Best team in each franchise history

[JohnTurney]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2540 ... istory#atl
Bill Barnwell
ESPN Staff Writer


Lots of good choices, plenty of odd picks, though. Defensible, but odd.
Seems like post-season meant little, but he explained his criteria...
not sure I would have gone that way, but it's a good effort that
does leave room for criticism.

A good conversation starter, though.

[Rupert Patrick]

Some of the choices I do not agree with, such as the best team in Browns history being the 1987 team, it should have been the 1950 team if you are steering clear of the AAFC teams as to not pick the 1948 team.

I might take the 1968 Colts over the 1964 Colts, and the 1969 Vikings over the 1998 Vikings as the greatest teams in franchise histories, but both are coin tosses, particularly the Vikings.

Picking the 2006 Ravens over the 2000 Ravens as the greatest team in franchise history is an oversight, I think.

I believe it is a little premature to proclaim the current Saints team as the best in franchise history, particularly since the season is in process. To err on the side of caution, wait until the season is over. This is perhaps a jinx of sorts, as the Cowboys beat the Saints this evening.

[Bryan]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2540 ... istory#atl
Bill Barnwell
ESPN Staff Writer


Lots of good choices, plenty of odd picks, though. Defensible, but odd.
Seems like post-season meant little, but he explained his criteria...
not sure I would have gone that way, but it's a good effort that
does leave room for criticism.

If I am understanding the article, Barnwell simply took 'margin of victory' (a sortable column on PFR franchise history pages!) and then applied the usual Football Outsiders "standardization", but I'm not really sure how meaningful a 'margin of victory standardization' would be. So there isn't really any subjective selection being done, its just some form of bastardized math, with the 1982 Jets and their 8.8 'margin of victory' being standardized above the 1968 Jets and their 9.9 'margin of victory', along with the arbitrary cutoff of 1960.

[rhickok1109]

I certainly can't agree with the selection of the 1996 Packers over the 1962 team. In 1996, they basically had Brett Favre and Reggie White and a bunch of other guys...good players, yes, but hardly standouts. The only other player with a shot at the HOF is Leroy Butler.

The 1962 team had better running backs, better receivers, a better offensive line, better linebackers, a better secondary, and probably a better defensive line.

[NWebster]

I'd have thought 68 Colts, 62/64/66 Packers, 73 Dolphins, 51/55 Browns and definitely Bears in 42, they outscored their opponents 4 tobe1! There certainly seemed to be some bias for recent teams.

[Bob Gill]

I'd have thought 68 Colts ... and definitely Bears in 42, they outscored their opponents 4 tobe1!

I'd take the 1941 Bears over 1942, without a doubt. Sure, they lost one game, but so did the 1942 team, in the end. And they lost at least a couple of major players after 1941: McAfee for sure, plus Standlee, I think, and maybe one or two others.

I think the Bears' 1941 team might easily be one of the ten best ever, all things considered.

[conace21]

I certainly can't agree with the selection of the 1996 Packers over the 1962 team. In 1996, they basically had Brett Favre and Reggie White and a bunch of other guys...good players, yes, but hardly standouts. The only other player with a shot at the HOF is Leroy Butler.

The 1962 team had better running backs, better receivers, a better offensive line, better linebackers, a better secondary, and probably a better defensive line.

At least the 1996 Packers led the league in points scored and (fewest) points allowed. I do agree that the 1962 team was the best Packet team.
1968 Colts.
1998 Broncos over 1997 WC Broncos.

[74_75_78_79_]

How, and why, are ’83 Redskins & ’84 Dolphins each ranked at #1 over their respective 1991 & 1973 versions? I know post-seasons aren’t counted in this sort-of-Football Outsiders-esque process, but still. In some cases a team that didn’t win-it-all can be considered #1 over an installment of theirs which did such as ’68 Colts instead of ’06, or ’07 Pats instead of any of their actual 5 championships (though I’d have no issue with ’03 and/or ’04 being placed at the top).

’78 Cowboys being placed above ’77 makes sense, but ’71 may have a say over them with ’92 & ’93 having all the say for, IMO, both installments are tied for best Dallas team ever. 1962 Lions (if we’re talking ‘since 1960’) has to clearly be their best, not 1970 (nor, of course, ’91) along with ’62 being the very best of the Packers. ’69 Vikings are Minnesota’s best-ever IMO and not just Grant’s other SB-teams, but I feel that 2009 installment may have a say over 1998 as well.

And the ’89 Forty Niners (and ’84) are better than ’94.

[7DnBrnc53]

1998 Broncos over 1997 WC Broncos.

Shannon Sharpe didn't think so. He thinks that the 1997 team was better.

[sluggermatt15]

The 1958 Colts were pretty good....

I also agree about the Browns. One of Paul Brown's 1950s teams HAS to be #1. Not that '87 squad.

Maybe this goes to show the quality of the article.... or the author(s) does not know pro football history like we do.