Patriots Set To Join Elite Historical Teams

[Ravenseye]

The rankings are based on Superbowl appearances, then winning percentage, then point differential. An argument could be made that winning percentage should (aside from one appearance teams) determine ranking. If this were the case, the Denver Broncos who made 6 Superbowl trips, yet managed only 2 victories, would be ranked lower than the Kansas City Chiefs who made 2 appearances, winning one and losing the other. For this reason the chart puts precidence on actually reaching the big game ahead of winning percentage.

No matter what happens in this Superbowl both teams are going up in the rankings. A second trip to the Superbowl will bring the Eagles, even if they lose, to 17th place from 24th. If they win, the highest they could move up to is 14th all time.

The Patriots whether they win or lose makes less of a difference. Should they win, they'd move from 9th place all-time to 7th, passing Green Bay and Miami. Should they lose the game, they'd move up to at least 8th place, and depending on the point differential possibly move up to 7th as well.



To whet the appetites of the Patriots fans even more, should the Patriots win the superbowl this year. And then repeat next year, as they are losing no major free agents, the team should be intact. Not only would they solidify their claim on a dynasty, but their ranking for all-time teams would move up to second place, behind the Cowboys.

[Guaranteed]

1. Uhhh...I understand the point he's making with the

Chiefs, but the Niners should be ahead of the Broncos.

Sorry.

ESPECIALLY after that nasty 55-10 drubbing we gave them in '89.

LOL and look at the points for/against for the Broncos. Give me a break.

In all honesty, this probably should be ranked by points for and against.

[Ravenseye]

4. You're Right

It is still flawed. I'm redoing it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Well now I know why the 9'ers and Steelers rank as 1 and 2 in my mind

The won the most Superbowls against the fewest SB losses.
Screw the point totals. I say that is (close to) meaningless.

[sniffa]

3. my appetite is whet

i'm not sure if/why i care, since i'm just enjoying this speciaL run. :D

[Ravenseye]

5. Savor It.

It'll keep your heart warm in the future at some point.

[sniffa]

7. Like, 2 decades or so Later?

i can jab at whatever team is currentLy ahead and boast of how great the pats were a 1/4 century ago?

[Ravenseye]

9. If you want.

Some people do that, but it's more like when in 10-15 years if they suck you'll have lots of fond memories which will warm the cockles of your heart even during a losing season. I just wanted to say cockles.

[Ravenseye]

6. Rankings Redone

Ok I've redone the rankings. I tried playing with the numbers. I've awarded 3 points for a superbowl win, and 1 point for a superbowl loss. Tiebreaker is wins, appearances, and then point differential. You'll notice that Denver has now moved down to seventh place all time because of their poor record. The Patriots with a win move up from 9th to 6th place all-time, and the Eagles move up from 24th to 21st. As before if the Patriots would win 2 in a row, including this one, they'd then have 14 points and move into 3rd place behind the Cowboys and 49ers.

[DrGonzoLives]

8. NO WAY the Broncos should be ahead of SF and Pittsburgh

That's just crazy talk.

[Ravenseye]

10. You're Right

Thats why I redid the rankings. See above post.

[Poiuyt]

11. These rankings ignore history

As you said, they are based on Superbowl appearances. The NFL was in existence for a long time before the Superbowl started and there were a lot of great dynasties throughout that period. We shouldn't ignore the great Packer and Bear teams from that time.

Since we're talking about dynasties, maybe we should be talking about which team had the most championships (not just Superbowl) over a given time span, say 10 years. That would eliminate flash in the pan teams and only the true dynasties would emerge. A dynasty has to dominate (or be close to dominating) for a long enough period of time. It wouldn't have to be a decade, like the 60's or 70's. It could be from 1946-1956. It would be an interesting study.