Franchise Power Rankings

[TxHeat]

This is an interesting exercise and sure to fuel much debate. Have at it.

The all-time NFL power rankings - CBSSports.com

 

[The Derski]

Vikings #9
Packers #5

 

[cowboys5xsbs]

Cowboys #1 go figure

 

[tducey]

Interesting, Colts at #11 is good to see.

 

[HammerDown]

I don't even look at stuff like this anymore. It's 100% arbitrary.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Vikings #9
Packers #5

It's only for the Super Bowl era. Otherwise I think Green Bay would be #1.

 

[ducky]

I don't even look at stuff like this anymore. It's 100% arbitrary.

Arbitrary? But they put numbers to it! It can't be arbitrary. Now it's a fact! Never you mind that the numbers assigned were completely arbitrary.

 

[Rock Strongo]

lol

a team with an active QB/coach with 4 rings in 6 appearances...6th.

hammers right, not worth paying attention to.

 

[ducky]

#9 for my Vikes is way too high IMO simply because I don't remember a game played before 1983 (or whenever Tony D ran 99.5 yards for a TD against us....my first football memory...and as typical of a modern Viking fan it is not a good one).

 

[gowazzu02]

Cowboys #1 go figure

Man those JJ teams are old now. Atleast you'll always have them tho!

 

[packfancjh]

if it's all time it should include all championship wins not just Super Bowls. The Pack and Bears lose big time numbers because of that. Not sure how they figured the HOF numbers either. Neither the Pack or Bears number match up with how many players are in the hall and those are the only two I checked for that. Flawed

 

[BHF]

if it's all time it should include all championship wins not just Super Bowls. The Pack and Bears lose big time numbers because of that. Not sure how they figured the HOF numbers either. Neither the Pack or Bears number match up with how many players are in the hall and those are the only two I checked for that. Flawed

It's not. The article says from jump that it's limited to the SB era.

Not a horrible list, I guess. If I were to do it I would give playoff wins some weight, and maybe work out a metric to reward more wining seasons than losing.

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

Vikings #9
Packers #5

 

[packfancjh]

It's not. The article says from jump that it's limited to the SB era.

Not a horrible list, I guess. If I were to do it I would give playoff wins some weight, and maybe work out a metric to reward more wining seasons than losing.

lol I read the link title and skipped right by the header that says in SB era once you open it. Thanks for the heads up

 

[LionsWhyMe]

Cowboys #1 go figure

Yeah, no kidding... it's the closest Romo will get to being #1.

 

[Battlelyon]

Cowboys #1 go figure

You got that going for you, which is nice.

 

[jakedog56]

You got that going for you, which is nice.

Caddyshack reference!

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

See random list with random stats assigned and trying to rank teams, /ignore.

 

[PDay8810]

Yeah, no kidding... it's the closest Romo will get to being #1.

could be worse...could be Stafford in big D

 

[JMR]

The only real value of an exercise like this: a good pick-me-up for fans of teams that were on top in generations past but no longer experiencing that sort of success.