NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the NFL first started.

'98-'99 Broncos.

Jets

I misunderstood the question. Over the entire course of NFL history, the best franchise is clearly the 49ers.

Since the NFL first started.

Sorry, but...God, you are USELESS! You ask the worst Questions EVAR!

I misunderstood the question. Over the entire course of NFL history, the best franchise is clearly the 49ers.
yes that is what I ment.

The browns and the titans are on there but not the redskins or da' bears? Bad poll.

The browns and the titans are on there but not the redskins or da' bears? Bad poll.
I was about to put both on but I could only put 10 options.

I was about to put both on but I could only put 10 options.

Well swap em in for the titans and browns.

The first thing I ever saw on TV when I moved to the States, was a Dallas Cowboys game where the swept the other team off their feet. Since then, I have been a DEVOUT Dallas Cowboys fan.

the dolphins deserve a mention as well.

'59 BALTIMORE (not Indy) Colts. Put the game on the map with an OT win in the NFL Championship.

Yeah, the Titans have no business being on that list. A very short history, and not a single Super Bowl won.

'98-'99 Broncos.

Amen to that :)

LETS GO BRONCOS LETS GO!

Statistically: Packers. No question
Physically: The recent (potentially defunct) New England dynasty.
Honorable mentions: '85 Bears, '72 '73 Dolphins

Also, the Broncos suck. (As they'll demonstrate when they're sub .500 this year.)

I also like the St. Louis Rams

Baltimore Colts!

Da Pittsburgh Stillers.

The Dolphins.

The only team to have a perfect season. One of the few teams to consistently have a good season (if you exclude last year...). They may not make the playoff every year, but they are always close.

Honorable mention to the packers for their recent and earlier glory days, but they did have a long drought.

Honorable mention too to the Cowboys and the Steelers because thay also have consistent winning records.

I went with the Packers. They have won the most championships (not the most Superbowls). Anyway, I am biased in their favor since I am a huge Packers' fan. Also, in my opinion, the thread would be much more interesting if the question asked for the best NFL team by year. I would say the '85 Bears.

Physically: The recent (potentially defunct) New England dynasty.

Not a dynasty.

Also, the Broncos suck. (As they'll demonstrate when they're sub .500 this year.)

Not likely. Even with their free agent losses, they're better than they were last year.

You can't just say in the history of the NFL, football is older than that, as well as most of the teams. If you look at all the teams and their entire histories, I'm fairly certain you'll find the Packers at #1. Of course they have had very rough spots. But if you look at all their championships, you should find that they win hands down. And Titans definately shouldn't be on that list. I'd have put Bears instead, although they've only had a few good seasons (the Walter Payton years).

You can't just say in the history of the NFL, football is older than that, as well as most of the teams. If you look at all the teams and their entire histories, I'm fairly certain you'll find the Packers at #1. Of course they have had very rough spots. But if you look at all their championships, you should find that they win hands down. And Titans definately shouldn't be on that list. I'd have put Bears instead, although they've only had a few good seasons (the Walter Payton years).
I meant to write titans/Oilers. since titans used to be the oilers. The bears don't belong because they only had a couple good seasons.

Not a dynasty.

Not likely. Even with their free agent losses, they're better than they were last year.
Three out of four superbowls a Dynasty makes. And they did it in an era where that was supposed to be impossible because it makes with bad TV. They also have the longest consecutive win streak. Something no other Dynasty has.

And the Broncos are a Shakespearian comedy/tragedy in the making. All of their division is better. You want to talk improvement in the AFC West, let's talk KC. A now even the Raiders are looking like they might have a little something something.

Not a dynasty.

Why not?

The Steel Curtain.

Mind you I'm a friggin raider fan. Although I would like to see The Steel Curtain + The Soul Patrol. <sigh> So beautiful!

I'm calling a copycat. I had the exact same thread two weeks ago. By the way, go Steel Curtain. Pittsburgh, baby.

Green Bay Packers

Why?

-- 12 NFL championships/Super Bowls, way more than any other franchise

-- Playoffs almost every year (all but one?) since Favre became the starting QB -- think it's something like 13 of the past 14 seasons the Packers have been in the playoffs.

-- Half of the NFL's greatest rivalry: Chicago Bears vs. Green Bay Packers (the Bears should be on that list... they have a ton of history too).

-- Greatest decade of any franchise: 1960s Green Bay Packers, with 6 (or 7?) NFL titles/Superbowls under Vince Lombardi.

-- Great names: Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Reggie White, Curly Lambeau, Jim Taylor

-- Best fans in the world are Green Bay Packers fans.

-- The team is owned by the fans.

-- Sub-zero games in December/January. (coldest location in the NFL where games are played outside)

As for a team dynasty, the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1972-1980 I think are the greatest team ever to take the field.

Consequently my loyalty to the Steelers may cloud my judgement for the best team since the NFL was founded...that may actually go the Packers, but I'll be damned if any fans can claim to be more loyal than us in Pittsburgh.

Why not?

Because three championships in four years wouldn't qualify them as a dynasty in baseball, hockey, or basketball. Why should it in football?

Because three championships in four years wouldn't qualify them as a dynasty in baseball, hockey, or basketball. Why should it in football?

Do you know how hard it is to sustain a championship-caliber franchise in the NFL with the way the economic structure is set up, the frequency of injuries and how easily one or two key injuries can take a franchise down the tubes, and how all the top college players tend to go to the crappy teams? The Colts didn't get Peyton Manning for being good, you know. They got Manning because they were the worst team in the league. (Mind you, some teams screw this up by drafting bombs, but the draft is no guarantee of getting goos players. And I know Tom Brady went in the sixth round and Ryan Leaf went with the second pick, but the DESIGN is to give the crappy teams first crack at the best players, and that's generally how it goes.)

In the NHL, NBA, and MLB, especially in MLB, a team can horde all the good players using either money, a deep farm system, or a combination of both. That's how the Yankees managed to get super-good and win four World Series in five years - a heavy payroll and a farm system to go with it (I live in the hometown of the top farm team of the Yankees, so I know how many all-stars go up to the Big Apple.) In the NFL, there is not such system. There is no farm system (well, there's NFL Europe, but that almost doesn't count) and there's a rigid salary cap that forces teams to make tough economic decisions. Teams can't stay good forever, and teams that stay good for even a few years are doing pretty well. Teams that excel for a few years are ahead of the curve. Teams that consistently win on the Patriots' level, even for four years, are phenomenal. Give the skill and ability that the Patriots' brass has to the brass of the Yankees, Red Sox, Spurs, Lakers, or Pistons, and those teams would rattle off one championship after another for years to come.

Do you know how hard it is to sustain a championship-caliber franchise in the NFL with the way the economic structure is set up, the frequency of injuries and how easily one or two key injuries can take a franchise down the tubes, and how all the top college players tend to go to the crappy teams?

Absolutely. And consequently, I recognize that the dynasty is a practical impossibility in today's NFL. I don't deny at all that what the Patriots accomplished is phenomenal in its own right. I just don't believe it fits the definition of a dynasty.

Absolutely. And consequently, I recognize that the dynasty is a practical impossibility in today's NFL. I don't deny at all that what the Patriots accomplished is phenomenal in its own right. I just don't believe it fits the definition of a dynasty.

Certainly not in the traditional sense, but I don't know if anything in the modern NFL ever will. When I picture a sports dynasty, I picture the Boston Celtics of the 1960s, who won eight consecutive NBA titles, a feat that is almost impossible to match even in today's less balanced sports (think baseball, where the same dozen teams contend every year for the most part, but with 30 teams, no one team can dominate for the better part of a decade the way the Celtics did. The fact that the Yankees whipped off four titles in five years was phenomenal and attributable to their huge payroll and deep farm system.) I don't necessarily picture the Cowboys of the early 1990s, the modern-day Patriots, or the Yankees of the late 1990s.

However, are the Patriots of the 21st century really much different from teams considered dynasties of old? Take the Steelers of the 1970s, who won four Super Bowls in six years. Many people consider them a dynasty. They have a success rate of 66.7% as far as Super Bowls go. Take the 49ers of the 1980s, who won four Super Bowls in nine years. I don't know if they can be considered a dynasty simply because they had to contend with other great teams, such as the Redskins and the '85 Bears. There was little competition for the Steelers (well, the Raiders, the Vikings, and the Dolphins, I suppose...and the Cowboys.) So maybe the Patriots can't really be considered a dynasty - yet. It won't take another Super Bowl victory next year to give them dynasty status, but if they win one before the end of the decade, they are definitely a dynasty. Especially if they stay competitive throughout the decade...playoff appearances, division titles, no phoning in any seasons...

Absolutely. And consequently, I recognize that the dynasty is a practical impossibility in today's NFL. I don't deny at all that what the Patriots accomplished is phenomenal in its own right. I just don't believe it fits the definition of a dynasty.

Then what is a dynasty in the NFL? By the standards you lay down an NFL dynasty is an impossibility.

Easily the Patriots. 21 wins in a row, 3 superbowls in 4 years, 28-2 the past 2 seasons, not including the playoffs. Give them the credit they deserve. Best of all time. :)

Then what is a dynasty in the NFL? By the standards you lay down an NFL dynasty is an impossibility.

That's more or less true. It's also what I like about football; the fact that a team can go from a losing season to a championship in a year, or vice versa, and that the Super Bowls won't be dominated by a few teams that stay at the top forever. (Granted, I didn't like it much when the Broncos went from Super Bowl Champions to 6-10, but that's the price you pay.)

If you pressed me for a definition of dynasty, I'd say consistent excellence over a period of at least eight years. The Steelers ('72-'80) and 49ers ('81 to at least '94, and as late as '98). By my reckoning, the Pats have about four years to go.