Greatest NFL Franchise Of All Time

Unless of course ... you want to be like the Cleveland fans and count your 1963 AFL Championship Game Loss. Just sayin'

you want to be like the Cleveland fans and count your 1963 AFL Championship Game Loss. Just sayin'














I don't want to count any losses! But I thought you were talking SBs. 




1 was -1 in '63 so that game never happened anyway  

I don't want to count any losses! But I thought you were talking SBs.
-
I was, that was a joke. 




1 was -1 in '63 so that game never happened anyway
-
Unfortunately, no, 4 SB Losses '85, '86, '07, '11 + 3 SB wins, '01, '03, '04 = (-1), if you count the AFL, it's (-2) 

Let's just stop arguing and agree on one thing:

It would be really beneficial to know the other team's formations, plays, and gameplans ahead of time.  

 

And it's also very detrimental to have a cry baby qb who runs out of the nfccg.

Unfortunately, no, 4 SB Losses '85, '86, '07, '11 + 3 SB wins, '01, '03, '04 = (-1), if you count the AFL, it's (-2












I meant "I" was -1 in '63. ie: not born yet, so that game doesn't count.

I meant "I" was -1 in '63. ie: not born yet, so that game doesn't count.
-
Damn it, they can't prove it to you they lost that one!  It's all lies they made up to keep the Pats down, the bastiches!

Steelers without a doubt. Sure Green Bay was something before electricity, getting thosein an era that resembles Football today as much as we all enjoy our horse and buggy rides to the Barn dance, but in the era where football as we know it today was played, it's Pittsburgh.


I hereby nominate Sol for Poet Laureate, 2013.








 irrelevant Gift Titles



Absolutely priceless

Here's another way of looking at things: that is if you REALLY want to measure "franchises"


1 New York Giants 32
2 Green Bay Packers 30
3 Dallas Cowboys 29
4 Cleveland Browns 28
5 Chicago Bears 26
6 Minnesota Vikings 26
7 Pittsburgh Steelers 26
Rams combined 26
8 San Francisco 49ers 24
Colts combined 24
9 Philadelphia Eagles 23
10 Miami Dolphins 22
11 Oakland Raiders 21
12 Washington Redskins 21
Oilers/Titans combined 21
13 New England Patriots 19
14 Denver Broncos 18
15 Buffalo Bills 17
16 San Diego Chargers 17
17 Kansas City Chiefs 16
18 Detroit Lions 15
19 New York Jets 14
20 Indianapolis Colts 14
21 Atlanta Falcons 11
22 Seattle Seahawks 11
23 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10
24 Cincinnati Bengals 9
25 Baltimore Ravens 8
26 New Orleans Saints 8
27 Jacksonville Jaguars 6
28 Tennessee Titans 6
Cardinals combined 6
29 St. Louis Rams 5
30 Carolina Panthers 4
31 Arizona Cardinals 3
32 Houston Texans 1


Go get 'em Sol!!!!!!

That's Playoff appearances (above)

I typed it.....didn't take


Thank you CBS

That's years that the teams played well enough during the regular season  to MAKE the playoffs, NOT the number of games played

That's years that the teams played well enough during the regular season  to MAKE the playoffs, NOT the number of games played.
-
Hmmm, one BIG FLAW and a question.
-
The Big Flaw: This is like comparing QBs on straight up total Passing yards, it doesn't mean jack **** if you don't consider the number of attempts. (<pay attention Drew Brees jock remoras) Likewise, it should be Playoff appearences DIVIDED by number of years in the NFL. But "in the NFL" starting when? before 1933, they handed out those candied assed irrelevant gift titles with no championship game, and from 1933-1967 they had a championship game but no true playoffs, so you could only realistically count playoff appearences since 1967, which sounds right to me because that's when Football as we know it started.
-
The question: Are you counting non-NFL playoffs? AAFC and AFL?

What I'm saying (cutting and pasting) it just comes down to how you want to look at the question. Successful franchise meaning successful seasons from a won/loss perspective, or most Championships? And then what, if any is the cutoff point? You'll never get people to agree on any criteria whether it be league, era, or whatever

And the whole cotton pickin' thing is just plain silly anyway. Because the majority of votes are subjective; certain fans (if not all) will never vote for a rival; never agree on a timeframe, competition at the time, size of the league etc


Nutshell: passes the time while we wait for free agency, the draft, and camps to open, But really just a huge waste of time and energy....like "hating" a team or certain player.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are the most amazing NFL franchise I have ever seen

The Pittsburgh Steelers are the most amazing NFL franchise I have ever seen'

Said no one ever.

<blockquote class="QuoteMessage"> 4 Cleveland Browns</a> 28</blockquote>

So the Browns have 28 playoff appearances but ZERO Super Bowl titles? Just asking, haha.<br /> <br /> <br /> The answer here is easy, it's the Steelers. Modern day NFL was created by the Steelers and they have the most Super Bowl titles, which means they have been more successful than anyone else. Counting pre-SB era championships when leagues had no title games and about 7 teams is retarded. <br /> <br /> That's like saying dirt roads are still as good as asphalt highways. <br /> <br /> Bam.

The answer here is easy,


Yup...it always is when you're mentally lazy....not "retarded".....just lazy

Counting pre-SB era championships when leagues had no title games and about 7 teams is retarded.

I've asked this question before of the esteemed Steelers fanbase . . .



If pre-Super Bowl titles were so easy to win (for whatever reason) and therefore don't count, why didn't the Steelers win ANY of them?



Just askin'

If pre-Super Bowl titles were so easy to win (for whatever reason) and therefore don't count, why didn't the Steelers win ANY of them?



Just askin'
-
I know I never said "easy", I said "less value" (think of the dirt road to superhighway example steelwood gave) due to less competition. It was still football. As far as why the Steelers didn't win any?
-
Early on :
players signed with teams that offered the most money,<sup id="cite_ref-MacCambridge.2C_2005.2C_p._43._4-0" class="reference"> [4]</sup> or if the money being equal, players chose to sign with the most prestigious teams at the time,<sup id="cite_ref-Maule.2C_1964.2C_p._15._5-0" class="reference"> [5]</sup> who had established a winning tradition.<sup id="cite_ref-Dunscomb_6-0" class="reference"> [6]</sup> As a result, the NFL was dominated by the Chicago Bears, the Green Bay Packers, the Giants and the Redskins.
-
Sheesh old man, even YOU can find wikipedia.
-
Between 1940 and 1960 it was mostly ineptitude of management.
-
and then began the building of the Greatest Franchise ever.

Early on :
players signed with teams that offered the most money,<sup id="cite_ref-MacCambridge.2C_2005.
2C_p._43._4-0" class="reference"> [4]</sup> or if the money being equal, players chose to sign with the most prestigious teams at the time,<sup id="cite_ref-Maule.2C_1964.2C_p._1
5._5-0" class="reference"> [5]</sup> who had established a winning tradition.<sup id="cite_ref-Dunscomb_6-0" class="reference"> [6]</sup> As a result, the NFL was dominated by the Chicago Bears, the Green Bay Packers, the Giants and the Redskins.

So places like Detroit Michigan and Green Bay Wisconsin are more prestigious than Pittsburgh, according to Sol's own sources.  It took league intervention to force players to play in Pittsburgh, and steriods on top of that, to make them a winner.

So places like Detroit Michigan and Green Bay Wisconsin are more prestigious than Pittsburgh, according to Sol's own sources.  It took league intervention to force players to play in Pittsburgh, and steriods on top of that, to make them a winner.
-
As always, once again bluenosecanuck's reading comprehension or rather lack therof rears it's ugly head.
-
In relation to what you stupidly opined without any reference to what I said, I actually said about the prestige "EARLY ON". Which is not surprising that teams that had been established 13 years prior to the Steelers would be more prestigious AT THE TIME.
-
As far as your idiotic speculation about "steroids" - please submitt links to where we can find the failed steroids test proving what you said, or maybe even proof that everyone else wasn't doing the same thing or be considered an idiot.
-
OK forget that, even if you could fabricate something and link to it, everyone will still think you are an idiot.

I actually said about the prestige "EARLY ON"

Exactly.  What is Green Bay's prestige based on?  What do they have?  What are they known for?

The answer of course is Football.

Before Football grew to what it is today, Green Bay was just some town that few people outside of Wisconsin ever heard of.

But they were still more prestigious than Pittsburgh.

As far as your idiotic speculation about "steroids" - please submitt links to where we can find the failed steroids test proving what you said

From an era where they didn't test for steroids.  Using this logic, someone could demand high-resolution satallite imagery of Nazi death camps, saying if you don't provide links to them then the holocaust didn't happen.

Exactly.  What is Green Bay's prestige based on?  What do they have?  What are they known for?

The answer of course is Football.

Before Football grew to what it is today, Green Bay was just some town that few people outside of Wisconsin ever heard of.

But they were still more prestigious than Pittsburgh.
-
Are you being EPIC STUPID on purpose? Of course EARLY ON Green Bay would have been more prestigious, the had a 13 year head start. Pgh was like an expansion team back then. But fortunately, Pittsburgh's dominance has swept thos e lesser value days from the pinnacle and replaced them. 
-
From an era where they didn't test for steroids.  Using this logic, someone could demand high-resolution satallite imagery of Nazi death camps, saying if you don't provide links to them then the holocaust didn't happen
-
No, no need, I accomplished what I wanted to, so in essence you just admitted to unsubstantiated BS opinion with no real eveidence to back it up. Thank you. 

Pgh was like an expansion team back then from 1933 until 1972.

Fixed it for Ya, Sol. 

Are you being EPIC STUPID on purpose? Of course EARLY ON Green Bay would have been more prestigious

EARLY ON (Why you feel the need to shout I have no idea) football itself was not very prestigious.  Players were often local talent, with a few 'ringers' tossed in.

No, no need, I accomplished what I wanted to,

Looking stupid?  Good Job.

so in essence you just admitted to unsubstantiated BS opinion with no real eveidence to back it up.

Unsubstantiated BS opinion.

Now that's not a nice thing to say about the steeler players themselves....

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25350
278/

(just one of many links where guys who played for the Steelers in the 1970's aadmitted to taking steriods.)

Of course EARLY ON Green Bay would have been more prestigious, the had a 13 year head start. Pgh was like an expansion team back then. But fortunately, Pittsburgh's dominance has swept thos e lesser value days from the pinnacle and replaced them. 

Every team was a new franchise at some point. Some won and others didn't. If it was so "easy" to win titles, how come the Steelers and Rams and Cardinals and Eagles and others don't have a bunch more of them from the earlier eras? If you can't win when it is "easier," then you have to be penalized overall for your record in those eras.

The Packers have won multiple titles in every era, under every title system, against every type of opponent, with many different QBs. They ushered in the Super Bowl era, winning 5 titles in 7 years in the crossover period. With their 2 free agency Super Bowl wins, they have 7 modern-era NFL titles, and 6 additional titles in prior decades. Two 3-peats in their history. They have also been in 3 other NFL championship games on the losing side. Who else can compare with that resume?

The Giants have played in 18 NFL championship games, with a 7-11 record. 8 total NFL titles including their 1927 title.

The Steelers are definitely one of the great NFL franchisees, but all of their titles come during the Super Bowl era. They get credit for winning titles in the pre-free agency era (4) and the current free agency era (2).

You can say the same for the Cowboys as well (2 Super Bowl titles pre-free-agency, 3 more since).

The Patriots have only won titles in the free agency segment of the Super Bowl era, with a 3-3 record in Super Bowls. They are a vanity pick for bandwagon fans in the last couple decades, who don't know NFL history prior to 2000. They need to win titles in more decades than one to be taken seriously. Great run very recently, but not an all-time great franchise yet.

When we talk all-time great, that means the entire history of the league, under all different types of conditions. To have a claim on #1, at the very least win titles throughout much of your own history, to allow comparison among teams with longer/shorter histories.

The Patriots have only won titles in the free agency segment of the Super Bowl era, with a 3-3 record in Super Bowls.

Man, passive agressive posters are the worst. Look at this.

Who's claiming the Patriots are the greatest farnchise ever?? I don't see it. One poster calling them the best in the salary cap era doesn't mean anyone is saying they're the greatest.

You just felt the need to passively throw that editorialization in?  How objective of you....

They are a vanity pick for bandwagon fans in the last couple decades, who don't know NFL history prior to 2000.

lol ..so wait now, if you're a devoted Patriots fan and find them to be the overall best team in the league over the past dozen years or so, you don't know NFL history? 

There's a huge group of Patriot fans that were fans of the game long before the Patriots became successful and are every bit as aware of the history of the NFL as you are.

The Patriots may well set the all time record for the most consecutive winning seasons over teams like Dalls and San Fran who did it in the pre-salary cap era. There's nothing "bandwagon" about that.

When we talk all-time great, that means the entire history of the league, under all different types of conditions. To have a claim on #1, at the very least win titles throughout much of your own history, to allow comparison among teams with longer/shorter histories

The Steelers, (who I consider the best ever) were founded in 1933. They won their first Superbowl in 1972. 
How does that, in any way, fit the criteria you're laying out above?

The Packers were useless from 1948 to 1956. 12 years of losing. Then another 30 year drought between 1967 and 1996. 
Then another 15 years if nothing from 1996 until 2010. 

Those are some mighty big chunks of time. 3 extremely dry periods that total 57 years.

From 1968 to 1991 (24 seasons) the Packers were above .500 hundred only 5 times.

As the league progressed, it wasn't nearly as easy to amass championships as it was when the league was comprised of 11 teams and winning a Championship either meant you simply finished in first place, with no Championship game to even play, as was the case for the Packers first 3 titles, or winning one game as was the case with the next 6. 

Who's claiming the Patriots are the greatest farnchise ever??

I would have been criticized had I not mentioned the Patriots. I thought they were topical enough to be addressed. Relax.

so wait now, if you're a devoted Patriots fan and find them to be the overall best team in the league over the past dozen years or so, you don't know NFL history? 

Not at all. If someone feels they are the best team over the last dozen years, they have a strong claim. If they want to go any further than that, it is dubious. A look at history Bears this out. Why read more into it than there is?

There's a huge group of Patriot fans that were fans of the game long before the Patriots became successful and are every bit as aware of the history of the NFL as you are.

I agree. But there are bandwagon fans for every team. Some teams have legions of raving fans, and some teams have a more fluctuating fan base, relative to the team's current success. Some teams have fans who consistently pack the stadium no matter what the record, while others turn the stadium in to a ghost town. I'm not saying this will happen to the Patriots if they start losing more than winning, but I am suggesting it is possible.

Then another 30 year drought between 1967 and 1996. Then another 15 years if nothing from 1996 until 2010.

Actually, a 24 year competitive drought, not 30 for the first example. They won the division in '67 and were in theplayoff knocking on the door from '93 - '95 before winning it all. They had a couple very lean spots (I suffered through one long one. I believe from '92 until now they are either #1 or in the top few teams in wins over that span. If you are talking title droughts exclusively, no team around for at least 30 years has a better ratio of titles/years.

As the league progressed, it wasn't nearly as easy to amass championships as it was when the league was comprised of 11 teams and winning a Championship either meant you simply finished in first place, with no Championship game to even play, as was the case for the Packers first 3 titles, or winning one game as was the case with the next 6. 

If you didn't win your conference back in the day, you had zero chance to win a title. Then they allowed division winners in, increasing the chances for any given team to win a title. Then they added wild cards, increasing the opportunities to win a title. Now you can be 8-8 and get into the playoffs (even 7-9). You could never, ever win a title with a record near .500 back in the day. Zero chance.

Any era. Any system. Any style. Winning titles.

Between 1940 and 1960 it was mostly ineptitude of management.
-
and then began the building of the Greatest Franchise ever.

Don't know why you stopped the clock at 1960 . . . From 1960 thru 1972 (the year MOST people think that the Steelers franchise became good), their record was a dismal 57-102-6.  You pretty much lost twice as many games as you won!

From 1933 thru 1971 accounts for 38 years of the Steelers existence.  From 1972 thru 2012 accounts for 40 years.


So . . . the "Greatest Franchise Ever" basically sucked for half of their existence ? ? ?