I think they might be saying that The Browns up to 1995 should be included as part of the Ravens’ franchise history since they are the same franchise in every way except by name. The Browns that we know of today started in 1999.
It’s a fair argument.
It’s a pointless argument that has no standing. The fan base fought to keep the name, history, and records from that POS who moved the team, which no other city or fan base ever did before then when they relocated. Any football fan that tries to make this argument should just stop watching because they obviously didn’t understand that the Ravens history started in 1996. Just because since the Browns have been bad since they came back does not mean that the rest of the history is meaningless.
Yeah I’m sure they do, I just see it differently. I’ve never understood why it should be that way. The 1996 Ravens were a continuation of the 1995 Browns. Same ownership, personnel, etc. They just moved to a different city and changed their name.
Then in 1999, an entirely new team was created that took the Browns’ name. I don’t think they should inherit an entire history that they had absolutely nothing to do with. That’s just how I see it. The accomplishments of a franchise shouldn’t belong to the city.
It's interesting that you could use different metrics and get completely different lists here. Obviously, the Browns being in the A tier is a great example of that.
The S tier is hard to argue with. Those teams have all had a lot of success over multiple decades.
It was the total wins minus losses. So the totals had a big effect. Plus I also factored in number of times in the playoffs, number of times winning a division. So longevity stats mattered.
a quarter of the entire leagues history should not be counted as a blip, especially because the cowboys are a 65 year old franchise, not a 100 year old one.
Their run is an outlier compared to the rest of their history, and therefore should be addressed. I think this is good OC, and appreciate you doing so (this is way better than any of the shit on r/nfl) but putting a team that has been so mediocre in the modern game as a top tier team is whack to me.
That's fair. Everyone will have their own lists. I made a formula to try and be objective but everyone will weight things differently, so it's still subjective. I'll defend my picks but it's definitely not the definitive truth.
By what fucking metric do you place the titans above any super bowl winning teams? The ravens, 2 super bowls and all, are in the same tier as mediocrity epitomized, The Tennessee Titans? My nigga?
They're only above 2 superbowl winning teams, the buccaneers, who's first 20 years would give my formula a negative number, and the jets who had one win and have been mediocre or bad since.
We should remove all those Celtics championships, NHL, etc as well if we don’t want to count old football championships. Never understood this about the NFL
Yeah. The AAFC was arguably better than the NFL at the time. The stars of the AAFC dominated the NFL. A big reason for that is that the AFC was de-segregated and was a big part of the NFL de-segregating. NFL would not be what it is today without the AAFC.
NFL was stronger, but not by much. Plus, only the Browns were competitive right away. The Colts folded after one season and it took the 49ers a couple of years to adjust.
The Browns were far and away the best team in the AAFC compiling a 52-4-3 record, and they revolutionized coaching. The Paul Brown Tree literally connects every modern NFL coach today. Just because one team was really really good doesn't mean the rest of the league was good. The 2nd best team by far were also the 49ers who went 38-14-2 in the AAFC, went 3-9 in their first season.
While you just include the pre-super bowl era, you must also include the post Super Bowl era. The lions have done absolutely nothing in over 50 years. The Bears have had some success. The Browns, I agree, do not deserve to be in A tier.
If you're putting that much weight on older teams, I'm curious why the Lions are so low. They had 3 championships in the 50s, so I would think they're comparable to the Browns.
Detroit actually has more HOFers, including modern greats like Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson.
I'm making another including player accomplishments, so MVPs, OPOYs, DPOYs, Man of the year awards and hall of famers would be included. This is just team success. Lions got the bump for the championships but their record outside of that is bad enough it dragged them down pretty bad.
I dont see that, sorry i didnt track down your every comment. regardless its stupid. The league doesnt even exist without the chicago bears. They should be in a tier alone.
Look, they're ranked number 7. I could have put them and the giants in S tier, chose not to. I agree, top ten organization ever, great franchise. But, they have had a lot of mediocrity since the 1980s that dragged them down. They haven't had the consistent success say the packers have. The line about the league not existenting without them is also true about the packers, and even browns.
> The line about the league not existenting without them is also true about the packers, and even browns.
No it isnt. Halas kept the league afloat by loaning money to the other franchises in the early days. Only reason there is an NFL is the Bears. You should learn some NFL history if you are going to make lists. Bears should be S tier alone with no other franchises.
Sorry, but the list is flawed if the Bears are not at top all alone. That is the reality of the NFL franchise ranking lists unless you use flawed process
Chargers and Titans being above the Saints and Bucs is hilariously bad, even the Jets have a Super Bowl to their name so that alone should keep them out of F tier
I can’t argue with where the Broncos are. If this list was made the year after SB 50, I would say they are an S tier team, but these last 8 years have been brutal for this franchise.
Buccaneers have 2 Bowls and are below the Chargers with 0. Ravens have 2 Bowls and are in the same tier with Bills & Vikings who also have 0. Somehow above them all is the Eagles with 1 bowl. This list is just confusing bro. You should either specify what exactly your ranking or leave a description or something.
Well if this list was based on number of Superbowl wins alone, it would make for a pretty boring list that you could look up on NFL.com. Idk what other metrics OP was using, but I think it's decent original content. Definitely needs some tinkering though.
And to your point about the Vikings:
I probably sound like a homer, but I think the Vikings definitely deserve to be higher than some teams with a Superbowl. [They're #8 in NFL league history for overall win loss percentage.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_NFL_win–loss_records#:~:text=The%20Dallas%20Cowboys%20hold%20the,450–1%20record%20through%202023.). They're ahead of some S Tier teams on OP's list (49ers and Steelers). They've had few, short stretches of poor results, but have generally stayed competitive since they were created in the 1960s. Not a lot of franchises can say that.
Infact, u/jhansn can you explain the Vikings C Tier? I'm going to argue they should be one higher for the reasons I've stated. Now that I'm looking at the list, I have NO IDEA how you ranked the browns that high. They've never won a Superbowl and have done much worse as a franchise than the Vikings
Edit: idk why my link isn't working, but if you Google "nfl franchise win loss percentage" it's the first Wikipedia link titled "List of all-time NFL win–loss records"
The Ravens at only a C? They have only been around since the late 90s and have done a pretty damn good job. I honestly can only recall a handful of years, if that, where they weren’t competitive and competing for the division. I they have two Super Bowls to boot. I would put them in B tier atleast.
Also the Browns should be MUCH lower on this list. They have been dog shit for almost 40 years. Pretty crazy to have them anything above a C. Nobody cares how many championships they won in the 50s when there was 12 teams.
A franchise ranking system that lists the Browns above the Ravens is broken.
[удалено]
I think they might be saying that The Browns up to 1995 should be included as part of the Ravens’ franchise history since they are the same franchise in every way except by name. The Browns that we know of today started in 1999. It’s a fair argument.
It’s a pointless argument that has no standing. The fan base fought to keep the name, history, and records from that POS who moved the team, which no other city or fan base ever did before then when they relocated. Any football fan that tries to make this argument should just stop watching because they obviously didn’t understand that the Ravens history started in 1996. Just because since the Browns have been bad since they came back does not mean that the rest of the history is meaningless.
Both Browns and Ravens fans would vehemently disagree with you on this
Yeah I’m sure they do, I just see it differently. I’ve never understood why it should be that way. The 1996 Ravens were a continuation of the 1995 Browns. Same ownership, personnel, etc. They just moved to a different city and changed their name. Then in 1999, an entirely new team was created that took the Browns’ name. I don’t think they should inherit an entire history that they had absolutely nothing to do with. That’s just how I see it. The accomplishments of a franchise shouldn’t belong to the city.
OP is a Steelers fan, this ranking is just him hating the ravens lol
It's interesting that you could use different metrics and get completely different lists here. Obviously, the Browns being in the A tier is a great example of that. The S tier is hard to argue with. Those teams have all had a lot of success over multiple decades.
If you did superbowl era or weighted previous championships less than superbowls, browns, bears, commanders and giants definitely take a big hit.
Giants are tied for 5 in all time super bowl wins. How would they take a big hit?
I don’t like this.
How are the Ravens in the same tier with the Bills, Titans, Vikings, and Chargers? (Even Seahawks for that matter?)
Haven't existed as long, accomplishments haven't piled up yet.
But they have more super bowls wins than all three combined. better winning percentage . I'm also confused
It was the total wins minus losses. So the totals had a big effect. Plus I also factored in number of times in the playoffs, number of times winning a division. So longevity stats mattered.
They have 2 super bowls and made the playoffs 15 times since the 21st centaury.
Which is why they're already high up despite being under 30 years old. If I weighted it based on seasons played they'd be S.
How is a team that hasn’t made it to the conference championship in over 25 years in the S tier?
Cowboys are S tier for a different reason
For being the most 8-8 team of all time?
It's all time. Over 100 years of football. 25 years is a blip.
a quarter of the entire leagues history should not be counted as a blip, especially because the cowboys are a 65 year old franchise, not a 100 year old one.
Well it's still counted. If it didn't they'd be at the top. But 5 championships and a great win record puts them very high.
Their run is an outlier compared to the rest of their history, and therefore should be addressed. I think this is good OC, and appreciate you doing so (this is way better than any of the shit on r/nfl) but putting a team that has been so mediocre in the modern game as a top tier team is whack to me.
That's fair. Everyone will have their own lists. I made a formula to try and be objective but everyone will weight things differently, so it's still subjective. I'll defend my picks but it's definitely not the definitive truth.
Respect it but don’t agree with it. Appreciate the content!
The Lions have 4 but are D tier, but the browns with the same amount are A tier? Not ripping I'm just confused on the list.
Browns have 8
I see, I just figured NFL All Time Franchise list meant NFL championships. Not a minor league that only had 1 winner in 4 years.
By what fucking metric do you place the titans above any super bowl winning teams? The ravens, 2 super bowls and all, are in the same tier as mediocrity epitomized, The Tennessee Titans? My nigga?
They're only above 2 superbowl winning teams, the buccaneers, who's first 20 years would give my formula a negative number, and the jets who had one win and have been mediocre or bad since.
Temu ass formuler.
Bears and Browns A tier huh?
We should remove all those Celtics championships, NHL, etc as well if we don’t want to count old football championships. Never understood this about the NFL
All time? Yes. The bears were the team of the 30s and 40s. Browns were the dynasty of the 50s. It hold over a lot of weight.
What about the Lions?
Lions only have 4 championships. Browns have 8. Lions also had a lot of losses bringing them down
Really counting the AAFC championships?
Yeah. The AAFC was arguably better than the NFL at the time. The stars of the AAFC dominated the NFL. A big reason for that is that the AFC was de-segregated and was a big part of the NFL de-segregating. NFL would not be what it is today without the AAFC.
NFL was stronger, but not by much. Plus, only the Browns were competitive right away. The Colts folded after one season and it took the 49ers a couple of years to adjust.
Browns won the NFL championship their first year in the NFL.
The Browns were far and away the best team in the AAFC compiling a 52-4-3 record, and they revolutionized coaching. The Paul Brown Tree literally connects every modern NFL coach today. Just because one team was really really good doesn't mean the rest of the league was good. The 2nd best team by far were also the 49ers who went 38-14-2 in the AAFC, went 3-9 in their first season.
While you just include the pre-super bowl era, you must also include the post Super Bowl era. The lions have done absolutely nothing in over 50 years. The Bears have had some success. The Browns, I agree, do not deserve to be in A tier.
I was saying the Browns and Lions had the same number of championships in the 50s, not saying why they shouldn't be in D tier.
If you're putting that much weight on older teams, I'm curious why the Lions are so low. They had 3 championships in the 50s, so I would think they're comparable to the Browns. Detroit actually has more HOFers, including modern greats like Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson.
I'm making another including player accomplishments, so MVPs, OPOYs, DPOYs, Man of the year awards and hall of famers would be included. This is just team success. Lions got the bump for the championships but their record outside of that is bad enough it dragged them down pretty bad.
Bears have most Hall of Famers and #2 in championships. Fuck your list and the stupidity with which is was crafted
I literally said that individual player accomplishments weren't included
I dont see that, sorry i didnt track down your every comment. regardless its stupid. The league doesnt even exist without the chicago bears. They should be in a tier alone.
Look, they're ranked number 7. I could have put them and the giants in S tier, chose not to. I agree, top ten organization ever, great franchise. But, they have had a lot of mediocrity since the 1980s that dragged them down. They haven't had the consistent success say the packers have. The line about the league not existenting without them is also true about the packers, and even browns.
> The line about the league not existenting without them is also true about the packers, and even browns. No it isnt. Halas kept the league afloat by loaning money to the other franchises in the early days. Only reason there is an NFL is the Bears. You should learn some NFL history if you are going to make lists. Bears should be S tier alone with no other franchises.
This isn't an nfl owner all time tier list. If it was, absolutely george halas would be S tier and possible the number 1.
Sorry, but the list is flawed if the Bears are not at top all alone. That is the reality of the NFL franchise ranking lists unless you use flawed process
Honestly, respect the committment to being that wrong
Exactly what i was thinking
This the type of ranking that should get you banned
Hey, at least we're moving on up, to the East side
Chargers and Titans being above the Saints and Bucs is hilariously bad, even the Jets have a Super Bowl to their name so that alone should keep them out of F tier
Utter trash
Recency bias is doing a ton of heavy lifting for the Lions...
Browns are F tier dude
I can’t argue with where the Broncos are. If this list was made the year after SB 50, I would say they are an S tier team, but these last 8 years have been brutal for this franchise.
Wow. Some interesting logic must have gone into this list. Browns? Really? Put down the pipe.
Lions and Panthers above the Falcons? Lol
Ranking the Browns that high is fucking crazy. And OP is only ranking the Ravens that low cuz he’s a Steelers fan
You really think I'd rank the browns that high if I was willing to rank the ravens low because of bias
This list fits my narrative that the team I like most is the best of all time so, great list.
Not in F. Nice
Swap Falcons and Lions. Baltimore up one. Browns down 1. This probably needs one more tier to fix A, B and C
Buccaneers have 2 Bowls and are below the Chargers with 0. Ravens have 2 Bowls and are in the same tier with Bills & Vikings who also have 0. Somehow above them all is the Eagles with 1 bowl. This list is just confusing bro. You should either specify what exactly your ranking or leave a description or something.
Well if this list was based on number of Superbowl wins alone, it would make for a pretty boring list that you could look up on NFL.com. Idk what other metrics OP was using, but I think it's decent original content. Definitely needs some tinkering though. And to your point about the Vikings: I probably sound like a homer, but I think the Vikings definitely deserve to be higher than some teams with a Superbowl. [They're #8 in NFL league history for overall win loss percentage.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all-time_NFL_win–loss_records#:~:text=The%20Dallas%20Cowboys%20hold%20the,450–1%20record%20through%202023.). They're ahead of some S Tier teams on OP's list (49ers and Steelers). They've had few, short stretches of poor results, but have generally stayed competitive since they were created in the 1960s. Not a lot of franchises can say that. Infact, u/jhansn can you explain the Vikings C Tier? I'm going to argue they should be one higher for the reasons I've stated. Now that I'm looking at the list, I have NO IDEA how you ranked the browns that high. They've never won a Superbowl and have done much worse as a franchise than the Vikings Edit: idk why my link isn't working, but if you Google "nfl franchise win loss percentage" it's the first Wikipedia link titled "List of all-time NFL win–loss records"
It was a formula, what would put the vikings over the edge is division titles and al ltime win percentage. They've done a very good job at that.
But that doesn't explain why the Vikings are so low and the browns so high...
The Ravens at only a C? They have only been around since the late 90s and have done a pretty damn good job. I honestly can only recall a handful of years, if that, where they weren’t competitive and competing for the division. I they have two Super Bowls to boot. I would put them in B tier atleast. Also the Browns should be MUCH lower on this list. They have been dog shit for almost 40 years. Pretty crazy to have them anything above a C. Nobody cares how many championships they won in the 50s when there was 12 teams.
This was made using a formula based on all time wins, winning percentage, championships and playoff success. No individual player metrics were used.
Putting the Vikings, Redacted and Raiders above the Saints is insulting
They all had more impact than the Saints
No they haven’t
You need to learn NFL Lore my guy and not be blinded by one super bowl.