NFL Teams Ranked in Order of All-time Greatness

Steelers should be #1 & Niners #2

 

Bears & Cowboys #3 & #4

 

I'll put the Packers in the top 5.

 

Crazy to see the "Factory of Sadness" in the top 10

I actually didn't mind the criteria he used. He gave more points for SB championships vs World titles. He gave points for AP MVP, conference/division champs, # of playoff appearances and HOF inductees. He left off the popularity contests known as today's pro bowl. It's not a bad way to add those points.

 

In the comment section, it doesn't appear a lot are arguing with who's #1 (though I didn't pour through the comments).

 

 

 

If he gives more points for SB championships than World Titles, how does he justify using the term "All-Time"?

So that I can be a dick.

 

How many countries in the 'World" does a Super Bowl champion defeat to become world champions?

 

And you dopes hate soccer.

I'm pretty sure I'd have put a lot of money on the Seahawks if they had to play the winner of the Europe/Asia/Africa/Australia division for the real world title last February.  Seahawks -27 vs. the Lagos Lancers or the Beijing Bombers would still get my next 10 mortgage payments in Vegas.

       
       

But neither PIT/SF helped the NFL achieve greatness in its formative years. I think their list nailed it- the Top 5 is on the money when considering the entire history of the league.

And, by this, you mean that 27 Seahawks players will die from Ebola after coming in contact with players from the Lagos Lancers?

 

 

While I think the scoring system makes sense, it clearly favors older teams. 

 

I went and took the points system he used, and to provide what I felt was a better picture of success - I looked at not simply total points, but points per season played.  Here's what it looks like. Not saying this is a definitive ranking, but I think it does provide an alternate look at the data.  GB gets dropped lower than I think makes sense for the long droughts of no success.  

 

 

Team	Points	Established	Seasons	Pts/Season
Dal	568	1960	54	10.52
Oak	396	1970	44	9.00
SF	540	1950	64	8.44
Bal	148	1996	18	8.22
Mia	350	1970	44	7.95
Indy	484	1953	61	7.93
NE	346	1970	44	7.86
Pit	622	1933	81	7.68
GB	714	1921	93	7.68
Den	334	1970	44	7.59
Min	396	1961	53	7.47
NYG	646	1925	89	7.26
Cle	430	1950	61	7.05
Chi	602	1920	94	6.40
Was	482	1932	82	5.88
StL	450	1937	77	5.84
Buf	238	1970	44	5.41
KC	212	1970	44	4.82
Sea	182	1976	38	4.79
Ten	200	1970	44	4.55
SD	192	1970	44	4.36
Phi	330	1933	81	4.07
TB	142	1976	38	3.74
Det	298	1930	84	3.55
Cin	140	1970	44	3.18
Car	58	1995	19	3.05
NYJ	130	1970	44	2.95
NO	136	1967	47	2.89
Atl	104	1966	48	2.17
AZ	198	1920	94	2.11
Hou	24	2002	12	2.00
Jax	36	1995	19	1.89

Pittsburg was the Archetype of Ineptitude prior to the merger.

You've got all those original AFL teams listed as established in 1970.

Because he's only using NFL results and that's when they joined the NFL.

Odd not to include the AFL results but that's what this guy did

The Jets have that many points without the Super Bowl?

So you are going to penalize a team for being in the league longer?  That doesn't make sense.  It should be just the opposite.  It isn't like the point totals allow for that.  There would have to be a disparity between the levels of points awarded for that to make sense IMO.  And I don't know how that would be done given the criteria. 

It wouldn't be a penalty if you didn't have long periods of mediocrity. The teams are penalizing themselves for not being competitive for long periods of time.

 

Being around a long time didn't seem to hurt Dallas too much.

I'm not penalizing anyone.  I'm simply saying that using this guy's method clearly advantages franchises that have been in the NFL longer thus allowing them to accrue more points.  The Baltimore Ravens have only had 18 years to accrue points using this system, whereas the Cardinals have had 94.  To me, it's silly to say the Cardinals franchise is better all time than the Ravens who have won 2 Super Bowls in 18 years.  

 

So, I wanted to normalize the data and in a manner that didn't penalize franchises based on years in league.  And, instead looking at the data on a per year basis is a much more logical way of determining franchises success.  His method is like saying that Dave Krieg is a better QB than Jim Kelly because Krieg threw for more yards (38147) and more TDs(261) than Kelly (35467 and 237) while ignoring that Krieg played 19 years vs Kelly only playing 11. 

 

I also think including subjective votes by sportwriters on things like MVPs, players of the year, and HOFs isn't really relevant to how great a franchise is; and it too favors older franchises.  I didn't feel like parsing all that out to look only at success on the field.

The point of the article was about NFL "history".  It seems obvious that more recent teams have less history so averaging points across years of existence undoes the history aspect.

Minnesota Vikings - 0 championships of any kind

Miami Dolphins - 2 Super Bowl wins

Baltimore Ravens - 2 Super Bowl wins

New England Patriots - 3 Super Bowl wins

Denver Broncos - 2 Super Bowl wins

 

Yet, you want me to believe that the Vikings are the best of those 5 franchises. Really? 

 

More data.

 

Using this guys calculations the franchises:

1- 10 average 76 seasons of play.

11-22 average 55 seasons of play.

23-32 average 32 seasons of play.

 

It's a nice debate piece, but it's seriously flawed and extremely biased towards franchises that have been around longer.