Who is going to be the Team of 2010's Decade?

[Berkeley_Blues]

Anyone but The Seahacks. The Seahacks have been losers from the beginning. They are one and done for sure.

The Seahacks are like a pathetic creature that crawls out into the light once in a lifetime to mate but then quickly disappears back down into a filthy hole for eternity.

Fuck all Seahacks!!!

 

[darken65]

How many wins do you consider dominating?? The probability is that at least one team will have at least 2 championships every decade.

I haven't seen a team dominating the NFL yet this decade but I do see your point. I wonder if we will ever see a 3 time SB wiiner in a decade again.

 

[darken65]

Team of the Decade just means you were considered the best team of that decade. It doesn't mean you had to completely dominate it compared to other teams so it could have a team that only wins 1 Super Bowl but say makes the playoffs 8 of the 10 years. Doesn't scream dynasty but it could be the best.


I would agree that no team will completely own a decade again. The rookie wage scale really helps especially the bottom feeding teams in that they are no longer locked into a franchise killing contract with an unproven rookie. It used to be that those kind of things could keep about half the franchises as a bottom feeder for years but now a team can rise very quickly in just 1-2 years with very little problem.

If that is what the terms means then that might be subject to much debate ,for example, this would lead me to conclude that the 9ers are the best team so far in this decade. 3 NFCC games and a SB appearance so far.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Anyone but The Seahacks. The Seahacks have been losers from the beginning. They are one and done for sure.

The Seahacks are like a pathetic creature that crawls out into the light once in a lifetime to mate but then quickly disappears back down into a filthy hole for eternity.

Fuck all Seahacks!!!

Dont hold back, tell us how you feel

 

[LoftonPack80]

You count championships and not the season that got them there? Um, I couldn't disagree more if JDM had said it.

Seattle is the 2013 league champions. There is no debate on that what so ever. You don't reach the SB without that season. We have not played the 2014 season so calling them the 2014 champs would be insane.

There are 6 seasons left in which to have a repeat winner.

You will enjoy the game here. Fans aren't like in Phily or anything. Won't need protection or a tetanus shot before coming here. Just bring ear plugs. You will need them.

Have to agree here. They are the 2013 Champs. When you talk about great teams you don't say the 86 Bears...you say the 85 Bears. Get what I'm saying?

This decade began with the 2010 season....so we have had the Packers, Giants, Ravens and Seahawks all win so far in this decade.

 

[Uhsplit]

Anyone but The Seahacks. The Seahacks have been losers from the beginning. They are one and done for sure.

The Seahacks are like a pathetic creature that crawls out into the light once in a lifetime to mate but then quickly disappears back down into a filthy hole for eternity.

Fuck all Seahacks!!!

My guess is one of your problem's stems from Seattle beating SF in all time head to head competition.
I am merely curious, but which loss troubles you the most...42-13, 29-3, or the devastating loss in last year's NFCCG?
Having the team you root for get manhandled by a bunch of losers must be giving you a severe case of the Blues.
Have a great day.

 

[WizardHawk]

Anyone but The Seahacks. The Seahacks have been losers from the beginning. They are one and done for sure.

The Seahacks are like a pathetic creature that crawls out into the light once in a lifetime to mate but then quickly disappears back down into a filthy hole for eternity.

Fuck all Seahacks!!!

Well if anyone is an expert about hack football teams, it's a Boise State fan. Nice to see that your team is crawling back under the rock from whence they came.

It's no wonder you have a huge case of

Over all things Seattle.

UW drove your program back into the dirt and then raped your team taking your entire coaching staff and the Seahawks have been pounding your 9'er team into the ground and won it all after Sherman embarrassed your second rate QB.

Let it all out BB. I know it helps ease your pain.

Note that NO ONE is talking about SC dominance here. Well except for your delusional fans of course.

 

[iowajerms]

As much as I hate to say it, the Seahawks are front runners IMO. They are young, they have a coach who is not afraid to try me things,

49ers would be next. Harbaugh has that team's foundation very strong. Kaep should be around for a while.

I believe the Packers have a few players they need that they could get this title.

Colts are built very strong and can be more successful than Manning's Colts.

Chief could be a one-hit wonder or a new team to watch.

Texans had a bad year, but they could be a surprise.

 

[cdumler7]

If that is what the terms means then that might be subject to much debate ,for example, this would lead me to conclude that the 9ers are the best team so far in this decade. 3 NFCC games and a SB appearance so far.

What else could it mean? I mean every decade so far has had a team called the team of the decade because they were the best of that decade. Now some were more dominant than others obviously but every decade will have one team that is considered better than the rest. Now yes we are getting to a point in the NFL where it might get harder and harder to distinguish which team that was. It honestly could be a team that doesn't win a Super Bowl say the 49ers continue like they are getting very close every year but not winning one while all the others are hit and miss yet maybe put everything together one year like what we saw with the Ravens. I don't think many would say they were the best team in the NFL that season. They happened to get hot at the right time and good for them but for a majority of the season they were maybe the 10th best team in the league. Rarely does the best team throughout the season then go and win the Super Bowl. Seattle was the exception this last year.

Now if I was giving the award to anybody at this point I would give it to Green Bay. They have a Super Bowl victory while also making the playoffs every year. They haven't been quite to as many big games as San Fran but they do have the Super Bowl title which at this point trumps that of San Fran.

 

[darken65]

What else could it mean? I mean every decade so far has had a team called the team of the decade because they were the best of that decade. Now some were more dominant than others obviously but every decade will have one team that is considered better than the rest. Now yes we are getting to a point in the NFL where it might get harder and harder to distinguish which team that was. It honestly could be a team that doesn't win a Super Bowl say the 49ers continue like they are getting very close every year but not winning one while all the others are hit and miss yet maybe put everything together one year like what we saw with the Ravens. I don't think many would say they were the best team in the NFL that season. They happened to get hot at the right time and good for them but for a majority of the season they were maybe the 10th best team in the league. Rarely does the best team throughout the season then go and win the Super Bowl. Seattle was the exception this last year.

Now if I was giving the award to anybody at this point I would give it to Green Bay. They have a Super Bowl victory while also making the playoffs every year. They haven't been quite to as many big games as San Fran but they do have the Super Bowl title which at this point trumps that of San Fran.

For five decades the NFL has had a team that has won at least 3 championships. This, IMO ,is what a 'Team of the Decade' would mean. That being said I would agree that the Packers have had a good run so far. I counted them out due to the fact they haven't been back to the NFCC since winning the SB.

 

[cdumler7]

Well I guess we shall see if it happens again. I highly doubt it with how the NFL is set up these days but we might have to settle for a 2 Super Bowl winner team that stays consistent in all of the other years. If you look at the last 10 years we have had 8 different winners with 2 repeaters in the Giants and Steelers. I don't think the NFL has had so much turnover from one year to the next as it does right now at least in playoff teams. Yes you have the few that are usuals but for the most part every year seems to bring about quite a bit of change. Last year alone in the NFC we saw 3 new teams make the playoffs while 2 new ones in the AFC so 5 of the 12 teams being new playoff contenders. As much as we keep thinking the teams who are the top will stay at the top from one year to the next it just doesn't seem to do that as often as one would think.


All of that to say we might have to start thinking about changing our definition of "Team of the decade." You just don't have dynasties anymore in the NFL. New England was the last and even though they have had a guy considered a top-5 quarterback of all-time for the last 15 or so years they haven't won a Super Bowl in 10 years now. It literally takes a team full of all-stars that can all be healthy at the right time and a few lucky bounces to go a team's way to win it anymore.

 

[darken65]

Well I guess we shall see if it happens again. I highly doubt it with how the NFL is set up these days but we might have to settle for a 2 Super Bowl winner team that stays consistent in all of the other years. If you look at the last 10 years we have had 8 different winners with 2 repeaters in the Giants and Steelers. I don't think the NFL has had so much turnover from one year to the next as it does right now at least in playoff teams. Yes you have the few that are usuals but for the most part every year seems to bring about quite a bit of change. Last year alone in the NFC we saw 3 new teams make the playoffs while 2 new ones in the AFC so 5 of the 12 teams being new playoff contenders. As much as we keep thinking the teams who are the top will stay at the top from one year to the next it just doesn't seem to do that as often as one would think.


All of that to say we might have to start thinking about changing our definition of "Team of the decade." You just don't have dynasties anymore in the NFL. New England was the last and even though they have had a guy considered a top-5 quarterback of all-time for the last 15 or so years they haven't won a Super Bowl in 10 years now. It literally takes a team full of all-stars that can all be healthy at the right time and a few lucky bounces to go a team's way to win it anymore.

Very well stated and I will agree.Six more years to go means that any team has the chance to be the one....even teams not mentioned.

 

[Wolvie]

Have to agree here. They are the 2013 Champs. When you talk about great teams you don't say the 86 Bears...you say the 85 Bears. Get what I'm saying?

This decade began with the 2010 season....so we have had the Packers, Giants, Ravens and Seahawks all win so far in this decade.

Decades begin in the first year. For this decade, it started in 2011 and will run until 2020. Therefore there are 7 more seasons this decade. When you count to ten do you start with the number 1 or 0?

And I am surprised that the Seahawks aren't getting more love. They have all the ingredients to have a good long run.

 

[cdumler7]

Decades begin in the first year. For this decade, it started in 2011 and will run until 2020. Therefore there are 7 more seasons this decade. When you count to ten do you start with the number 1 or 0?

And I am surprised that the Seahawks aren't getting more love. They have all the ingredients to have a good long run.

That actually used to be one of the tests they would do in school with younger children to test intelligence. Children that usually had a higher intelligence would start with 0 instead of 1.

 

[NickTheGreek]

with 3(saints,Packers,Seahawks) of the 5 previous champions expected to make the playoffs, and the other 2(giants and ravens) seen to be potential playoff teams it is very likely that we will get a repeat this year...

If I use a 75% chance for the big 3 to make the playoffs and a 40% chance for the other 2 to make the playoffs then we have a over a 25% chance of a repeat this season...

Saints don't count... It goes by the SEASON, not the date of the SB. Saints were the 2009 season.

Pack, Giants, Ravens and Seahawks are the only 2010's qualifier. Cool?

 

[NickTheGreek]

Well I guess then it would depend what you count as the actual Super Bowl year. Some would say since the Superbowl was in 2014 then it counts towards the 2014 season. If you look at a list of Super Bowl Champions they list them by the year in which they actually won it not by the season in which it was played.


So as of now at least in my book the Super Bowl Champs so far have been the Saints, Packers, Giants, Ravens, and Seahawks. That would leave 5 more chances for teams to win.

Seriously? Not... It's the SEASON played, not the date of the SB. The Seahawks won the SB for the 2013 season. When we get to the 2019 season, are you going to believe that the '19 season is part of the 2020's? Didn't think so.

 

[NickTheGreek]

Does it really matter. All that does is make it more likely that a team wins more than one championship this decade.

Yes, it matters. If we're going to have a poll, let's at least know how to calculate and answer based on true parameters. Right?

 

[NickTheGreek]

since were 4 years in

2011-pack
2012-giants
2013-Ravens
2014-Hawks

that leaves 6 more bowls.....someone would have to win a few......my choice would be off of one of the 4 teams who have already won, and what they have in place.......

and for me that would be the seahawks.......loaded roster, young qb, good coach.......young talent

2010- Pack
2011 - Giants
2012 - Ravens
2013 - Hawks

Is it really so difficult? Apparently, so. Wow.

 

[NickTheGreek]

If that is what the terms means then that might be subject to much debate ,for example, this would lead me to conclude that the 9ers are the best team so far in this decade. 3 NFCC games and a SB appearance so far.

You have to win a SB to even qualify. You could go to 10 SB's, lose them all and could never qualify
for team of the decade. It's about Lombardi Trophies.

You could win 3 Titles and miss the playoffs the other 7 years and be team of the decade if no other
team won 3 titles. There is very little debate here. Just simple common sense.

 

[iowajerms]

Decades begin in the first year. For this decade, it started in 2011 and will run until 2020. Therefore there are 7 more seasons this decade. When you count to ten do you start with the number 1 or 0?

And I am surprised that the Seahawks aren't getting more love. They have all the ingredients to have a good long run.

That makes no sense. For decades, it's about that # in the tens position.

Your logic would say 1990 season was part of the 1980s decade. No, 1990 was part of the 1990s decade, so is 1999. 2000 is part of the 2000 decade and 2010 is part of the 2010s decade and goes until 2019. 2020 is part of the 2020s decade.