Top 100 teams ever (NFL Network)

[74_75_78_79_]

Thanks a lot, Rupert!! Quite convenient!

[BD Sullivan]

I found a printed list

Regarding the Top 20:

First 70 years: 11 teams
Last 30 years: 9 teams

Overall:

First 70 years: 59 teams
Last 30 years: 41 teams

[TanksAndSpartans]

I’m surprised to be saying this, but I think they overdid the 20s - by combining the ’22/’23 teams, 8 seasons are represented. I wouldn’t have had the teams from ’20, ’21, or ’28, but I give them credit for recognizing the others - all choices I really like including some defunct teams. I would have had the ’25 Maroons though, but I understand why they didn't. And really on the downside, not having a team representing the '30s Spartans/Lions is pretty disappointing - not even top 100, c'mon .

[lastcat3]

I am just glad they didn't have the top 20 be mostly teams from the salary cap era. I do think putting the '72 Dolphins at #1 indicates someone who isn't putting much thought into it though. Sure they should receive a lot of credit for going undefeated during the Super Bowl era but I think most who like to study the history of the game (either very seriously or just casually) would say that there have definitely been teams better than them (I think most of the players that played on that team would say that that wasn't even the best Dolphins team there has been).

Just a couple other thoughts is that I agree the '78 Cowboys should definitely be higher than #94 and the '89 49ers should be higher than the '84 49ers (I'm assuming they chose to put the '84 team higher on this list because they had a better regular season record).

[BD Sullivan]

I am just glad they didn't have the top 20 be mostly teams from the salary cap era. I do think putting the '72 Dolphins at #1 indicates someone who isn't putting much thought into it though. Sure they should receive a lot of credit for going undefeated during the Super Bowl era but I think most who like to study the history of the game (either very seriously or just casually) would say that there have definitely been teams better than them (I think most of the players that played on that team would say that that wasn't even the best Dolphins team there has been).

The 1973 Dolphins' two regular season losses came in an early-season road game against Oakland and in a throwaway game against the Colts late in the season with the division clinched. They then had much less (or no) trouble in winning their three postseason games.

As a Browns fan, I do find it absurd that the 64 champions are rated four spots higher than the 68 Colts. The latter team was absolutely dominant for virtually the entire year, yet couldn't close the deal. The 64 Browns were far from dominant and essentially were that year's version of the 68 Jets in upsetting the Colts.

Another absurdity is putting the 1969 Vikings at 83, while the 1998 team sits at 38. Both were great teams, with the latter having a monster offense and the former the first of many dominant defenses. Yet they're separated by 45 spots? Also, neither the 1970 or 71 Vikings teams get a mention, even though both years saw the defense only give up an average of 10 points per game. With a real quarterback, they might have been able to win it all, considering neither SB champion was particularly dominant--the 71 Cowboys floundered until they got THEIR QB situation settled.

[ChrisBabcock]

The 2001 Rams (60) one spot above the 1963 Bears (61)????? I guess folks think 51-38 games are reeeeaaalllly fun to watch.

Speaking of 1963, I think that year's Chargers should have been included. Probably in the 85-100 range.

[BD Sullivan]

The 2001 Rams (60) one spot above the 1963 Bears (61)????? I guess folks think 51-38 games are reeeeaaalllly fun to watch.

Speaking of 1963, I think that year's Chargers should have been included. Probably in the 85-100 range.

Especially since they included the 1961 Oilers, who didn't even win the title that year.

[Rupert Patrick]

I'm surprised they have the 1940 Bears, who won the Championship 73-0 only at number 88. The 1936 Packers finished at 57, the 33 Bears at 66, the 45 Rams at 70 all finished ahead of them as far as teams from the same era.

[SixtiesFan]

The 2001 Rams (60) one spot above the 1963 Bears (61)????? I guess folks think 51-38 games are reeeeaaalllly fun to watch.

Speaking of 1963, I think that year's Chargers should have been included. Probably in the 85-100 range.

Especially since they included the 1961 Oilers, who didn't even win the title that year.

The 1961 Oilers did win the AFL Title that year. They beat the Chargers 10-3 in the AFL Championship game played in San Diego.

[BD Sullivan]

The 2001 Rams (60) one spot above the 1963 Bears (61)????? I guess folks think 51-38 games are reeeeaaalllly fun to watch.

Speaking of 1963, I think that year's Chargers should have been included. Probably in the 85-100 range.

Especially since they included the 1961 Oilers, who didn't even win the title that year.

The 1961 Oilers did win the AFL Title that year. They beat the Chargers 10-3 in the AFL Championship game played in San Diego.

Oops, I was thinking of 1962 and was thinking it was Wally Lemm and not Sid Gilman who had a meltdown in the 1961 title game. For my punishment, I plan on watching the Browns 2017 highlight film.