do something at least.
stevegamer
Footballguy
Since this says "organization", I'm not giving credit to prior organizations - and am specifically excluding prior owners.
However, since Denver & Oakland have won with the current ownership in place, they make no sense. St Louis won a Super Bowl this decade, and the Chiefs have only been truly bad really recently & rarely. Jacksonville has had success as a relatively new franchise.
Cleveland shouldn't be listed - it's bad, but they are very new.
That leaves:
Detroit, Cincy, & Washington
Washington makes a lot of sense when you realize this organization is not the same group that produced under Jack Kent Cooke. Cincy & Detroit are badly run. All 3 have bad owners, but Detroit's owners at least hire people who seem qualified to make decisions - although they stick with failure too long.
That leaves the "owners in charge" teams - Washington & Cincinnati.
One guy is the son of a guy who could be the best coach/GM of all-time - he is at the cvery leat ont he short list. However, he inherited none of his dad's skills, yet is trying to run things basically with family. I can empathize with the short-sightednes, but it does need to improve.
The other is a money man who bought the team and does whatever he wants, spending what he wants. he also sues his season ticket holders.
I will go with the current Redskins.
However, since Denver & Oakland have won with the current ownership in place, they make no sense. St Louis won a Super Bowl this decade, and the Chiefs have only been truly bad really recently & rarely. Jacksonville has had success as a relatively new franchise.
Cleveland shouldn't be listed - it's bad, but they are very new.
That leaves:
Detroit, Cincy, & Washington
Washington makes a lot of sense when you realize this organization is not the same group that produced under Jack Kent Cooke. Cincy & Detroit are badly run. All 3 have bad owners, but Detroit's owners at least hire people who seem qualified to make decisions - although they stick with failure too long.
That leaves the "owners in charge" teams - Washington & Cincinnati.
One guy is the son of a guy who could be the best coach/GM of all-time - he is at the cvery leat ont he short list. However, he inherited none of his dad's skills, yet is trying to run things basically with family. I can empathize with the short-sightednes, but it does need to improve.
The other is a money man who bought the team and does whatever he wants, spending what he wants. he also sues his season ticket holders.
I will go with the current Redskins.
Mr Capicollo
Footballguy
CincyBengal said:Cincinnati has been in TWO Super Bowls and also went 11-5 and won the division the year the Steelers wreck Carson's knee. They lost twice to San Fransisco 1981 and again 1988, perhaps the greatest Super Bowl until the 2007 one. Also the West Coast offense was developed here by an assistant named Bill Walsh, and also Sam Wyche was a great innovator (no huddle!). I would say We get defensive because there has been nothing but crap churned out by Detroit and Cleveland in the modern era and for many years before that. I know the Bengals have sucked for the last 19 years mostly, trust me. My family has original season tickets !
kevthegrad
Footballguy
I don't even see room for debate here. Loyal fan base is fine, but you can't find another team with consistently poor decision making from the top, and too much involvement from the owner. The Raiders are disrespected by the media, by the players, by everybody. It's a mad scientist running a team.
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
I had it narrowed down to Cleveland and Detroit (I know about crappy franchises as I am a Rams fan). However, Cleveland has a more loyal fan base, so I voted Detroit.
PrinceofDarkness
Footballguy
The choice in this poll could have been presented in the following manner:
Who is the worst franchise ever:
*Detroit
*Other (please provide rationale)
How is this even a question?
*Detroit has a good stretch with the Greatest Running Back of All Time. They only won ONE playoff game and the Greatest Running Back of All Time retired early based on his shoddy treatment from the franchise.
*They went 0-16 and lost 19 in a row.
*Never even sniffed a Super Bowl.
*They have a consistent string of futility in the most important position to a franchise: the quarterback.
*They stuck with Matt Millen longer than anyone on this message board would stick with they own mother if they sucked as bad as Millen.
*They banned the fans from displaying signs critical of their own team.
Who is the worst franchise ever:
*Detroit
*Other (please provide rationale)
How is this even a question?
*Detroit has a good stretch with the Greatest Running Back of All Time. They only won ONE playoff game and the Greatest Running Back of All Time retired early based on his shoddy treatment from the franchise.
*They went 0-16 and lost 19 in a row.
*Never even sniffed a Super Bowl.
*They have a consistent string of futility in the most important position to a franchise: the quarterback.
*They stuck with Matt Millen longer than anyone on this message board would stick with they own mother if they sucked as bad as Millen.
*They banned the fans from displaying signs critical of their own team.
Similar threads
- Poll
