Teams of the Decades/Dynasties
-
Note also that only 7 teams can claim a "Team of the Decade" title: Bears (2), Packers (2), Browns, Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, and Patriots. That is 7 out of 32 teams. Don't be surprised if the team of the 2010s is a completely fresh face.
-
-
2 wins gets the browns fans excited. WOW
Remember, in 1969 the Steelers went 1-13 before becoming the team of the decade of the 70s. The 49ers were 2-14 in 1979 before becoming the team of the decade in the 80s, and the Cowboys were 1-15 in 1989 before becoming the team of the decade in the 90s, so don't scoff at the concept. It may be one of the real 'dregs' that become the king of football next decade.
-
2 wins gets the browns fans excited. WOW
Remember, in 1969 the Steelers went 1-13 before becoming the team of the decade of the 70s. The 49ers were 2-14 in 1979 before becoming the team of the decade in the 80s, and the Cowboys were 1-15 in 1989 before becoming the team of the decade in the 90s, so don't scoff at the concept. It may be one of the real 'dregs' that become the king of football next decade.
Remember, in 1969 the Steelers went 1-13 before becoming the team of the decade of the 70s. The 49ers were 2-14 in 1979 before becoming the team of the decade in the 80s, and the Cowboys were 1-15 in 1989 before becoming the team of the decade in the 90s, so don't scoff at the concept. It may be one of the real 'dregs' that become the king of football next decade.
It always is! That's why the idea isn't so rediculous. When you look at the perennial bad teams
St. Louis - being sold and potentially moved
KC - Could be on their way back up
Oak - yeah right, A. Davis is still here
Det - can only improve
Cle - the most loyal fanbase and the only one with a long term plan in place. In my opinion, the most likely of the 5 to become a dynasty.
-
Remember, in 1969 the Steelers went 1-13 before becoming the team of the decade of the 70s. The 49ers were 2-14 in 1979 before becoming the team of the decade in the 80s, and the Cowboys were 1-15 in 1989 before becoming the team of the decade in the 90s, so don't scoff at the concept. It may be one of the real 'dregs' that become the king of football next decade.
It always is! That's why the idea isn't so rediculous. When you look at the perennial bad teams
St. Louis - being sold and potentially moved
KC - Could be on their way back up
Oak - yeah right, A. Davis is still here
Det - can only improve
Cle - the most loyal fanbase and the only one with a long term plan in place. In my opinion, the most likely of the 5 to become a dynasty.
It always is! That's why the idea isn't so rediculous. When you look at the perennial bad teams
St. Louis - being sold and potentially moved
KC - Could be on their way back up
Oak - yeah right, A. Davis is still here
Det - can only improve
Cle - the most loyal fanbase and the only one with a long term plan in place. In my opinion, the most likely of the 5 to become a dynasty.
OK, but also note that the Patriots were a pretty good team in the 90s and the onset of their "dominance". The last 4 years of the 90s the Pats had a winning record or were .500. The Browns of course had won 4 titles in the 40s, and were only 2 points shy of being the team of the decade of the 40s before becoming the team of the decade of the 50s. I probably could have also included the Packers of the 50s in the "bad team later dominates" class. In 1957 they were 3-9, in 1958 they were 1-10. Then they hired Lombardi who took them to 7-5 in 1959 then onto dominance in the 60s.
So, the trend is for a quite bad team to ultimately become the "team of the decade" later.
-
while we're on the subject of past accomplishments, why is it that steeler fans act as if the browns accomplishments in the past are now meaningless? they say there weren't many teams in those leagues back in the day and the browns pretty much had it easy. if that's the case, why did the steelers suck so bad back then? if it was so easy to win back then, why were the steelers the laughing stock of pro-football back then?
just like the gipper said, will they also deny greats like vince lombardi of their accomplishments just because it happened way back then? this is the nonsense that i speak of that constantly comes from steeler trolls. 100% utter nonsense.
-
Teams of the Decayed
2000s = Oakland, Detroit & sadly, Cleveland
1990s= Cincinnati
1980s= entire NFC Central
1970s= Houston, Buffalo
1960s & beyond....Pittsburgh
Teams of the Decayed
2000s = Oakland, Detroit & sadly, Cleveland
1990s= Cincinnati
1980s= entire NFC Central
1970s= Houston, Buffalo
1960s & beyond....Pittsburgh
OK, perhaps. It might be worth it to do some compilation of the "worst teams" of each decade.
Though, I don't see Houston as being bad in the 70s. I mean that is the team with Earl Campbell who battled it out with the Steelers on at least two occasions. The Oilers at least got 2 points. There were 16 teams in that decade, including the Browns, who got none.
-
Teams of the Decayed
2000s = Oakland, Detroit & sadly, Cleveland
1990s= Cincinnati
1980s= entire NFC Central
1970s= Houston, Buffalo
1960s & beyond....Pittsburgh
OK, perhaps. It might be worth it to do some compilation of the "worst teams" of each decade.
Though, I don't see Houston as being bad in the 70s. I mean that is the team with Earl Campbell who battled it out with the Steelers on at least two occasions. The Oilers at least got 2 points. There were 16 teams in that decade, including the Browns, who got none.
OK, perhaps. It might be worth it to do some compilation of the "worst teams" of each decade.
Though, I don't see Houston as being bad in the 70s. I mean that is the team with Earl Campbell who battled it out with the Steelers on at least two occasions. The Oilers at least got 2 points. There were 16 teams in that decade, including the Browns, who got none
.Gipper-
Yes, the Oilers of 78 & 79 were good, losing to Pittsburgh twice in the AFC Championship (Renfro was IN, btw). I am referring to the Oiler teams who went 2-12 or 4-10 almost every year before that. Buffalo had a playoff team in the late 70s as well, but was generally hideous in the 70s.
I was just joking around, as you probably know. Hence the "decayed vs. decade" thing. I didn't mean to tarnish a good thread.
-
OK, perhaps. It might be worth it to do some compilation of the "worst teams" of each decade.
Though, I don't see Houston as being bad in the 70s. I mean that is the team with Earl Campbell who battled it out with the Steelers on at least two occasions. The Oilers at least got 2 points. There were 16 teams in that decade, including the Browns, who got none
.Gipper-
Yes, the Oilers of 78 & 79 were good, losing to Pittsburgh twice in the AFC Championship (Renfro was IN, btw). I am referring to the Oiler teams who went 2-12 or 4-10 almost every year before that. Buffalo had a playoff team in the late 70s as well, but was generally hideous in the 70s.
I was just joking around, as you probably know. Hence the "decayed vs. decade" thing. I didn't mean to tarnish a good thread.
Gipper-
Yes, the Oilers of 78 & 79 were good, losing to Pittsburgh twice in the AFC Championship (Renfro was IN, btw). I am referring to the Oiler teams who went 2-12 or 4-10 almost every year before that. Buffalo had a playoff team in the late 70s as well, but was generally hideous in the 70s.
I was just joking around, as you probably know. Hence the "decayed vs. decade" thing. I didn't mean to tarnish a good thread.
Its OK. It led to another thread. Like with the Browns, this year we have to take the bad. In the past, and in the future (?) we will take the good.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login