CBS Sports - Ultimate Power Rankings: Bring on the hate mail

[LombardiChick]

Hat tip goes to SwizzleBizzle on the ESPN Packer board:

Ultimate Power Rankings: Bring on the hate mail

For those of you who pick me apart each week for my CBSSports.com Power Rankings, I give you the chance for your biggest rip moments ever:

The Ultimate Power Rankings.

What, you say? Here's the deal. We've decided to rank the NFL's teams 1-32 based on how they stack up as a franchise -- both now and in history.

There are several factors that I used. Among them are winning over the years -- especially in the Super Bowl era -- ownership, fan base, tradition and overall leadership of the franchise in its current state.

This is not a scientific study, but one based on some of those criteria and my opinion.

Guess where he has the Packers.

 

[Mr. StyleZ]

His top 5 are also my top 5.. Packers, Bears, Steelers, Giants, and Cowboys. I thought Oakland may be a tad low, and the Browns too low, but not much else to complain about..

 

[GWheels]

I'd take out the Bears and Cowboys and replace them with the Saints and Pats.

 

[Eis Bowl]

Ehh. I guess I could agree with the rankings pretty much. I don't know about the Steelers being "America's Team" though.

 

[JBlood]

I like no. 1--obviously. The Bears are no. 2 (even though their fans are no. 31).

There's no way no. 32 belongs to anyone except your Minnesota Vikings. 0 for 50 deserves its rightful place in history.

 

[Green_Bay_Packers]

Vikings too high!

 

[BigBayBlues]

No arguments here from me....ok....just one....The Patriots should not be ahead of the 49ers if this is an "all-time" rankings list. Yea the Patiots have had more recent success, but I definitely think the 9ers are a more storied franchise.

Edit: Ok just looked further down the list. Vikings above a franchise like the Bills?!?!

 

[IluvGB]

Vikings too high!

I agree...waaaaaay too high!!!

 

[IluvGB]

Is SwizzleBizzle aka Pete Prisco??

Or did he/she a comment in the comment section?? ( I stopped looking for the name at page 3!)

 

[lambeaulambo]

wait a minute - the ravens and buccaneers both won a super bowl and they are too low as well. they should be with the saints. bills and vikes should be way down there.

As far as taking out Dallas and Chicago?? There is NO WAY you replace them w NE and NO. The bears have too many titles, and the cowboys WERE a force in the 70's and 90's.



the ultimate rankings list grid on the left side of the page is exactly how they should be ordered. anyone without goes to the bottom.

 

[Powarun]

Lions, Browns, and Bills are too low. Patriots, Vikings, and Eagles are too high.

ONly one I think I have to defend is the Patriots, they may be a force of reckoning now, but they also have a few SB losses.

 

[TheSnowPlow]

6. New England Patriots

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[JJP41]

The Pats above the Niners???

What are they smoking at CBS?

I want some of that stuff.

 

[Murgen]

The ***** heads ahead of teams that won Championships!! Huh?

 

[fettpett]

Lions are ranked way to low...even if they haven't won a Championship since 1957, they have still won more than the Vikqueens have

 

[LombardiChick]

Is SwizzleBizzle aka Pete Prisco??

Or did he/she a comment in the comment section?? ( I stopped looking for the name at page 3!)

Oh! Sorry. SwizzleBizzle is just a guy who posts on the ESPN board, and that's where I found this...didn't want to take credit for finding it without him.

 

[GWheels]

wait a minute - the ravens and buccaneers both won a super bowl and they are too low as well. they should be with the saints. bills and vikes should be way down there.

As far as taking out Dallas and Chicago?? There is NO WAY you replace them w NE and NO. The bears have too many titles, and the cowboys WERE a force in the 70's and 90's.



the ultimate rankings list grid on the left side of the page is exactly how they should be ordered. anyone without goes to the bottom.

I misread the thread as all time rankings. No I wouldn't take the Bears and Cowboys out.

 

[LombardiChick]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I think a relatively young franchise coming in at sixth out of thirty-two is pretty darned good. :hug:

 

[AmishMafia]

The top half is fine. It gets difficult to figure out who sucks the most for the bottom half.

Biggest issue is probably the Raiders. They suck now, but they have a very loyal fan base and were dominant a few times.

 

[LombardiChick]

Ehh. I guess I could agree with the rankings pretty much. I don't know about the Steelers being "America's Team" though.

Yeah, that's absurd. I shudder when I read stuff like that. I'm an American, and people like this don't get to pick my team for me.

 

[fettpett]

screw that, ESPN had a Sports Nations poll, Packers won "America's Team" vote by like 5% over the Steelers and Cowfails

 

[greenandgold]

Vikings too high!

Now, now. The BiQueens DID get to 4 Superbowls, now.

Of course their trophy case still has zero Lomabardis. :viksux:

 

[Raptorman]

Ok, I'm not going to say who is to high or to low. But I would like to point out a few things about his list. First. He uses all the NFL championships up until 1965 and then switches to the Super Bowl, which may be fine, but it takes away the Championships away from the AFL teams from 1960 - 1965 while counting the Championships of the teams that were in the NFL. I think that's a bit unfair to those teams. At the same time he is using the win - loss records of those teams in his win - loss total. So essentially he's saying I'll use you win/loss totals from your league, the AFL, but screw your championships, they don't count.

As well as teams that have been to more than one Super Bowl and lost are more likely to be lower on the list than those that have only been once. San Diego has been to the Super Bowl once and lost, has a worse win/loss record than the Vikings, and only slightly better than the Bills win/loss record yet are ranked much higher. Teams also are rated higher due to what have you done lately. New England's w/l record prior to Parcells taking over is a wonderful .455. Since than it's .642. So for their first 32 years they sucked. Same for the Jets, since 1960 they have put back to back winning seasons together exactly 6 times. But since they won the Super Bowl once they have the higher ranking. And San Diego, they didn't even make it above the .500 win mark until 2009.

I'm sure the only people happy with the list are Packer fans.

 

[fettpett]

no, frankly the list is BS...It should take all Championships into account. Browns have 8 from both the NFL and AAFL and they are at the bottom..The Lions are at the very bottom and they have won Championships...it's a stupid list

 

[Bogart]

Couldn't help but laugh seeing the 49ers not in the Top 5 LOL