Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

falconfan58 wrote:I would put the Packers first,since they won a Super Bowl a few years ago,and the Browns or Lions last

I don't think I could subscribe to the latter half of that statement.
IMHO the Browns certainly and the Lions probably have a "more storied" history than any of the teams founded after 1961 (with the possible exception of the Miami Dolphins over the Lions).
They just haven't been good "lately" (i.e. anywhere in recent memory).

As to the OP, I think there are many factors that go into making a "Hall of Famer."
As we've discussed here before those factors include:
A. How good was a player? (Incredibly, if he is to be in the Hall)
B. For how long was he how good? (Usually a career of some length)
There is something of a trade-off between these two. A player of unique talent can be judged "Hall-worthy" even with a shorter career because they were just so exceptional (Gale Sayers is the oft-used example of this "high-peak" player). Likewise, (and in the view of some) an individual can be elevated to Hall of Fame status by a life-time of excellence in the game (perhaps Dick LeBeau is the best example of this).

Another factor to include is "innovation." Did the player (or coach) bring something new to the game or change the game in some way? Perhaps the aforementioned Larry Wilson is a good example of this as he is often credited with being the first great blitzer from the Safety position. While his play at safety was exceptional it may well this uniqueness that led to his enshrinement.

Still other factors include success of the team(s) while said player was with them and "The Eyeball Test."
Both of these are perhaps more subjective. In the first we have to decide if the player made the team better or vice-versa (and to what degree in each case). And the latter is entirely subjective: when you watched the player did he stand out as being truly exceptional? That is entirely a matter of opinion.

So, one takes all of those things into account (plus, perhaps a few others, depending on individual preferences) and tries to balance them in their mind and decide: is this a Hall of Fame player?

JuggernautJ wrote:
I don't think I could subscribe to the latter half of that statement.
IMHO the Browns certainly and the Lions probably have a "more storied" history than any of the teams founded after 1961 (with the possible exception of the Miami Dolphins over the Lions).
They just haven't been good "lately" (i.e. anywhere in recent memory).

100% agree with this. Browns at the bottom? Not for me - Paul Brown, Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Jim Brown.

I'd actually rank the Cardinals pretty low even though they're technically the longest surviving team. The argument gets turned around because they pass the long history criteria, but its a long history with just the one title ('47).

That was the original Browns.Can the Ravens count that as their history,or did it stop when they moved?
PS I'm was born in Ohio

falconfan58 wrote:That was the original Browns.Can the Ravens count that as their history,or did it stop when they moved?
PS I'm was born in Ohio

For some reason, the "expansion" Browns post-Ravens are considered to be one with the pre-move Browns. The Ravens were considered to be "from scratch" historically.

bachslunch wrote:

falconfan58 wrote:That was the original Browns.Can the Ravens count that as their history,or did it stop when they moved?
PS I'm was born in Ohio

For some reason, the "expansion" Browns post-Ravens are considered to be one with the pre-move Browns. The Ravens were considered to be "from scratch" historically.

That was part of the deal the NFL worked out with Art Modell and the city of Cleveland. Modell's team would be treated like an expansion team for historical purposes. The 1999 expansion team (from a competitive standpoint, i.e. they received players in an expansion draft and the #1 overall pick in 1999) would be given the Browns name, colors, and history. So Jim Brown holds the single season rushing record for the Cleveland Browns, and Jamal Lewis holds it for the Baltimore Ravens.

The ineptitude of the 1999 team does not do enough to drag the Cleveland franchise to the bottom. In 1995, they would have been at or near the top of the all time franchise list, above Dallas, above Green Bay, right with the Bears.

Detroit also does not belong at the very bottom. They made 6 playoff appearances in the 1990's, though they were 1 and done in 5 of them. Only Dallas, SF, and Minnesota had more NFC playoff appearances in that decade.

How long does a franchise have since their last title to be considered "elite"?

falconfan58 wrote:How long does a franchise have since their last title to be considered "elite"?

In the mind of the casual fan or TV commentator probably within their (adult?) lifetime.
However, we are (supposed to be) historians so for us the criteria are probably different.
I still think of the Canton Bulldogs as having had a "storied past" even if they haven't been a franchise for something like 90 years.

JuggernautJ wrote:

falconfan58 wrote:How long does a franchise have since their last title to be considered "elite"?

In the mind of the casual fan or TV commentator probably within their (adult?) lifetime.
However, we are (supposed to be) historians so for us the criteria are probably different.
I still think of the Canton Bulldogs as having had a "storied past" even if they haven't been a franchise for something like 90 years.

This is a good point. I will say that a lot of casual fans don't study or respect the history of football teams. So, if a team hasn't won the Super Bowl in the last 5 years, then they "stink". I think that's a poor perspective because a franchise ought to be evaluated on its entire body of work, from year one to the present. For example, I bet a lot of Patriots fans don't know that the Browns have won more championships than them...

sluggermatt15 wrote:

JuggernautJ wrote:

falconfan58 wrote:How long does a franchise have since their last title to be considered "elite"?

In the mind of the casual fan or TV commentator probably within their (adult?) lifetime.
However, we are (supposed to be) historians so for us the criteria are probably different.
I still think of the Canton Bulldogs as having had a "storied past" even if they haven't been a franchise for something like 90 years.

This is a good point. I will say that a lot of casual fans don't study or respect the history of football teams. So, if a team hasn't won the Super Bowl in the last 5 years, then they "stink". I think that's a poor perspective because a franchise ought to be evaluated on its entire body of work, from year one to the present. For example, I bet a lot of Patriots fans don't know that the Browns have won more championships than them...

Even as a Steeler-fan, I’m proud of the six Lombardis but do recognize the Pack and G-Men as having more titles. A lot of catching-up to do! And if only Cleveland would have had the opportunity to play against each late-’40s NFL champ in a ‘super bowl’, maybe they’d also be above the ’Burgh with eight.

Same with Cowher’s opening playoff streak. Had he returned to the playoffs in ’98 to make it seven straight, he still would have needed four more in a row to top Paul Brown (’46 thru ’55).