NFL: All-Time Franchise Rankings

HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
Pretty good breakdown on the history of each NFL team. IMO, this list is very fair.

Link:
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: A CHFF epic: all-time franchise rankings

1 - Packers
2 - Cowboys
3 - Giants
4 - Bears
5 - 49'ers
6 - Raiders
7 - Redskins
8 - Steelers
9 - Browns
10 - Dolphins
11 - Colts
12 - Patriots
13 - Rams
14 - Broncos
15 - Vikings
16 - Chiefs
17 - Ravens
18 - Eagles
19 - Titans
20 - Chargers
21 - Jaguars
22 - Panthers
23 - Jets
24 - Lions
25 - Seahawks
26 - Bills
27 - Buccaneers
28 - Bengals
29 - Falcons
30 - Texans
31 - Saints
32 - Cardinals
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
I agree that the list is, for the most part, spot-on. A few quibbles from me:


1. Seahawks ahead of the Bills????? Sorry, I don't get that one.

2. Flip-flop Raiders and Steelers. Pittsburgh has been competitive (with 5 SB wins) for almost four decades.

3. Cardinals should be #33.............in a 32 team league.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
Texans ahead of the Saints??

Looks like the Texans are ranked above the Saints purely by default....

On the Saints.....


The Saints have fielded just eight winning teams in 40 seasons, played 20 years in the NFL before posting a first winning record, and have yet to produce a single Hall of Fame performer (three HOFers ended their careers with the Saints: Doug Atkins, Earl Campbell and Jim Taylor).

On the Texans...

They still have, technically speaking, the worst winning percentage of any NFL franchise. But, given Houston’s youth, it’s a little unfair to compare their few short years of ineptitude to the team 31st on the list of all-time franchise records, Tampa Bay.

Among the teams in the bottom quarter of the all-time franchise rankings, Houston is more likely than any other team to rocket up the list toward respectability. A few good seasons over the next five years or so, and the Texans can quickly erase the painful memories over their first six years in the league.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
I agree that the list is, for the most part, spot-on. A few quibbles from me:


1. Seahawks ahead of the Bills????? Sorry, I don't get that one.

2. Flip-flop Raiders and Steelers. Pittsburgh has been competitive (with 5 SB wins) for almost four decades.

3. Cardinals should be #33.............in a 32 team league.

Maybe this was the deciding factor.....

Seahawks claim to fame: Largent retired after 1989 season with then NFL records in catches (819), receiving yards (13,089) and receiving TDs (100)

Bills claim to fame: Lost four straight Super Bowls; greatest player (allegedly) killed his wife.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
I agree that the list is, for the most part, spot-on. A few quibbles from me:


1. Seahawks ahead of the Bills????? Sorry, I don't get that one.

2. Flip-flop Raiders and Steelers. Pittsburgh has been competitive (with 5 SB wins) for almost four decades.

3. Cardinals should be #33.............in a 32 team league.

Don't forget, this is a complete historical overview of each team, not just during Super Bowl years. With that said, (from link).....

Steelers franchise record: 513-498-21 (.507) - 17th

Clearly, the Steelers are one of the dominant teams of the Super Bowl Era, as their 28 Super Bowl Era playoff victories – second only to the Cowboys (32) – can attest.

But before that, the Steelers were so bad that even Cardinals fans made fun of them, and that's as low as it gets on the totem pole of pigskin politics. The Cardinals could at least claim two NFL championships in their first 30 seasons. The Steelers enjoyed just seven winning seasons from 1933 to 1971, and made just a single postseason appearance over that period, losing an Eastern Division tie-breaker game to the Eagles in 1947.

Raiders franchise record: 400-313-11 (.560) – 4th

Raiders claim to fame
: Raiders reached better than 1 in every 3 AFL/AFC championship games (14 of 36) from 1967 to 2002.
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
Don't forget, this is a complete historical overview of each team, not just during Super Bowl years.


Right, if this were based solely on the SB era, the Steelers would be in the top 3 (along with Dallas and SF). And if these rankings were made ten years ago, I would have no problem ranking the Raiders higher than the Steelers. IMO, if you combine the fact that the Raiders have been very bad for the last 5 years, and the Steelers have been inarguably the most consistent team in the NFL the last 35+ years (including those 5 SB's), that gives the Steelers the nod over the Raiders (even taking the Steelers pre- AFC laughingstock status into consideration).
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
Maybe this was the deciding factor.....

Seahawks claim to fame: Largent retired after 1989 season with then NFL records in catches (819), receiving yards (13,089) and receiving TDs (100)

Bills claim to fame: Lost four straight Super Bowls; greatest player (allegedly) killed his wife.


IMO, playing in four Super Bowls (albeit losing) trumps losing your only Super Bowl appearance. And the Bills shouldn't be punished for what that dirtbag did.
 
salsadancer7

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
I agree that the list is, for the most part, spot-on. A few quibbles from me:


1. Seahawks ahead of the Bills????? Sorry, I don't get that one.

2. Flip-flop Raiders and Steelers. Pittsburgh has been competitive (with 5 SB wins) for almost four decades.

3. Cardinals should be #33.............in a 32 team league.


Raiders have an all time better regular season record and playoff record than the Steelers. IF the Raiders had 5 SB wins, instead of 3, they would be ranked higher.
 
salsadancer7

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
Right, if this were based solely on the SB era, the Steelers would be in the top 3 (along with Dallas and SF). And if these rankings were made ten years ago, I would have no problem ranking the Raiders higher than the Steelers. IMO, if you combine the fact that the Raiders have been very bad for the last 5 years, and the Steelers have been inarguably the most consistent team in the NFL the last 35+ years (including those 5 SB's), that gives the Steelers the nod over the Raiders (even taking the Steelers pre- AFC laughingstock status into consideration).

But this is ALL TIME, not the last 5 years....because if we were basing the last 5 years, then the Patriots would be far and away, #1.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
Right, if this were based solely on the SB era, the Steelers would be in the top 3 (along with Dallas and SF). And if these rankings were made ten years ago, I would have no problem ranking the Raiders higher than the Steelers. IMO, if you combine the fact that the Raiders have been very bad for the last 5 years, and the Steelers have been inarguably the most consistent team in the NFL the last 35+ years (including those 5 SB's), that gives the Steelers the nod over the Raiders (even taking the Steelers pre- AFC laughingstock status into consideration).

So you're saying 5 recent years of "awfulness" by the Raiders is worse than 38 years of "awfulness" by the Steelers?! Remember, the Steelers enjoyed just seven winning seasons from 1933 to 1971!

Sorry, but I still side with the original rankings. I think you're still stuck on the "what have you done for me lately" history of the NFL, which is not what these rankings or historical accounts are taking in consideration.

Salsa, feel free to shed some light on the history of your Raiders from the early years....
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
IMO, playing in four Super Bowls (albeit losing) trumps losing your only Super Bowl appearance. And the Bills shouldn't be punished for what that dirtbag did.

I agree with the dirtbag comment.

But how bout this as a more justifiable reason on why the Seahawks are ranked ahead of the Bills. Really, this is a tough one and could've gone either way...

Bills franchise record: 341-375-8 (.477) – 23rd

Seahawks franchise record: 246-254-0 (.492) – 20th
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
But this is ALL TIME, not the last 5 years....because if we were basing the last 5 years, then the Patriots would be far and away, #1.


I understand it's ALL TIME. Have I argued the Patriots should be higher? No, because I realize this list encompasses each teams whole body of work.This list takes a lot of things into consideration: regular season winning pct., playoff wins, NFL Championships (both SB and before). It's just my opinion that the Steelers should be higher than the Raiders (based on the last 35+ years.........a HUGE sampling by the way). If you think the Raiders should be higher, that's fine, I do admit it is VERY ARGUABLE
 
salsadancer7

salsadancer7

SatelliteGuys Master
Jun 1, 2004
28,020
183
South Florida
I understand it's ALL TIME. Have I argued the Patriots should be higher? No, because I realize this list encompasses each teams whole body of work.This list takes a lot of things into consideration: regular season winning pct., playoff wins, NFL Championships (both SB and before). It's just my opinion that the Steelers should be higher than the Raiders (based on the last 35+ years.........a HUGE sampling by the way). If you think the Raiders should be higher, that's fine, I do admit it is VERY ARGUABLE

Well, I am not arguing that are better or should be better....I just stating that maybe they based it on the Raiders having a better regular season and playoff record than the Steelers.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
How 'bout the Bungles at #28.......... :D:D:D

"Bengals claim to fame: Annually leads league in disgruntled stars."
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
So you're saying 5 recent years of "awfulness" by the Raiders is worse than 38 years of "awfulness" by the Steelers?! Remember, the Steelers enjoyed just seven winning seasons from 1933 to 1971!


Again IMO, the Steelers consistency over the last 35+ years puts them over the top of the Raiders. The ONLY reason I bring up the Raiders last 5 seasons is because in MY rankings they were higher than the Steelers up to that point.
One other point, the Steelers of 1974-1979 were one of the greatest dynasties in sports history. The Raiders have had great teams, but were never a dynasty.
 
HD MM

HD MM

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
0
Believeland, Ohio
Again IMO, the Steelers consistency over the last 35+ years puts them over the top of the Raiders. The ONLY reason I bring up the Raiders last 5 seasons is because in MY rankings they were higher than the Steelers up to that point.
One other point, the Steelers of 1974-1979 were one of the greatest dynasties in sports history. The Raiders have had great teams, but were never a dynasty.

Fine. I respect your opinion. Good debate.
 
BillD1984

BillD1984

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2008
15,464
699
MA
I agree with the dirtbag comment.

But how bout this as a more justifiable reason on why the Seahawks are ranked ahead of the Bills. Really, this is a tough one and could've gone either way...

Bills franchise record: 341-375-8 (.477) – 23rd

Seahawks franchise record: 246-254-0 (.492) – 20th


And the Seahawks definetly get points over the Bills for this. However IMO, the four to one conference championships tips the scales in favor of the Bills.
 
vurbano

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
I agree that the list is, for the most part, spot-on. A few quibbles from me:


1. Seahawks ahead of the Bills????? Sorry, I don't get that one.

2. Flip-flop Raiders and Steelers. Pittsburgh has been competitive (with 5 SB wins) for almost four decades.

3. Cardinals should be #33.............in a 32 team league.
agree 100%
 

Similar threads

BillD1984
Replies
12
Views
2K
HD MM
HD MM
yaz96
Replies
17
Views
2K
salsadancer7
salsadancer7
Chado
Replies
29
Views
4K
Yespage
Y
cybok0
Replies
29
Views
3K
Ramy

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Top