Team of the Decade Revisited

[The Gipper]

A while back I had done a thread on the "Teams of the Decades" going back to the 30s. I have revised my method here somewhat and am here going to apply it to just the decade of the 00s, and include a ranking for every team in the NFL.

Here is how this is going to work: I will award 10 points to a team for a Super Bowl win, 6 points for losing the Super Bowl, 3 points for losing a conference championship game, and one point for any playoff appearance. So, thus far with only 3 games remaining through the entire 00s decade here are the standings (note, the playoff games being contested now apply to the 2009 NFL season):

 

Patriots.....41 points...

Steelers....28

Eagles......21

Giants......20

Colts........19 *

Ravens.....17

Bucs........14

Raiders....10

Panthers...10

Seahawks..10

Rams........9

Packers....8

Bears......8

Cardinals..7

Chargers..7

Titans......7

Broncos...6

Vikings....5 *

Falcons...5

Saints.....4 *

Jets........4 *

Cowboys..4

Dolphins..3

49ers......2

Chiefs.....2

Redskins..2

Bengals...2

Jaguars....2

Browns....1

Bills........0

Lions.......0

Texans....0

 

The teams with the * can obviously move up because they are in the "final four" of this years playoffs. The Jets could move to as high as 14 points with a SB win, or to 10 or 7 pts. The same with the Saints. They could move to as high as 14 pts. or to 10 or 7. The Viking could move to as high as 15 or to 11 or 8 pts.

 

The interesting one is the Colts. Now, no one can catch the Patriots. They have the "Team of the Decade" title sewn up. They won 3 SBs, plus lost one, plus lost another Conf. championship game. But, the Colts, with a win in the Super Bowl could surpass the Steelers for 2d place standings in the decade. 10 points for winning the SB would give them 29 compared to the Steelers 28. the difference would be simply that the Colts have made the playoffs in 9 of the 10 years of the decade where the Steelers only made it 6 times. The Colts will do no worse than tied for 3rd in the decade with the Eagles if they lose to the Jets. Despite not winning the SB, the Eagles racked up points by losing 1 SB and being in, but losing 4 other NFC conference title games.

 

I could go back and do this for the 90s/80s etc. etc. I doubt the Top teams for each decade would change under the new methodology, but it could be interesting to see the standings.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Gipper]

I have done the same analysis for the 90s with the same point system. Here are the results:

 

Cowboys.....37 points

Bills............28

49ers.........25

Broncos.....25

Packers.....22

Steelers.....15

Redskins...13

Giants......12

Rams.......10

Tits/Oilers..10

Patriots.....9

Vikings.....9

Chiefs......9

Dolphins...9

Lions.......8

Falcons....8

Chargers..8

Jaguars.....8

Raiders.....5

Colts........5

Bucs.......4

Jets........4

Eagles....4

Panthers..3

Saints......3

Bears......3

Browns....1

Cardinals..1

Seahawks..1

Bengals......1

Ravens......0

 

[Zombo]

I have done the same analysis for the 90s with the same point system. Here are the results:

 

Cowboys.....37 points

Bills............28

49ers.........25

Broncos.....25

Packers.....22

Steelers.....15

Redskins...13

Giants......12

Rams.......10

Tits/Oilers..10

Patriots.....9

Vikings.....9

Chiefs......9

Dolphins...9

Lions.......8

Falcons....8

Chargers..8

Jaguars.....8

Raiders.....5

Colts........5

Bucs.......4

Jets........4

Eagles....4

Panthers..3

Saints......3

Bears......3

Browns....1

Cardinals..1

Seahawks..1

Bengals......1

Ravens......0

 

Yeah ... let's skip to he 80's.

 

Zombo

[The Gipper]

Here we go for the 80s:

 

49ers.......46 points

Redskins..30 points

Raiders.....23

Broncos....20

Bears.......18

Dolphins...17

Giants......14

Browns.....13

Bengals....13

Cowboys...11

Rams.......11

Eagles.......9

Patriots.....8

Chargers...7

Vikings.....7

Bills.........6

Jets.........6

Seahawks..6

Steelers....6

Oilers......4

Falcons....2

Bucs........2

Lions.......2

Packers...1

Cards......1

Chiefs......1

Colts.......1

Saints......1

[The Gipper]

Here we move into the point system for the 70s:

 

Steelers......48 points

Cowboys.....46

Dolphins......30

Raiders.......26

Vikings........25

Rams..........20

Colts..........16

Redskins....10

Broncos......7

49ers..........7

Oilers........6

Bucs.........3

Bengals.....3

Browns.....2

Cards.......2

Pats.........2

Bears.......2

Eagles......2

Lions.......1

Chiefs......1

Packers....1

Bills..........1

Chargers...1

Seahawks...0

Falcons.....0

Saints.......0

Giants.......0

Jets...........0

 

Notice that the two teams in New York City went through the entire decade of the 70s without a single playoff appearance between them.

[The Gipper]

Here is for the 60s. Note, pre 1966 this includes 10 points awarded for both an NFL and AFL title, and 6 points to the loser. After 1966, the 10 and 6 point awards only go to the winner/loser of the AFL-NFL Championship game:

 

Packers.....56 points

Chargers...34 points (lost 4 AFL title games and won 1)

Oilers........30

Chiefs/Tex..27

Bills...........26

Browns......23

Colts.........15

Raiders......12

Giants........12

Jets...........11

Eagles.......10

Bears........10

Cowboys....8

Vikings......7

Patriots.....6

Rams.......2

 

No points for no playoff appearances: Dolphins, Broncos, Bengals, Redskins, Saints, Cardinals, Steelers, Falcons, 49ers, Lions,

 

 

[The Gipper]

Here are the 50s under the new format. This is more straightforward as the NFL was the only league under operation (again 10 points for a title, 6 for a title game loss, 3 for a division game loss):

 

Browns.....57

Lions........36

Rams.......25

Giants......25

Colts.......20

Bears.......9

49ers.......3

 

No points, no playoff appearances: Eagles, Redskins, Cardinals, Steelers, Packers, Yanks, Texans

 

[The Gipper]

Here are the 40s. Again, since there were 2 leagues, there are multiple points for more than one title in some years:

 

Bears.....46 points

Browns...40 points

Redskins..28 points

Eagles.....26 points

Giants.....21 points

Rams.....16

Cardinals..16

Yanks.....15

Packers...13

Bills.........9

49ers......6

Colts.......3

Steelers...3

 

Current team with 0 points in the 40s: Lions

 

The Colts and Bills mentioned above are not the same as the current Colts/Bills franchises.

[The Gipper]

Finally, for the 30s here are the points awarded for that decade:

 

Packers....52 points

Giants......44

Bears.......32

Lions........16

Redskins...16

 

Teams receiving -0- points: Steelers, Eagles, Cardinals, Rams. Note: for 1930 to 1932 I awarded the points to the first and second place teams since no playoffs were held those years.

[The Gipper]

Lastly, for the 20s here is how I am doing it: 10 pts for 1st place, 6 for 2d place, 3 for 3rd place. Results:

 

Bears...............43 points

Bulldogs...........30

Yellow Jackets...19

Packers.............19

Giants................16

Akron Pros.........13

Cardinals..........13

Steam Roller......10

Pottsville Maroons..9

Buffalo All-Amer....9

Detroit Panthers. 3

Detroit Wolves......3

 

 

Thus, both the Bears (20s and 40s) and the Packers (30s and 60s) maintain the only multiple "Team of the Decade" trophies.

[Kosar_For_President]

Good post Gip.

[TheClevelandSound]

Akron Pros?

 

Call me uneducated but Akron had a pro football team?

[Thaak]

Akron Pros?

 

Call me uneducated but Akron had a pro football team?

 

Most of the teams from the 20's were Ohio.

[BuckeyeBulldozer28]

1950's Browns decade team=GOAT

most points

[The Gipper]

Akron Pros?

 

Call me uneducated but Akron had a pro football team?

 

Your wish is my command: You are uneducated....but now I have help you to become edumacated. The very first NFL Champions were from Akron, Ohio. The Akron Pros. The team was in fact led by an African-American QB/HB, Fritz Pollard, who in the next year or so actually became the head coach of the team.

Bet you didn't know that an NFL team had a black head coach back in the 20s, did you?

[The Gipper]

1950's Browns decade team=GOAT

most points

 

 

Yes, they did. They indeed were dominant in that decade, but they only got one more point than the 60s Packers.

 

Closest race, which was a surprise to me: the 1970s. The Steelers only beat the Cowboys by 2 points. Cowboys won 2 SBs that year, and lost 3, and also lost a few other conference title games.

I mean, figure it: If Jackie Smith doesn't drop that pass in the end zone which if caught would have won the game for them against the Steelers, it is the Cowboys, not the Steelers that would be the team of the Decade.

The second closest race was the 40s between the Browns and Bears.

[Thaak]

Yes, they did. They indeed were dominant in that decade, but they only got one more point than the 60s Packers.

 

Closest race, which was a surprise to me: the 1970s. The Steelers only beat the Cowboys by 2 points. Cowboys won 2 SBs that year, and lost 3, and also lost a few other conference title games.

I mean, figure it: If Jackie Smith doesn't drop that pass in the end zone which if caught would have won the game for them against the Steelers, it is the Cowboys, not the Steelers that would be the team of the Decade.

The second closest race was the 40s between the Browns and Bears.

 

Thus why the Fritz Pollard Alliance helps to keep the NFL honest with the Rooney rule. Although lately with some of the shenanigans that the alliance is signing off on, not so sure they are helping keep the honest, but rather help them stay dishonest.

[BuckeyeBulldozer28]

Yes, they did. They indeed were dominant in that decade, but they only got one more point than the 60s Packers.

 

Closest race, which was a surprise to me: the 1970s. The Steelers only beat the Cowboys by 2 points. Cowboys won 2 SBs that year, and lost 3, and also lost a few other conference title games.

I mean, figure it: If Jackie Smith doesn't drop that pass in the end zone which if caught would have won the game for them against the Steelers, it is the Cowboys, not the Steelers that would be the team of the Decade.

The second closest race was the 40s between the Browns and Bears.

 

 

only need 1 point to win

see 2005 World Series champ Chicago Whitesox

broke MLB Record for most wins in a year by 1 Run

[Skinny]

Yes, they did. They indeed were dominant in that decade, but they only got one more point than the 60s Packers.

 

Closest race, which was a surprise to me: the 1970s. The Steelers only beat the Cowboys by 2 points. Cowboys won 2 SBs that year, and lost 3, and also lost a few other conference title games.

I mean, figure it: If Jackie Smith doesn't drop that pass in the end zone which if caught would have won the game for them against the Steelers, it is the Cowboys, not the Steelers that would be the team of the Decade.

The second closest race was the 40s between the Browns and Bears.

 

The Browns weren't around until 46 though. Weren't the Bears around before that. If that is the case I would say per games played we would have the 40's on lockdown.

 

The 70's though is surprising. Great post Gip!

[The Gipper]

Gip....sometimes you amaze me with your ability to provide historical data. The bad part is that you allow your jealousy of the Steelers to cause you to make stupid statements.

 

1. Jackie Smith's dropped TD pass was in the third quarter so even a jealous Browns fan can see that, unlike you stated, had Smith caught the TD pass, which would have tied the game, it would not have assured a win for the Cowboys.

 

2. You fail to acknowledge the fact that in their only Super Bowl loss the Steelers dominated virtually every phase of the game against the Cowboys and had it not been for the two late interceptions thrown by O'Donnell, both resulting in TD's for Dallas, the Steelers would surely have 7 titles now and the Cowboys would have 4.

 

Man up! Let some reality in!

 

On the Jackie Smith thing, I don't think it is my alleged jealousy that makes that a stupid statement. It is something that has been said on the National media time and time again. I am merely repeating it. In the words of Seinfeld "was that wrong?" Plus, perhaps my memory is a bit faulty....or is it Cowboy fan who overstates the Smith drop, but I was under the impression all along that that drop was made late in the game, and essentially lost the Cowboys the game. If it is as you said, done in the third quarter, then you would be right, there still would have been plenty of time in the game for the Cowboys to win. It was after all a very close game. And perhaps it is jealous Cowboy fans, not jealous Browns fans you should get your panties bunched up about. We didn't have a dog in that fight. In fact, I seem to recall thinking back that I was actually in favor of the Steelers winning that game rather than the Cowboys.

Also, I really don't recall the dominance of the Steelers in the '95 game. Perhaps, statistically, they indeed did outgain. I do remember the constant turnovers. I mean, no one (except you perhaps) is going to really remember that the Steelers went up and down the field between the 20s. They do remember the picks.

As it is, all three of those showdowns were very close games and could have gone either way.

But, there is always woulda/coulda/shoulda. The Browns woulda/coulda/shoulda won both "the Drive game" (Karliss kick missed), and The Fumble game.

 

[The Gipper]

You can't get off that easy! It's factually incorrect and you used it in support of a petty jealousy! It happened with 3+ minutes left in the third and would only have tied the game assuming the EP.

 

You (Browns fans) don't really have a dog in any fight

 

And YOU can't get off so easily by simply refusing to to read and comprehend what I said and by inserting your own silly prejudices into this equation. I essentially agreed with you that if that play occurred in the 3rd quarter (and I have no reason to doubt you) then the national media, and the Cowboy fan apologists have had no cause to claim that that drop would have cost them the game. Yet that is precisely the claim I have heard over the years. My only error is in believing and repeating those apparetly bogus claims.

Ergo, why is it you are jumping into my shit when I am agreeing with you?