[macfantn]

We all know these 3 times are the dominant NFL franchises

[Bax23]

How can you not include the Packers?

[davesimondotcom]

Seriously, these three have the most Super Bowl wins, but look at what happens between those.

The 49ers were dominant for much of the 80s and 90s, but they suck now. Why? They are paying pennance for abusing the salary cap to win in the 90s. The 49ers have been to 5 Super Bowls and won every one of them.

Of course, in most cases, they played some pretty crappy teams. The Bengals twice, the Broncos when it was the John Elway show once, the Chargers once and the Miami Dolphins (the Dan Marino show) once. Miami was their toughest competitor, although the Bengals came the closest to victory.

The Cowboys weren't any good until the 70s (Roger Staubach era), but then struggled once the 80s rolled around. ("The Catch" signaled the end of the Cowboys until Jimmy Johnson, Aikman, Irvin and Smith.) However, the Cowboys have been to 8 Super Bowls and won 5.

And after those 'Boys of the early 90s, poof. They sucked, for YEARS.

Steelers are the same kind of thing. They are up and down. Not consistant at all.

All three of these teams would have to be ranked among the best, sure. The 70s Steelers, the 80s 49ers and the early 90s Cowboys would have to be considered for some of the best teams ever.

But consider this: Also in the early 90s, there was a team that went to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. Not bad. Of course they never won, so people forget them, but the early 90s Bills were pretty awesome.

Also consider this: no team has been to more Super Bowls than the Denver Broncos except the Dallas Cowboys. The Steelers have been to the same amount (6) - Cowboys have been to 8.

However, for the sake of fairness, the Broncos did lose their first 4. (One to the Cowboys, one to the 49ers, one to the Giants, one to the Redskins.) But they won their most recent two (one over the Packers and one over the Falcons.)

Also, the Broncos have remained competitive nearly every season since their first Super Bowl appearance in 1977. They've had three losing seasons since (not counting the strike-shortened 1982.)

Also, the 1996, 1997 and 1998 Broncos team has got to be considered with the 70s Steelers, early 90s Cowboys and 80s 49ers for the best team ever. The 1998 squad was simply dominant. They won their first 14 games, and didn't play starters in their second loss. They rolled through the playoffs and won the Super Bowl.

But now you know my bias. I'm a Broncos fan. And I'd daresay that with Jay Cutler in the future, the future looks bright.

I also have to ask you, where the hell are the New England Patriots on your poll? To go with those four dominant teams I listed, you have to consider the recent Patriots, too.

All in all, it's impossible to really do a poll like this and not be way off. Just like asking who the best player ever is.

[starman]

POlls like this are stupid because it's just going to come down to popular opinion.

[macfantn]

well these 3 teams did win the most superbowls

[sek929]

and the Pats won 3 in 4 years, I think that would at least get them in the poll.

[Shaddim]

Packers

[Rumor]

Seahawks.

[macfantn]

when the pats win 5 or more let me know, i'll start a new poll.

[villalobos]

How can you not include the Detroit Lions?...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by villalobos

How can you not include the Detroit Lions?

Two words: Matt. Millen.

'Nuff said.

Yeah, I know you were joking.

If I were to go by who is the best franchise as far as right now, top to bottom, best front office, running the team well, winning, etc. the top three would have to be:

New England
Denver
Pittsburgh

Honorable mentions: Indianapolis, Kansas City (as much as I hate 'em), Carolina, Seattle, Tampa Bay

The reasons I pick these three:

* Coaches with long tenure
* Winners almost every year
* AFC (this has meant something since 1996 or so, when it became clearly the dominant Conference, though it's getting closer)

Again, I have to point out an interesting Bronco fact: since the salary cap was introduced, they have the best record in the NFL.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Two words: Matt. Millen.

'Nuff said.

Yeah, I know you were joking.

If I were to go by who is the best franchise as far as right now, top to bottom, best front office, running the team well, winning, etc. the top three would have to be:

New England
Denver
Pittsburgh

Honorable mentions: Indianapolis, Kansas City (as much as I hate 'em), Carolina, Seattle, Tampa Bay

The reasons I pick these three:

* Coaches with long tenure
* Winners almost every year
* AFC (this has meant something since 1996 or so, when it became clearly the dominant Conference, though it's getting closer)

Again, I have to point out an interesting Bronco fact: since the salary cap was introduced, they have the best record in the NFL.

Philadelphia was easily the second-best franchise of this decade before last season. Even counting that one, it's still not far from the top.

[Sourbook]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Seriously, these three have the most Super Bowl wins,

The NFL did not begin with Super Bowl I.

NFL Champions (1920 - Present)

1920 - Akron Pros
1921 - Chicago Staleys
1922 - Canton Bulldogs
1923 - Canton Bulldogs
1924 - Cleveland Bulldogs
1925 - Chicago Cardinals
1926 - Frankford Yellow Jackets
1927 - New York Giants
1928 - Providence Steam Roller
1929 - Green Bay Packers
1930 - Green Bay Packers
1931 - Green Bay Packers
1932 - Chicago Bears
1933 - Chicago Bears (first year the NFL played a championship game)
1934 - New York Giants
1935 - Detroit Lions
1936 - Green Bay Packers
1937 - Washington Redskins
1938 - New York Giants
1939 - Green Bay Packers
1940 - Chicago Bears
1941 - Chicago Bears
1942 - Washington Redskins
1943 - Chicago Bears
1944 - Green Bay Packers
1945 - Cleveland Rams
1946 - Chicago Bears
1947 - Chicago Cardinals
1948 - Philadelphia Eagles
1949 - Philadelphia Eagles
1950 - Cleveland Browns
1951 - Los Angeles Rams
1952 - Detroit Lions
1953 - Detroit Lions
1954 - Cleveland Browns
1955 - Cleveland Browns
1956 - New York Giants
1957 - Detroit Lions
1958 - Baltimore Colts
1959 - Baltimore Colts

The American Football League competed with the NFL from 1960 through 1969.

1960 - Houston Oilers (AFL)
1960 - Philadelphia Eagles (NFL)
1961 - Houston Oilers (AFL)
1961 - Green Bay Packers (NFL)
1962 - Dallas Texans (AFL)
1962 - Green Bay Packers (NFL)
1963 - San Diego Chargers (AFL)
1963 - Chicago Bears (NFL)
1964 - Buffalo Bills (AFL)
1964 - Cleveland Browns (NFL)
1965 - Buffalo Bills (AFL)
1965 - Green Bay Packers (NFL)

The AFL and NFL announced an agreement to merge in 1970, and the Super Bowl, a matchup between the two league's best team, began determining the world champions at the conclusion of the 1966 season.

* = Super Bowl Winner

1966 - Kansas City Chiefs (AFL)
1966 - Green Bay Packers* (NFL)
1967 - Oakland Raiders (AFL)
1967 - Green Bay Packers* (NFL)
1968 - New York Jets* (AFL)
1968 - Baltimore Colts (NFL)
1969 - Kansas City Chiefs* (AFL)
1969 - Minnesota Vikings (NFL)

In 1970, the AFL and NFL joined together as one league with the American Football Conference and the National Football Conference champions meeting annually in the Super Bowl.

1970 - Baltimore Colts
1971 - Dallas Cowboys
1972 - Miami Dolphins
1973 - Miami Dolphins
1974 - Pittsburgh Steelers
1975 - Pittsburgh Steelers
1976 - Oakland Raiders
1977 - Dallas Cowboys
1978 - Pittsburgh Steelers
1979 - Pittsburgh Steelers
1980 - Oakland Raiders
1981 - San Francisco 49ers
1982 - Washington Redskins
1983 - Los Angeles Raiders
1984 - San Francisco 49ers
1985 - Chicago Bears
1986 - New York Giants
1987 - Washington Redskins
1988 - San Francisco 49ers
1989 - San Francisco 49ers
1990 - New York Giants
1991 - Washington Redskins
1992 - Dallas Cowboys
1993 - Dallas Cowboys
1994 - San Francisco 49ers
1995 - Dallas Cowboys
1996 - Green Bay Packers
1997 - Denver Broncos
1998 - Denver Broncos
1999 - St. Louis Rams
2000 - Baltimore Ravens
2001 - New England Patriots
2002 - Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2003 - New England Patriots
2004 - New England Patriots
2005 - Pittsburgh Steelers

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Philadelphia was easily the second-best franchise of this decade before last season. Even counting that one, it's still not far from the top.

My bad. I really knew there was someone I was missing when I was writing it. I'd put Philly in the top 4, but not at #2. They dominated a weak division in a weak conference.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Sourbook

The NFL did not begin with Super Bowl I.

True. But the first Super Bowl is generally considered the dividing line for the modern era of football.

I'm pretty sure that the 1920 Akron Pros couldn't handle even the Detroit Lions practice squad of last season.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

My bad. I really knew there was someone I was missing when I was writing it. I'd put Philly in the top 4, but not at #2. They dominated a weak division in a weak conference.

You can say that about the 49ers in the 90's too though. The NFC west was a joke until the 'Greatest Show on Turf' appeared. Bottom line is you win the games you are suppose to, and they did. So I can't take nothing from either team. I agree they would be 4th on the list there, though.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

My bad. I really knew there was someone I was missing when I was writing it. I'd put Philly in the top 4, but not at #2. They dominated a weak division in a weak conference.

Since 2001, Denver has won exactly 1 game more than Philly in inter-conference play. That's the only advantage they have head-to-head. Philly has more division titles, more wins, more playoff appearances, more playoff wins, etc. BTW, the divisions aren't as different as you think. Oakland has been terrible since their Super Bowl loss and San Diego had been bad until the last couple of years.

Realistically, Pittsburgh's run to the Super Bowl moved them to #2 and left the Eagles at #3. Denver has a definite case for 4th, but I don't think they compare to the Eagles in the last 5 or 6 years. Until last season, the Eagles were the only team to make the playoffs the last 5 years, the only team to have double-digit victories each of those years, and owned (and still own) the league's best road record.

[Sourbook]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm pretty sure that the 1920 Akron Pros couldn't handle even the Detroit Lions practice squad of last season.

Nor could the Super Bowl 1 winning Green Bay Packers. But the Packers are considered by many to be the all time greatest NFL franchise. Which is the title of this thread.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

You can say that about the 49ers in the 90's too though. The NFC west was a joke until the 'Greatest Show on Turf' appeared.

Wrong.

Until Denver won the Super Bowl over the heavily favored Packers, the NFC had completely dominated the Super Bowl for over a decade.

The St. Louis win of the Super Bowl is a blip on the radar. Not NFC dominance in that year.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Since 2001, Denver has won exactly 1 game more than Philly in inter-conference play. That's the only advantage they have head-to-head. Philly has more division titles, more wins, more playoff appearances, more playoff wins, etc. BTW, the divisions aren't as different as you think. Oakland has been terrible since their Super Bowl loss and San Diego had been bad until the last couple of years.

Realistically, Pittsburgh's run to the Super Bowl moved them to #2 and left the Eagles at #3. Denver has a definite case for 4th, but I don't think they compare to the Eagles in the last 5 or 6 years.

The AFC West consistently has two powerful teams every year. Sure, the Raiders have been weak (except for the Super Bowl year they lost to the Bucs.) But the Chiefs and Broncos are usually good, and you add the Chargers and the division is near the top.

The NFC East, meanwhile, has had a clear runaway winner during the Eagles run of NFC East wins. The Giants, Cowboys and Skins have not been good.

I do have to say, though, that division is shaping up to be one hell of a battle this year. All four teams should be competitive and legit playoff teams. I think this is the year that the NFC becomes even or takes over the reins of dominance from the AFC.

In fact, last year, the Chargers, Chiefs and Broncos all had 10+ wins against the toughest schedules in football.

I'm not taking anything away from the Eagles. They are a find franchise with a fantastic QB. However, they have played in the weaker conference in a weaker division.

It's just that comparing AFC and NFC teams of the last 10 years is apples and oranges.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Sourbook

Nor could the Super Bowl 1 winning Green Bay Packers. But the Packers are considered by many to be the all time greatest NFL franchise. Which is the title of this thread.

Right, and I changed the criteria to best franchise as of right now - top to bottom. The Packers aren't it right now. They have tradition, but they have an aged QB, a new coach, a crappy defense, etc.

[mac128k-1984]

The poll is woefully inadaquite
Where's the Packers, the bears and the Patriots?

Clearly you need to do a little more research before compiling such an imcomplete poll.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

The AFC West consistently has two powerful teams every year. Sure, the Raiders have been weak (except for the Super Bowl year they lost to the Bucs.) But the Chiefs and Broncos are usually good, and you add the Chargers and the division is near the top.

The NFC East, meanwhile, has had a clear runaway winner during the Eagles run of NFC East wins. The Giants, Cowboys and Skins have not been good.

I'm not taking anything away from the Eagles. They are a find franchise with a fantastic QB. However, they have played in the weaker conference in a weaker division.

It's just that comparing AFC and NFC teams of the last 10 years is apples and oranges.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

2001

1. Oakland 10-6
2. Seattle 9-7
3. Denver 8-8
4. Kansas City 6-10
5. San Diego 5-11
38-42, 2 winning teams

1. Philadelphia 11-5
2. Washington 8-8
3. NY Giants 7-9
4. Arizona 7-9
5. Dallas 5-11
38-42, 1 winning team

2002

1. Oakland 11-5
2. Denver 9-7
3. San Diego 8-8
4. Kansas City 8-8
36-28, 2 winning teams

1. Philadelphia 12-4
2. NY Giants 10-6
3. Washington 7-9
4. Dallas 5-11
34-30, 2 winning teams

2003

1. Kansas City 13-3
2. Denver 10-6
3. Oakland 4-12
4. San Diego 4-12
31-33, 2 winning teams

1. Philadelphia 12-4
2. Dallas 10-6
3. Washington 5-11
4. NY Giants 4-12
31-33, 2 winning teams

2004

1. San Diego 12-4
2. Denver 10-6
3. Kansas City 7-9
4. Oakland 5-11
34-30, 2 winning teams

1. Philadelphia 13-3
2. NY Giants 6-10
3. Dallas 6-10
4. Washington 6-10
31-33, 1 winning team

2005

1. Denver 13-3
2. Kansas City 10-6
3. San Diego 9-7 (not 10-6 like you thought)
4. Oakland 4-12
36-28, 3 winning teams

1. NY Giants 11-5
2. Washington 10-6
3. Dallas 9-7
4. Philadelphia 6-10
36-28, 3 winning teams

Has the AFC West been better than the NFC East? Sure. Is the comparison really apples and oranges? I don't think so. The same applies to the two conferences. 2004 was the only year the AFC was clearly superior on the field (but that year the Eagles were almost certainly the 2nd-best team). Every other year this decade has been close.

ETA that this is my 2,000th post! Woohoo! I'd like to thank Steve Jobs, Andy Reid, and gorickey.

[waxcrash]

The Sweetness does not approve of this poll.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Has the AFC West been better than the NFC East? Sure. Is the comparison really apples and oranges? I don't think so. The same applies to the two conferences. 2004 was the only year the AFC was clearly superior on the field (but that year the Eagles were almost certainly the 2nd-best team). Every other year this decade has been close.

Records of each division mean nothing unless they played the same schedules.

The fact that the AFC has been vastly superior than the NFC over the last decade is not up for debate. It's fact.

So you have to consider the fact that the AFC teams play 12 of their 16 games against the AFC (better opponents) and therefore a comparison of records is not fair. It's like saying that the USC Trojans are the best team in football because they only lost one game in the last three years.

To say that 2004 is the only year the AFC is clearly superior is just not paying attention. Look at it this way, if you were going to pick the top 10 potential Super Bowl winners before last season, you'd have to have listed about 7 AFC teams and 3 NFC teams.

Let's put it this way. I'll rank the top 12 teams in the league last year, in order of how USA Today ranked them after the playoffs. This is weighted by strength of schedule, home field advantage, etc. - everything except opinion:

1. Pittsburgh
2. Indy
3. Denver
4. Seattle
5. SD
6. Carolina
7. Washington
8. KC
9. NYG
10. New England
11. Jacksonville
12. Cincy

It'd be really hard to argue with those. Maybe the order, but those are the top 12 teams in the league.

Of those, there are 4 NFC teams. 8 AFC teams.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

The Sweetness does not approve of this poll.

As much as I admire Walter Payton, you can't seriously consider the Bears as one of the top franchises - now, then, or anytime (except 1985.)

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Records of each division mean nothing unless they played the same schedules.

The fact that the AFC has been vastly superior than the NFC over the last decade is not up for debate. It's fact.

So you have to consider the fact that the AFC teams play 12 of their 16 games against the AFC (better opponents) and therefore a comparison of records is not fair. It's like saying that the USC Trojans are the best team in football because they only lost one game in the last three years.

To say that 2004 is the only year the AFC is clearly superior is just not paying attention. Look at it this way, if you were going to pick the top 10 potential Super Bowl winners before last season, you'd have to have listed about 7 AFC teams and 3 NFC teams.

Let's put it this way. I'll rank the top 12 teams in the league last year, in order of how USA Today ranked them after the playoffs. This is weighted by strength of schedule, home field advantage, etc. - everything except opinion:

1. Pittsburgh
2. Indy
3. Denver
4. Seattle
5. SD
6. Carolina
7. Washington
8. KC
9. NYG
10. New England
11. Jacksonville
12. Cincy

It'd be really hard to argue with those. Maybe the order, but those are the top 12 teams in the league.

Of those, there are 4 NFC teams. 8 AFC teams.

Your argument is a double-edged sword. Perhaps the good AFC teams have inflated records because there are more bad AFC teams. Here are the only real facts that matter:

AFC/NFC regular-season head-to-head meetings

2001 - AFC 31-30
2002 - AFC 34-29-1
2003 - AFC 34-30
2004 - AFC 44-20
2005 - AFC 34-30

Again, the AFC has proven to be the better conference overall, but 2004 is the only time when it wasn't close. Like the media, you're exaggerating the differences between the conferences. And I wouldn't be putting up anything by USA Today as proof of anything. I find it easy to argue their rankings. Cincy looked like they were well on their way to beating Pittsburgh before Palmer's injury, but they're 12th? The Tampa Bay/Washington game was about as close as it gets, but TB is unranked while Washington is 7th? A San Diego team that didn't even qualify for the playoffs is the 4th-best AFC team and the fifth-best overall?

[CaseCom]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

As much as I admire Walter Payton, you can't seriously consider the Bears as one of the top franchises - now, then, or anytime (except 1985.)

I disagree -- the Bears' 73-0 waxing of the Washington Redskins for the 1940 NFL Championship was pretty impressive; some contend that George Halas' use of the then-innovative T formation signaled the birth of modern pro football.

But my larger point is, if we're talking about the best all-time franchise, then the cases of great-this-decade, sucked-that-decade all cancel each other out, and it comes down to the franchise with the richest history, taken in total. And then it comes down to two choices, in my opinion: the Chicago Bears and New York Giants. (Sorry, Packers fans.)

I also don't agree with those who would dismiss any teams from before their time, figuring that no old-time player can compare to today's players. I think each player (and team) should be judged within its time; a team that dominated in 1940 is just as dominant as a team that dominated in 2005.

So my choice is the Chicago Bears. And generally speaking, I hate the Bears. But I do envy them their history: George Halas, 73-0, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, Sid Luckman, Dick Butkus, Walter Payton, Mike Singletary.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Your argument is a double-edged sword. Perhaps the good AFC teams have inflated records because there are more bad AFC teams.

The top 12 I posted aren't based on record, so, therefore, your point here is moot.

Originally Posted by lavar78

Here are the only real facts that matter:

AFC/NFC regular-season head-to-head meetings

2001 - AFC 31-30
2002 - AFC 34-29-1
2003 - AFC 34-30
2004 - AFC 44-20
2005 - AFC 34-30

Or, alternately, you could tell me how many NFC teams have won the Super Bowl since the Broncos beat the Packers. That would be two.

Again, the AFC has proven to be the better conference overall, but 2004 is the only time when it wasn't close. Like the media, you're exaggerating the differences between the conferences. And I wouldn't be putting up anything by USA Today as proof of anything. I find it easy to argue their rankings. Cincy looked like they were well on their way to beating Pittsburgh before Palmer's injury, but they're 12th? The Tampa Bay/Washington game was about as close as it gets, but TB is unranked while Washington is 7th? A San Diego team that didn't even qualify for the playoffs is the 4th-best AFC team and the fifth-best overall?

San Diego had the #1 hardest schedule in the NFL. They played Denver, KC and Oakland twice each (only two easy games there), they played the NFC East (including the Eagles before they fell apart, so no easy games), the AFC East (weakest division they played) and they also got to face the Steelers and Colts.

They played New England, Washington, Philly and Indy on the road. That's pretty tough stuff.

Yet they managed 10 wins. And they beat some very good teams along the way (Indy, who else can say that?)

I agree that Cincy should be ranked higher as they could have beaten Pittsburgh. But to say they were on their way to victory is a little odd. It was the first quarter and Palmer threw one ball.

Tampa Bay and Washington did play close, but then the Texans played a few teams close, too, and they were clearly the worst team in the league. Scratch that, I think the 49ers could claim that title too.

The reason I picked the USA Today rankings is because they are based on statistical fact, not on opinion like ESPN or other "Power Rankings."

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by CaseCom

I disagree -- the Bears' 73-0 waxing of the Washington Redskins for the 1940 NFL Championship was pretty impressive; some contend that George Halas' use of the then-innovative T formation signaled the birth of modern pro football.

Again, I'm going by the franchises as they are now. Even if you count 1940, Chicago doesn't rank in the top 5.

Originally Posted by CaseCom

But my larger point is, if we're talking about the best all-time franchise, then the cases of great-this-decade, sucked-that-decade all cancel each other out, and it comes down to the franchise with the richest history, taken in total. And then it comes down to two choices, in my opinion: the Chicago Bears and New York Giants. (Sorry, Packers fans.)

I've already stated that everyone will have different criteria and arguments can be made for many teams.

I'm just talking modern era teams - basically since the salary cap and free agency.

Originally Posted by CaseCom

I also don't agree with those who would dismiss any teams from before their time, figuring that no old-time player can compare to today's players. I think each player (and team) should be judged within its time; a team that dominated in 1940 is just as dominant as a team that dominated in 2005.

Again, hard to say. I mean, could Babe Ruth hit Roger Clemens? Does it matter?

Originally Posted by CaseCom

So my choice is the Chicago Bears. And generally speaking, I hate the Bears. But I do envy them their history: George Halas, 73-0, Red Grange, Bronko Nagurski, Sid Luckman, Dick Butkus, Walter Payton, Mike Singletary.

Some great players and a great owner does not even get them in the top 5, IMHO. I mean, if we're going to list great owners and players, don't even start. Otherwise we'd have to break out the Rooney (two actually), Noll, Greene, Blunt, Bradshaw, Hamm, Harris, Stallworth, Swann, Lambert, Webster card for the Steelers.

And all of them owned/coached/played on the same actual team. The same year. And every one of them is in the Hall of Fame.

Sure, they STUNK before the 70s. But I think they made up for it then.

The reason, though, that I was judging things based on how the teams are right now is because it's impossible to compare eras.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

The top 12 I posted aren't based on record, so, therefore, your point here is moot.

I was talking about your stance in general (e.g., like when you [erroneously] said the AFC West had 3 10-game winners last year).

Or, alternately, you could tell me how many NFC teams have won the Super Bowl since the Broncos beat the Packers. That would be two.

Because 7-2 with 2 victories of at least 14 points (and one lost as bad) is clearly comparable to 13-0 with 9 victories of 14 or more points (including 55-10, 52-17, 46-10, 42-10, and 49-26).

San Diego had the #1 hardest schedule in the NFL. They played Denver, KC and Oakland twice each (only two easy games there), they played the NFC East (including the Eagles before they fell apart, so no easy games), the AFC East (weakest division they played) and they also got to face the Steelers and Colts.

They played New England, Washington, Philly and Indy on the road. That's pretty tough stuff.

Yet they managed 10 wins. And they beat some very good teams along the way (Indy, who else can say that?)

The Chargers won 9 games, not 10. And, with a playoff berth at stake, they managed to score only 1 TD at Kansas City (23-7) and at home to Denver (20-7). Hard schedule or not, good teams win when they really need it.

I agree that Cincy should be ranked higher as they could have beaten Pittsburgh. But to say they were on their way to victory is a little odd. It was the first quarter and Palmer threw one ball.

Did I say they were on their way to victory? I said it looked that way. When the first ball you throw goes to your loud-mouthed, #1 target who everyone knows is getting it and you still score a TD, it looks like the beginning of a long day for the defense. Pittsburgh certainly could've won anyway, but we'll never know.

Tampa Bay and Washington did play close, but then the Texans played a few teams close, too, and they were clearly the worst team in the league. Scratch that, I think the 49ers could claim that title too.

The reason I picked the USA Today rankings is because they are based on statistical fact, not on opinion like ESPN or other "Power Rankings."

Statistical fact? Come on, now! You're saying there are statistics that proved the wild-card Steelers were the best team in the league? Was that before they won the Super Bowl (with the help of some dubious calls, I might add)? On-the-field results are the most important thing in any discussion of football and you seem to be dismissing them. In head-to-head competition, the AFC has only slightly better than the NFC in recent years.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I mean, could Babe Ruth hit Roger Clemens? Does it matter?

Of course Babe would have been able to hit Roger, assuming Roger didn't drill him first....

Wait, this is a Football thread? Go Bills!

[davesimondotcom]

OK, so I was wrong about San Diego's record (by one game) - but my opinion stays the same. The AFC has been vastly superior to the NFC for the last 8 or 9 years.

And I totally agree with you, by the way, that Pittsburgh wasn't the best team last year. And I do think Seattle would have won had they not gotten bent over by the refs. But notice I said that those would be the top 12 teams, not in that order.

I mean, the Steelers were lucky to get by Cincy (I agree that they had the momentum before Palmer was hurt. Even after, for a while.) They also almost dropped the ball, but hung on by a shoestring (in both cases, quite literally) against the Colts.

They also managed to play the Broncos on the day that the Broncos played their worst game since week 1. And even then, it took calls going in their direction (Parker fumble that was overturned) and bounces going in their direction (how many times does Champ Bailey have a ball hit him in the shoulder pads and bounce away when he's going for an INT only to have Lynch miss the very same ball and have the opponent catch it?)

Basically, they had good fortune the entire playoffs.

The overall thing is, this thread is stupid. You can't pick the greatest NFL franchise because there are about 20 who can lay claim to such a thing.

But I think we can agree that theree is no way in hell that "We all know these 3 times [teams] are the dominant NFL franchises."

Dallas has had their ride, sure. Pittsburgh has a great history. San Francisco was great (back when they could manipulate the salary cap), too.

But they are not "the three." They are just "three of."

[lavar78]

OK, I can agree with that (except for the first paragraph, of course).

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Of course Babe would have been able to hit Roger, assuming Roger didn't drill him first....

Wait, this is a Football thread? Go Bills!

Let's not start the baseball version of this thread. But Roger would have struck the Babe out, IMHO. Considering the Babe swung a 46 oz. bat. There is no way he could get that around on the Rocket.

And also, the Rocket plays against the best from all around the world. The Babe never had to face Satchel Paige or any other of the Negro League elite.

And if you are a Bills fan, you might want to watch hockey or bowling or something this year.

There is just something wrong with having a QB whose name is pronounced "Loss Man."

That said, remember that I pointed out the Bills in my first post in this thread. That early 90s team was special. Just couldn't win the big one. But if it weren't for that slow trot by Leon Lett (and great heart and hustle by Don Beebe), they would have the worst loss in Super Bowl history.

Unfortunately, my Broncos have that "honor."

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Wrong.

Until Denver won the Super Bowl over the heavily favored Packers, the NFC had completely dominated the Super Bowl for over a decade.

The St. Louis win of the Super Bowl is a blip on the radar. Not NFC dominance in that year.

Back at you. Most of the division wins in that era by the 49ers where against teams with a sub .500 record. Also you might want to read a little careful. I said NFC 'WEST', not the NFC.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Back at you. Most of the division wins in that era by the 49ers where against teams with a sub .500 record. Also you might want to read a little careful. I said NFC 'WEST', not the NFC.

Consider that I also said the 49ers played weaker competition in the Super Bowl. And considering their division had the Rams (who sucked until the late 90s), Saints and the Falcons, of course they played a lot of weak games on the schedule.

[exca1ibur]

Exactly. I see are both on the same page.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Wrong.

Until Denver won the Super Bowl over the heavily favored Packers, the NFC had completely dominated the Super Bowl for over a decade.

The St. Louis win of the Super Bowl is a blip on the radar. Not NFC dominance in that year.

St. Louis really should have won the super bowl 1999, 2000, 2001, and at least made it to the Super Bowl in 2003. (Double Overtime against Carolina in the playoffs, who went to the bowl). 2002 was the year Warner's injury really came into play and Bulger got his (Albeit fantastic) start.

How they let that slip through their fingers just goes to show how incompetent Martz is as a coach.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Consider that I also said the 49ers played weaker competition in the Super Bowl.

Of course they had to play tougher competition to get there. They could have won several more than 5 if not for the Cowboys and Packers. The NFC Championship, for all intents and purposes, was really the NFL championship game for several years in the 80s/90s.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

St. Louis really should have won the super bowl 1999, 2000, 2001, and at least made it to the Super Bowl in 2003. (Double Overtime against Carolina in the playoffs, who went to the bowl). 2002 was the year Warner's injury really came into play and Bulger got his (Albeit fantastic) start.

How they let that slip through their fingers just goes to show how incompetent Martz is as a coach.

Should have won in 1999. That's it. They got put in their place by the Patriots.

They were the Colts before the Colts. All stats.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

St. Louis really should have won the super bowl 1999, 2000, 2001, and at least made it to the Super Bowl in 2003. (Double Overtime against Carolina in the playoffs, who went to the bowl). 2002 was the year Warner's injury really came into play and Bulger got his (Albeit fantastic) start.

To play devil's advocate, you could argue it should've been Tampa in the Super Bowl in 1999; they were driving for the go-ahead score when an overturned call burned them. The 2000 Rams were one of the worst defensive teams in history and they lost in the first round, so I'm not sure why you think they should've made it. When you're the only team to lose in the playoffs to the Saints (ever), you don't deserve a trophy. The 2001 Rams were being dominated by the Eagles in the championship game until Martz remembered Marshall Faulk, but that was probably their most-deserved Super Bowl appearance. The Panthers upset the Eagles in 2003 by shutting down their offense. The Rams weren't going to do that.