The Team of the Decade: NFL

[HarleyQuinn]

Ok, the Chargers has won how many divisional titles in a row? And you rate Denver, who blew the divisional lead last season to... the Chargers, above them?

Never specifically said the Broncos were above them (I call just outside as 5-9 really). But yeah, Denver is above them and by a fairly large margin since we're taking the whole decade into account. More consistent overall, same number of playoff appearances, and same number of AFC Title game appearances.

Denver: 85-59 with worst record being 7-9. 2-4 in the playoffs. Has 4 seasons over 10 wins.
San D: 72-72 with worst record being 1-15. 3-4 in the playoffs. Has 3 seasons over 10 wins.

 

[Next USC #55]

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree on that. You have to take in account the fact San Diego has won the division more often than Denver has. If anything, Denver is the model of "above average who never goes anywhere". Sure, the 1-15 season drags San Diego's overall record down, but I'm rating San Diego ahead based on the divisional titles. In fact, pretty sure Oakland has almost as many divisional titles in this decade that Denver does. If San Diego is disqualified, Denver has to be too.

Thinking about it, I realized, it really is 4 teams and then... nothing else.

 

[HarleyQuinn]

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree on that. You have to take in account the fact San Diego has won the division more often than Denver has. If anything, Denver is the model of "above average who never goes anywhere". Sure, the 1-15 season drags San Diego's overall record down, but I'm rating San Diego ahead based on the divisional titles. If San Diego is disqualified, Denver has to be too.

Thinking about it, I realized, it really is 4 teams and then... nothing else.

In that case, Oakland goes above Denver too... San Diego: 4, Oakland: 3, Broncos: 2, Seahawks: 1, and Chiefs: 1.

My problem with just focusing on division titles is a year where there's a slew of great teams in a single division. Oakland won a division title in 2000 going 12-4. Denver went 11-5. In 2003, Kansas City went 13-3 and Denver went 10-6. That's 2 seasons where Denver had a record that normally would've won them a division title, so why should they be penalized for not winning the division despite having a great record just because another team had an even better record?

Also note that I just focused on regular season, playoff record, and title game appearances. Normally a team with a great regular season record will win the division more than not (Denver seems an aberration here having won only 2).

 

[Next USC #55]

Uhhh... yes they should. A mark of a dominant team, an "all-decade" type team, is winning championships. Since neither San Diego, Oakland nor Denver has any NFL championships, we go to divisional championships, where San Diego takes it.

edit: Surprised Oakland has more divisional titles than Denver. That severely disqualifies Denver from the discussion, in my eyes.

 

[HarleyQuinn]

Uhhh... yes they should. A mark of a dominant team, an "all-decade" type team, is winning championships. Since neither San Diego, Oakland nor Denver has any NFL championships, we go to divisional championships, where San Diego takes it.

edit: Surprised Oakland has more divisional titles than Denver. That severely disqualifies Denver from the discussion, in my eyes.

Technically Oakland has an AFC Champions name to their team (2002 when they made the SB). In terms of winning the division, it really doesn't mean anything with the wildcard in place as a good 2nd place team ala Denver in 2000 can make the playoffs as well.

The fact that you were surprised that Oakland has more divisional titles than Denver just shows how unimportant winning the division is in the long run. Teams of the decade make the playoffs first and then win there, whether it be through winning the division or wildcard.

If you're going to mock Green Bay (Who have also won 4 division titles), it's only fair that San Diego be at the same level Green Bay is. San Diego had 3 seasons with records of 1-15, 5-11, and 4-12. Green Bay had 1 season of 4-12 and otherwise bested San Diego in terms of regular season record and playoff appearances (1 more than San Diego).

 

[Next USC #55]

I wasn't actually mocking Green Bay. In fact I think they are the NFC North team of the 90s/00s, sans a few years where the Vikings take it. I was lol'ing at the fact that someone discredited the Chargers and then pumped up the Packers, despite, as you've said, them being similar.

Really, I'm gonna stop now. Obviously people's criteria may vary, and I do admit you have a compelling argument for the Broncos, even if I personally won't agree to it.

 

[Agent of Oblivion]

I'd rate the Colts above the Steelers for the decade, but you have the right teams in your top 4. I'd also place the Titans fifth.

 

[tonyjaymz03]

You guys are all forgetting about the Eagles...they've been to a super bowl, constantly in the playoffs, and as far as I can recall, have a great w-l record for the regular season

my top 5 is actually the same as espn's:
1.Patriots
2.Steelers
3.Eagles
4.Colts
5.Ravens

 

[Next USC #55]

I'd rate the Colts above the Steelers for the decade, but you have the right teams in your top 4. I'd also place the Titans fifth.

Why the Titans over the Ravens? I'm curious for the reasoning. I loved the McNair Titans but it's very hard for me to see them as a top 5 team of the 2000s, since they have had losing seasons and only one Super Bowl appearance, which they lost.

Tony, the first post listed Philadelphia, so they weren't forgotten.

 

[OG]

The Titans have no SB appearances in this decade.

 

[Agent of Oblivion]

Well, they have had five playoff appearances this decade. Their worst season was a 4-12 abbheration where they lost a lot of close ones at home and road games. This was also the year after McNair missed time for injury, and was playing hurt the whole year. He was in Baltimore the next season.

They went 8-8 in Young's rookie season, where they STUNK the first half of the year and came back to really show some pride.

Basically, they've had a similar success rate as San Diego, in a much tougher division, and never really had any HORRIBLE seasons.

 

[Czech]

You guys are all forgetting about the Eagles...they've been to a super bowl, constantly in the playoffs, and as far as I can recall, have a great w-l record for the regular season

my top 5 is actually the same as espn's:
1.Patriots
2.Steelers
3.Eagles
4.Colts
5.Ravens

The Colts have more wins than the Eagles and a championship to show for it. What sort of imaginary math puts the Eagles ahead?

Man, fuck the Eagles. What a waste of time they are.

 

[MFer]

I checked out Seattle since it seemed like they were among the top NFC teams for awhile. 77 wins, 4 straight division titles from 2004-2007 (albeit in a weak division) and 4 playoff wins, including a NFC championship. Worst season was last year's 4-12, but could easily bounce back this season. Probably would rank in the bottom of the top 10 I would imagine.

 

[Czech]

The Seahawks and Panthers share the stratum of above-average crap. I suppose the Packers, Chargers, Broncos, maybe the Bears are in there as well.

 

[naiwf]

You guys are all forgetting about the Eagles...they've been to a super bowl, constantly in the playoffs, and as far as I can recall, have a great w-l record for the regular season

my top 5 is actually the same as espn's:
1.Patriots
2.Steelers
3.Eagles
4.Colts
5.Ravens

I don't see how you can be the third best team of the decade when you have ZERO championships unless perhaps you were unlucky enough to be around the NBA during Bill Russell's time and there simply were no titles to win.

 

[Vitamin X]

You guys are all forgetting about the Eagles...they've been to a super bowl, constantly in the playoffs, and as far as I can recall, have a great w-l record for the regular season

my top 5 is actually the same as espn's:
1.Patriots
2.Steelers
3.Eagles
4.Colts
5.Ravens

I think the #5 spot here is what we're all arguing; we all know the Eagles have had an exceptional decade. In fact, one of the funnier stats from before 2005 (when I was hyping that Sherman was actually a good coach but terrible GM and so he shouldn't get fired until he had a shitty season- which he then did) was that Sherm had the 3rd best coaching record in the league in his tenure (again up until 2005) just behind Reid and Belichick. Porter, aside from a 4-12 2005 and a 6-10 2008, they haven't had a "few other abysmal" seasons. They've had two 8-8 records, three 10-6s, and a 13-3. I know if it wasn't for teams like Philly, Green Bay would've had a couple legit shots at the Super Bowl aside from the final 2007 collapse.

And I would actually put the Bears, not the Vikings, as the #2 NFC North team of the 00s. Yeah they've had a couple bad years, but they had a Super Bowl appearance, something no one else from the division can claim, as well as a couple division titles when the Packers had their off years, as did Minnesota. Overall, I'd probably put San Diego on par with Green Bay for the decade. Good team, but not great enough to make it further.

Anyways, people are spot on when they put the Colts above the Steelers. Sure Pittsburgh won one more Super Bowl this decade, but an argument could be made that they really fucked the Seahawks out of the 2005 Super Bowl and the Colts always seemed to be more in it than Pittsburgh did.

 

[KOAB]

If it's so hard to come up with anything outside of the top 5... than why did so many faggots complain about there being no dominant teams in the league? My head hurts even more now.

 

[KingPK]

Anyways, people are spot on when they put the Colts above the Steelers. Sure Pittsburgh won one more Super Bowl this decade, but an argument could be made that they really fucked the Seahawks out of the 2005 Super Bowl and the Colts always seemed to be more in it than Pittsburgh did.

The overall playoff record puts Pittsburgh over for me. That and the fact that Pittsburgh won three road games en route to their first SB win while Indy has pissed away home-field advantage twice by not getting past the divisional round. I can see the argument for the Colts though for the reasons you stated and the fact that Indy had more recognizable talent in Manning, Harrison and Edgerrin James.

 

[bps21]

I feel like the officiating in the first Steelers SuperBowl win was so awful that I will only credit them with 1 and a half SuperBowls this decade. Give or take a half.

Either way they and the Colts are still both ahead of the stupid Eagles.