I Love the '00s: The Best, Worst, and Most Mediocre NFL Teams of the Decade
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 21, 2010 12:30 PM PST
in Seahawks Commentary
Email
PrintLast year on my home blog, I came up with a (somewhat) empirical system for ranking the performance of all NFL teams over the last decade.. Here it is:
+1 for each regular season win
+5 for each Wild Card appearance
+10 for each Divisional Playoff appearance
+20 for each Conference Championship Game appearance
+30 for each Super Bowl appearance
+50 for each Super Bowl victory
(note: there is no "multiplier" effect. The Saints get 50 bonus points for winning XLIV, NOT 115 points for reaching each playoff milestone in 2009-2010)
Got it? Here's the list... Debate my results and methodology in the comments
- Patriots (327)
- Colts (260)
- Steelers (258)
- Eagles (228)
- Ravens (197)
- Giants (193)
- Saints (163)
- Packers (160)
- Buccaneers (149)
- Chargers (147)
- Titans (146)
- Seahawks (143)
- Vikings (139)
- Jets (139)
- Panthers (139)
- Bears (131)
- Broncos (126)
- Rams (124)
- Raiders (122)
- Cowboys (112)
- Falcons (110)
- Cardinals (102)
- Dolphins (99)
- Jaguars (91)
- Chiefs (85)
- Redskins (85)
- 49ers (83)
- Bengals (79)
- Bills (66)
- Browns (57)
- Texans (49)
- Lions (43)
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Poor, poor Lions
They get edged out by the Texans, who didn’t exist until 2002. That means the Lions gave Houston a two year head start, and the Texans still caught them.
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 21, 2010 12:58 PM PST reply actions
Happy with 12th place?
I am. If you had some mythical “all-decade” playoff, the Seahawks would sneak in with the last wild card. And yes, it works out because you have 6 NFC teams and 6 AFC teams in the top 12.
AFC “all-decade” playoff teams: Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, Titans
NFC “all-decade” playoff teams: Eagles, Giants, Saints, Packers, Bucs, Seahawks
If anyone else wants to nerd-out and make up all decade teams for each of these franchises, we could pointlessly debate who would win this theoretical tourney. :)
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 21, 2010 1:02 PM PST reply actions
I guess I didn't realize how good the Giants have been
I wouldn’t have expected to see them at 6th. The Saints seem really high too.
Yeah
They made the playoffs in 05, 06, 07 and 08 and got them a Super Bowl win. Some bad moments along the way, but a decent team this decade nonetheless. I still think that team was over-hyped by the New York media machine…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Feb 21, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
They made it to the Super Bowl in 2000 too.
I thought their bad stretch was longer but it was really only 03 and 04.
Let's not pat ourselves on the back too hard
Don’t forget that for a good portion of the decade the NFC West was the laughing stock of the NFL – see how low the Rams and Cardinals place despite three SB appearances and a win between them.
Yeah, more of an "ability to succeed" rating than a performance rating.
But succeeding is all that matters.
by DrunkAmerican on Feb 21, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
But we still won those playoff games in 05-07.
That’s where most of our points came from. And the Rams were good when we won the West in 04. So yeah, we may not truly be the 12th best team of the decade talent wise but we still had some pretty darn good years.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Feb 21, 2010 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
crazy
The raiders were better than ’merica’s team the Cowboys.
by nickfru1 on Feb 22, 2010 5:01 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Interesting article
Although, I don’t like that the Colts come out above the Steelers. IMO playoffs trump all else.
Well done though
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
Numbers don't lie
…and the Steelers simply didn’t come close to matching Indy’s regular season success this decade.
I’ll be bitter about XL until I’m a frozen corpse floating in space, but that had nothing to do with the Colts edging those stupid Yinzer fuckwads out of 2nd place.
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
My point was
That I think the Steelers were more successful in the 00s because of their playoff success. IMO more weight should be placed accordingly. And the numbers can lie since the scoring system was created arbitrarily. Numbers based on opinion are not the same as numbers associated with actual occurrences.
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
by John Stephens on Feb 22, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
More weight should be placed on playoff success?
You mean, like making a Super Bowl victory worth fifty times as much as a regular-season victory?
No
My point is making a SB more valuable than only 5 times a 10 win season. Are you trying to argue that a 10 win season is about a fifth as valuable as a SB win? Or a third as valuable as a Conference Championship win?
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
by John Stephens on Feb 23, 2010 7:21 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not trying to argue anything except that this is all somewhat arbitrary.
He weighted playoff success. You’d like it done differently so your team would be ranked higher, and not without reason, but the regular season counts for something and the Colts were very successful in the regular season. With the scoring system he devised, that success neutralized Pittsburgh’s extra SB win.
Right
And that was my point…that the whole thing is arbitrary and using the term “numbers don’t lie” does not apply here.
The point of the NFL is to win the SB. Doing well in the regular season is just a means of getting to the playoffs. Therefore, IMO, more weight should be designated as such.
Let’s say the Pats were removed from the equation completely. It is between the Steelers and the Colts, who do you think is the team of the decade?
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
by John Stephens on Feb 23, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
You've got a point, but ranking them by SB wins would be boring as hell.
Pats 3, Steelers 2, Bucs/Colts/Giants/Ravens/Saints 1. Whee.
My opinion on which of those two would be team of the decade would be just that: opinion, and a biased one at that. Besides, say the Cards had beat Pittsburgh last year. Would Arizona be on the same level as the Colts? Each would have one SB win over the decade. The Eagles have been a consistent playoff contender, even though they didn’t win the big one. The Cardinals were last or second to last in their division for the first seven years of the decade; would a 9-7 year with a great postseason run make them a better team than Philly for the decade?
The Colts won less than ten games only once this decade, and the past seven seasons won twelve or more. Those numbers don’t lie. That’s dominance.
Boring as hell? No. Considering the point of playing NFL football is winning more SBs than the competition, and not garnering more regular season wins than anyone else.
If AZ had won a SB over us, than yes they would be better than the Eagles, because they accomplished the goal of NFL football. You could ask Pats fans if they would have rather been in the Giants shoes or their own in 2007. I’d bet they’d rather have hoisted another Lombardi than go 18-1. I can tell you as a fan of the 15-1 Steelers that that year was crap compared to the 9-7 team that toppled your team.
However, if the Cards were tied with the Colts in SBs, you’d have to take into account how many times the Colts were in the playoffs as a sort of “tie-breaker”.
Those regular season numbers do not lie. That’s dominance. However, neither do these numbers: 10-4 and 10-9, or 71.4% to 52.6%. That is the Steelers record/win% in the playoffs compared to the Colts respectively. I would say 70% winning in the playoffs is dominance (Pats were 77.8%).
Personally, I would think the better team in the decade is the team that did better when it mattered (i.e. not losing in the POs when you are the favorite). I will take the team that goes 9-7 but wins 70% of its playoff games over the 12-4 team that wins 50% of PO games.
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
by John Stephens on Feb 23, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
Hahaha
"When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, so that my critics can kiss my a**!"
-Bobby Knight
by John Stephens on Feb 22, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
Formula doesn't work
This is a fun idea, but there are at least two problems here.
Look at the Titans (146 pts) and Seahawks (143 pts).
81 wins versus 82 wins
5 seasons ending in playoffs for each team.
Titans: 2 playoff victories, Seahawks 4 playoff victories.
No way the Titans should come out ahead of the Seahawks. Its a bad formula.
Second, and more importantly, rating a team over “the decade” is silly. I know its popular for journalists to do this, but its silly. If you were to rate the Titans from 1999-2008, instead of 2000-2009 they would score much higher. Teams change completely over a ten year period, and each team changes significantly during different seasons. I think you need to judge each team during a 4 or 5 year period in which they built something, such as rating Mike Holmgren/Ted Thompson Seahawks of 2000-2004 versus the Tim Ruskell/Mike Holmgren Seahawks of 2005-2008. Or the Dolphins of 1971-1975 vs. the Steelers of 1971-79. Those can be compared. But there are no “decades” for football teams, there are seasons, periods of stability, and periods of rebuilding.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Yeah, it looks like Johnny needs to remove the +5 for Wildcard appearances.
It penalizes the better teams for earning a first round BYE.
No it doesn't, a division playoff game appearance gets you more points.
(note: there is no “multiplier” effect. The Saints get 50 bonus points for winning XLIV, NOT 115 points for reaching each playoff milestone in 2009-2010)
Playoff wins as a metric
Gives too importance to wild-card round wins. Just measuring the playoff round a team reaches is simpler and a better metric of how their season actually went.
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Too much importance.. jesus.
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
I think the formula works.
You missed a season for the Titans in your 81 vs 82 wins, if you look at the full 10 years you get 91 vs. 82. The one thing that this data does not show is the consistency within the decade. The Titans had 5 seasons with 10 wins or better while the Seahawks had only 3. They made the playoffs 5 times over the 10 years with the Seahawks managing 5 over 5 years.
I do agree the idea of the decade span is questionable as you have pointed out. If the formula was used to do rolling time periods of the suggested 4 or 5 years that would be a graph that would be interesting to see. Graphing 32 teams gets involved, but you would see the precipitous decline of the Raiders as compared to the other teams. That would make me smile.
It's just a discussion piece
Your criticism is misguided. Humans interpret by decade and so we will interpret teams by decade. Thus the All-Decade team. The best team of the first decade, probably the Patriots. See how that works? Best movies of the 20th century, best Albums of 1999, etc. The period of time is a criteria, it doesn’t define the work in question.
The system isn’t scientific. It’s a means to an end. It creates a list that interprets a team’s success over a significant grouping of time. Then we can discuss. It doesn’t claim to do anything more than that. Disagree? Fine. Argue the “Formula doesn’t work” because you disagree with a specific ranking? You are missing the point.
by John Morgan on Feb 22, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Looks like the Eagles are the most disappointing team of the decade.
Everyone in the top-7 won a Super Bowl, except for Philly at No. 4. That’s a lot of success without championship. Not the most pathetic of teams, but definitely the biggest disappointment.
Exactly
If I was an Eagles fan (thank god I’m not), I’d have to be happy with the consistent success, but also very frustrated by the inability to bring home a single Lombardi Trophy.
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Yup, NFC West is the worst Division of the decade.
Just for shits and gigs, I added up the totals by division.. (yes, I know realignment in 2002 makes this metric VERY flawed, but you still get the general idea)
1. AFC East (631)
2. NFC East (618)
3. AFC North (591)
4. NFC South (561)
5. AFC South (546)
6. AFC West (480)
7. NFC North (473)
8. NFC West (452)
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:32 PM PST reply actions
About the "formula"
I just pulled it out of my ass, but it seemed fair. It gives weight to both regular season performance and playoff success, and doesn’t fall victim to bias towards the most recent seasons (Oakland’s solid start of the decade still counts, for example).
Maybe I value Super Bowl wins too highly, but would you rather have 50 regular season wins or a single World Championship?
Yeah, I thought so. :)
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:37 PM PST reply actions
In other news
I’m working on a similar system to rank all 86 Seahawks wins over the 00s… Saving that one for the ol’ home blog though… Stay tuned!
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Feb 22, 2010 12:51 PM PST reply actions
I think you got it spang-on.
The Patriots were most consistent both in the regular season and playoffs (even though they’ve tailed off a bit after Brady’s injury). The Colts have been regular season studs but with meager postseason success. The Steelers have done well in the postseason, but typically back their way in or underachieve the next year.
Everything beyond the top 3 can be separated into groups, the component teams can pretty much be ranked in whatever order depending on what mood you’re in. 4-12 were the perennial playoff teams that occasionally rose above their usual performance; 13-17 were the teams that normally had to fight for a playoff spot and sometimes got one; 18-24 were teams that had one or two good years but struggled the rest of the time, 25-28 were teams that weren’t very successful but still avoided embarrassing themselves most of the time, and 29-32 were the doormats of the decade. (Granted, Houston is on the upswing now, but let’s not forget the David Carr era.)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Peyton Manning’s face on all 32 NFL logos
- Todd Haley could be in for a bumpy ride in Pittsburgh
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
