Since there is all this talk about the bests in positions, I wonder what people might say is the best franshise is since the AFL-NFL merger in 1966 is? And when I say best, I am not saying who's won the most Super Bowls or has the most wins in the history of the NFL. I am talking about the most competitive franshise. A team that normally seems to be a contender to be in the playoffs.
I'm sure a lot of folks will say the Patriots of the last five years. Or would it be the Redskins from the mid to late 80's? The Bills, Cowboys, 49rs in the 90's? I wish I could say the Chiefs, but then I'd be kidding myself. You know, you figured since they named the AFC Championship Trophy after Lamar Hunt, the Chiefs would find a way to be in the mix of those teams. Ah well, let me know what you think.
i'm a little confused. are you suggesting that the teams that have been competetive without winning super bowls actually qualify for the title "best franchise in NFL history?"
for instance, you mention the "redskins of the mid to late 70s". but the redskins lost to the dolphins in the super bowl in '73, and then they didn't get back there until 82. so in the late 70s, they couldn't have been close to being "the best franchise in nfl history". are you suggesting that they were more worthy of that title than the steelers, who were busy winning four super bowls? keep in mind that in the steelers non-super bowl years during the 70s, they also "remained competetive".
or is it just that the topic's title should be "most consistently competetive franchise" or something like that?
i know you're a chiefs fan, so this might hurt, but i think that what you're going for is actually best embodied by the the 70s raiders:
after they last to the packers in the super bowl, they went to three afc cg's. then they went to the playoffs two years in a row and missed the afc cg. then they went to three more afc cg's. then they won a super bowl. the year after that, they lost another afc cg, then went 9-7, and the next year, they won another super bowl.
The Packers have won more games than any other team since 1991. A fact most people overlook. They were down in the 70's and 80's, but they were great before, and they have been great since.
Everyone knows who is the best franchise before the merger....the Packers. 9 World Championships. 12 total in the teams history. What other team can match that?? None. The Bears are the closest team with 9 championships in team history.
Any person looking completely OBJECTIVE at this question will say no doubt, the Packers are the best franchises in NFL history, and probably top 3 in professional sports history.
when you say the best franchise do you mean.... the team that is the most profitable the team that has won the most superbowls the team that has won the most games
or the team that sems to be to most organized and well run year in and year out???
As much as i would like to put my boys at the top, I would be remiss if I didn't say that the Steelers, year in and year out are the best franchise, and have been since the earlly 70's. But those Boys have had few down years and, up until landry was "Retired" was consistently a benchmark team.
and sorry grave digger, but the pack was competive for 5 years in the 60 and 5 or six in the late 90's. Other than that they were alsorans. the question say that we only should consider since the AFL/NFL merger
Sorry you were confused Saturn. What I was looking for was "A team that normally seems to be a contender to be in the playoffs". You answered the question though, so even though I might not had been clear, you figured it out.
Yeah, I fat fingered the 7 on 70's...it should have been the "mid to late 80's" when they were going to the playoffs like every other year.
The Pack was impressive in the 90's. Reggie White was a hoss and that was when you could count on Farve to be consistant. The Raiders were the team to beat in the AFC for a long, long time. The reason why I like football is because of the salary cap because any team has the chance to become competative.
Post Season Appearances
The Pack and Giants (38)
Dolphins and Skins (39)
49rs and Vikings (42)
Steelers (46)
Cowboys (54)
So in your opnion, does that make the Cowboys the most competitive team in all of NFL football? Or could it be the 49rs who have been to the Superbowl 5 times and won all five times being the most perfect championship team in the NFL? Should it be the Raiders for their bad tempers and aggressiveness that caused so many penalties? I am asking for opions, so thanks Saturn and Grave Digger.
LeRoy wrote: when you say the best franchise do you mean.... the team that is the most profitable the team that has won the most superbowls the team that has won the most games
or the team that sems to be to most organized and well run year in and year out???
As much as i would like to put my boys at the top, I would be remiss if I didn't say that the Steelers, year in and year out are the best franchise, and have been since the earlly 70's. But those Boys have had few down years and, up until landry was "Retired" was consistently a benchmark team.
Thanks for the reply Leroy. I guess my topic is a loaded question, so sorry folks for being confusing. You kinda hit it right on the nose though, with "most organized team". That is exactly what I was looking for because a team well organized and well ran over the years are either a team to always look out for. or will surprise people by ending up with a winning season after a tough start, or is constantly in the playoffs. Thanks for the opinion Leroy as my boss at work whose a big Steelers fan would agree with you.
the pat's certainly fit for the past 10 years, but if you look at the last 40, the pat's aren't in the running. with the salary cap, it will be difficult to be really good for a number of years in a row. We are seeing that with the pat's now. the greed of the players causes them to look for greener pastures. It is what took the Cowboys down in the mid 90's, nld will ultimately get most every one.
But, the Steelers, year in and year out, are considered a classy team. The Owners are looked upon as saints, and they have had only two coaches since 71
and sorry grave digger, but the pack was competive for 5 years in the 60 and 5 or six in the late 90's. Other than that they were alsorans. the question say that we only should consider since the AFL/NFL merger
5 or 6 in the late 90's? Did you not see where I posted that the Packers had won more games from '91 to '05 than ANY other team in the league. Before '05, the worst they had done was 8-8. Thats a pretty good run. 6 division titles in that span, more than any other team in the NFC Central or North. 2 SB appearances, 1 win. Probably 20+ combined years of pro bowlers.
They had a dominant run in the 60's going from '61 to '70 and were pretty good in '72. Thats 9 years in the '60's, and 2 years in the '70's.
Why does this discussion HAVE to be after the merger. That's taking almost 50 years of NFL history out of the discussion......thats dumb. You all know what the answer would be if you included the time before the merger....it's easy. Sure, after the merger I'll give that the Packers weren't as great as some of the other teams (49ers and Steelers).
I want to open this discussion up to Pre-merger football to see what some your asnwers will be.
Okay, premerger....Green Bay has the most championships in the NFL to date. Even though Green Bay hasn't been impressive lately (like I have room to talk w/ the Chiefs blowing right now), they've always had a powerhouse rep. The reason why I opened this to the start of the merger is because that is only fair since the AFL wasn't started until way later and not allowed to play in the NFL for years. Teams like the Giants, Cowboys, Steeler, Packers have been around for a whole lot longer than most any team in the NFL.
Thats why some franchises are better than others. They're older and more accomplished. Sure some of the younger franchises won SBs here and there, but I think the most interesting stories are the ones about the oldies like Halas and Lambeau and others.
And lets not forget Lombardi. Some other established and elder teams in the NFL haven't amounted to sh1t. The Lions, Bengals, and Browns come into mind. Well, at least not in my lifetime of watching football which was basically from the early 90's on. When I was a kid, my Dad wanted me to love the Chiefs, but like the Pack and Pitt because of their well established teams and accomplishments.
I liked the Cowboys and 9rs until they started winning all the time and that completely pissed me off when the 'boys were called "America's Team". I am however glad that the NFL and AFL did merg because I don't think football could have become as popular as fast as it did without more franchises in the league. With that said, I am glad the XFL (the Vince McMann's version of football) wasn't even close to what had happened with the NFL and AFL back in '66. But it was still nice to watch some form of football when the College and NFL seasons were over.
I don't see how we can leave out the Broncos. They have played in 6 Super Bowls and they have been in 33 playoff games. Granted they only one two of those 6 Super Bowls. But as far as always being competitive and in the playoffs the Broncos get it done.
Are you kidding Vanni, the Pats have had a good 6 years, other than that their existence has been pretty unmemorable...The Steelers are constantly in playoff/SB contention, with the best owners in the business, and two of the longest tenured coaches in the history of the game, all backed by a city that lives for football season...
LeRoy wrote: the pat's certainly fit for the past 10 years, but if you look at the last 40, the pat's aren't in the running. with the salary cap, it will be difficult to be really good for a number of years in a row. We are seeing that with the pat's now. the greed of the players causes them to look for greener pastures. It is what took the Cowboys down in the mid 90's, nld will ultimately get most every one.
But, the Steelers, year in and year out, are considered a classy team. The Owners are looked upon as saints, and they have had only two coaches since 71
-- Edited by LeRoy at 14:45, 2006-09-30
Guess what......the Pats are now 5-1......the Steelers are 2-4.
I wouldn't count the Pats out just yet there Chiefy. They just reloaded with new talent, the team is still fundamently solid all around and they are getting the new kids into the swing of things. They'll start hitting on all cylinders before the end of the year.
Pittsburg IS a class franchise.....but the team is stumbling right now. They'll get better.....question is when.
N.E. has become recognized as the best run franchise in the NFL and is now second only to the Redskins in total worth.
Guess what......the Pats are now 5-1......the Steelers are 2-4.
I wouldn't count the Pats out just yet there Chiefy. They just reloaded with new talent, the team is still fundamently solid all around and they are getting the new kids into the swing of things. They'll start hitting on all cylinders before the end of the year.
Pittsburg IS a class franchise.....but the team is stumbling right now. They'll get better.....question is when.
N.E. has become recognized as the best run franchise in the NFL and is now second only to the Redskins in total worth.
Well, the Pats have certainly been the team to beat in the new millinium. In the 90's, they were a so-so team and then I am not too sure what they have done in the past before then, but their number of playoff appearances weren't up there with those others mentioned in my Sept 30th post. If I remember correct though, the Pats had a high post season winning percentage.
The adversity they are facing with the new core of recievers proves that Tom Brady is questionably one of the best quarterbacks in today's NFL. Peyton Manning is great, no doubt, but he's had great, great recievers to throw to for ALONG time.
The question that was asked was who is the best franchise of all time, not who has been the best franchise in the last 10 yrs...the best franchise in the last ten years is definitely the Pats, but there is no way you can make an argument that the Pats are the best franchise of all time, that argument is saved for teams like the Steelers, and Cowboys, both are teams that have been contenders for most of the 40+ years of the NFL, not just one decade of winning...
Burgh1979 wrote: The question that was asked was who is the best franchise of all time, not who has been the best franchise in the last 10 yrs...the best franchise in the last ten years is definitely the Pats, but there is no way you can make an argument that the Pats are the best franchise of all time, that argument is saved for teams like the Steelers, and Cowboys, both are teams that have been contenders for most of the 40+ years of the NFL, not just one decade of winning...
I agree.....the Pats were most assuredly NOT a great franchise prior to the Krafts taking over.
In fact they were poorly run for much of the time......and down right horrendous in the early 90s when Victor Kiam (Remington Shavers) owned them.....went banckrupt.....and the team basically went into receivership by the league. The league assigned James Orthwine (Anheyser Busch) to temporary receivership "owner". He was all set to move the team to St. Louis before the Krafts came in and bought the Pats to save the franchise for New England.
Victor Kiam was a real low-life sleeze and the team was hellaciously bad....I remember a 1-15 season. They also had a big locker room scandle that was all over national news with a local female sports reporter by the name of Lisa Olsen. Apparently while she was doing her sports reporting from the locker room.....some of the high class players decided to show her their "Patriot Missiles"..... anybody remember that???
Prior to Victor-slime-bag-Kiam the team was own by Billy Sullivan. Not a bad guy but no where near the level of sophistication/know-how/top-level organization as the Krafts have brought to the table. Under the Sullivan ownership the Pats had some pretty good teams during the mid-70s and mid-80s.....but were largely spanked around by Miami the rest of the time....although they did make it into the 85 Superbowl only to get pulverized by the legendary 85 Bears.
So largely....the history was poor up until the Krafts took over in 92. Moving forward under the Krafts the future looks pretty bright.
top three packers ,steelers, 49ers, next two bears, cowboys. got to give bears some cridit they got the pack in the nfl. steelers, 49ers two names montana, bradeshaw. montana only qb better than bret.
Sorry you were confused Saturn. What I was looking for was "A team that normally seems to be a contender to be in the playoffs". You answered the question though, so even though I might not had been clear, you figured it out.
Yeah, I fat fingered the 7 on 70's...it should have been the "mid to late 80's" when they were going to the playoffs like every other year.
The Pack was impressive in the 90's. Reggie White was a hoss and that was when you could count on Farve to be consistant. The Raiders were the team to beat in the AFC for a long, long time. The reason why I like football is because of the salary cap because any team has the chance to become competative.
Post Season Appearances
The Pack and Giants (38)
Dolphins and Skins (39)
49rs and Vikings (42)
Steelers (46)
Cowboys (54)
So in your opnion, does that make the Cowboys the most competitive team in all of NFL football? Or could it be the 49rs who have been to the Superbowl 5 times and won all five times being the most perfect championship team in the NFL? Should it be the Raiders for their bad tempers and aggressiveness that caused so many penalties? I am asking for opions, so thanks Saturn and Grave Digger.
