New England Patriots (No.1)
Pittsburgh Steelers (No.2)
Indianapolis Colts (No. 3)
Philadelphia Eagles (No. 4)
New York Giants - Baltimore Ravens (tied for No. 5)
In every decade anytime. Not counting our championships. I think we are all set. We will be towards the top of anyone's all time list of great franchises.
this is simply funny. I'm not mad about this at all, hell I could totally see the consistency argument. But ask Eagles fans which decade they'd rather have.
I thought we were talking about everything since the year 2000,not just the first 10 years.
If we count everything the Giants two SB'S put them right with Pittsburgh and Indy.
If just the first ten years (2000-2009)then the Philly argument has at least some merit, although still no championship.
That happened in 2010,and the Giants won the SB in 2011,but since the Eagles won the division last year I guess they are ahead of us in this decade also.
were successful, but I would gladly take a SB win and multiple average seasons over a bunch of "great" seasons with no SB wins. It's a no brainer. At this stage of the game, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Eagles' fans would sign up for a SB win followed by 10 losing seasons in a row in a heartbeat. It must kill those fans to have zero SB wins while every other team in the division has multiple Lomabardi trophies.
Necessarily mean most successful (where I think every SB winning team should be ranked of the Eagles), so I don't take issue with that. To be as good as the Eagles were for so long is really impressive.
Think that it is better to consistently win than have a single championship with a bunch of mediocre seasons. And I tell them, "if you ever win one you will realize how stupid you sound, luckily you will never find out."
You've really seen Eagles fans say that?! I have a few friends who are Eagles fans and they will talk a ton of shit about that, but when I bring up the SB they always say yeah I'd rather go 9-7 and win the SB then go 13-3 and lose in the divisional or NFC championship game.
Those are the good years of the Reid/McNabb era, with Westbrook's whole career and a bit of McCoy at the end. The Eagles were very good, and they mostly ate our lunch after the first year.
of why I stopped taking too seriously any lists made by media. Eagles ahead of the Giants, that's a joke. Did they missed the two Super Bowl wins against the 18 - 0 and # 1 team of the decade?
because its a little tired and its a good way to get them to ignore whatever point you're trying to make. That said, it's most definitely a valid point in this discussion. You can't have a bridesmaid at 4. I don't care how many conference titles they won. They've done nothing the last 7 years and never won the big one. Any Eagles fan would trade their last 14 seasons for the Giants last 14 seasons. Every single one.
so 2011 doesn't count. Eagles made 5 NFC championship games to our 2. 103-561-1 to our 88-72. Plus we had a regime change and rebuild which disconnects the '00 and '02 success from the later run. Since he's talking about "best built" teams this probably hurts our ranking.
the colts not on this list? They went to the playoffs every year except 01' and have a superbowl ring.
Honestly it's probably
1) Patriots
2) Steelers
3) Colts
4) Ravens/Giants...
5) Bucs... They made the playoffs 5 times and had a superbowl.
6) Eagles, best team to not win a superbowl. They made the playoffs 8 times.
the colts not on this list? They went to the playoffs every year except 01' and have a superbowl ring.
Honestly it's probably
1) Patriots
2) Steelers
3) Colts
4) Ravens/Giants...
5) Bucs... They made the playoffs 5 times and had a superbowl.
6) Eagles, best team to not win a superbowl. They made the playoffs 8 times.
Nevermind, totally blanked and didn't see the colts WERE on this list. I thought it said the packers the first time.
I can understand Pittsburgh being above the Giants, as the years cover '00 to '09. The Steelers won 2 titles during that time span, while the Giants won one & lost another one.
The Eagles @ 4 is ridiculous. I think that's been covered here already so I don't have much to chime in with.
To limit it from 2000-2009, is just playing with numbers to fudge a team....
I can play the same game....
Then who was the best team from 2007 through 2011? I know, there are some people who think it is still NE....but we know better....
To be in three SB's during that time, should easily put the Giants ahead of Philly.....only thing holding the Giants back from being higher than fourth, is they have only had three post seasons in that time period where they won a playoff game....
with including Philly on the list. The criterion was who was the best built team. Year in, year out, they were a top contender. you don't need to have the top year to have a better average.
I would absolutely take the ring over being the better built team, though. having a better average is not much of a consolation prize. Would rather have both.
You guys are finally learning to write up click-bate and respond to other columnist for increased traffic.
Nice work fellas.
You enjoy it? My past work with high school stuff on NJ.com trained me well with this. Eric and I wanted to start with a few of these a week to create debate. No better way to start than this topic.
We'll also be having articles on 'breaking news' updates such as injuries/trades/cuts/signings.
You've really seen Eagles fans say that?! I have a few friends who are Eagles fans and they will talk a ton of shit about that, but when I bring up the SB they always say yeah I'd rather go 9-7 and win the SB then go 13-3 and lose in the divisional or NFC championship game.
Yes, not all but most I know and almost everybody I know is an Eagles fan.
are the only teams contending with the Giants here - Indianapolis is a very good team and so were the Eagles - but the Pats, Ravens, Pitt, Baltimore and NY have multiple Superbowls
are the only teams contending with the Giants here - Indianapolis is a very good team and so were the Eagles - but the Pats, Ravens, Pitt, Baltimore and NY have multiple Superbowls
The Colts during that time period should easily be ahead of the Giants, as should the Steelers and Patriots.
Only Philadelphia is the oddball and, while I wouldn't put their consistency ahead of a SB win as a fan, I can understand why someone like Casserly would, as building a team that can win and get to the playoffs almost year in and year out is typically more of a sign of a better front office job than just winning an isolated title, given all the breaks a team has to get along the way to do that.
This is a GM's list of the best built teams of 2000-2009. If you look at the years in that period when the Giants didn't advance deep into the playoffs - 2001-2006, 2008, 2009 - a lack of depth at one position or another killed them almost every year. The Eagles had their share of key injuries too, but were able to survive everything except the loss of their franchise QB in 2005. The next year even that didn't prevent them from knocking out the depleted Giants.
Those Eagles were far from perfect, of course. Their receivers and linebackers were mostly pretty bad, and relying on an erratic McNabb, a neurotic Owens and a fragile Westbrook might not have been a recipe for sustained success. Somehow, though, Reid did keep winning - largely at Coughlin's expense - even after all three of his offensive pillars broke down.
...conversation is pointless. Any ten year period of time could be considered a 'decade' for any sport,catorigorically. Arguements to be made to dispute Mr. Casserlys determination? In the NFL from 2000 to 2009,New England played in a VERY weak division and stockpiled wins. XXXVI,XXXVII and XXXIX are trophy years but one other appearance,with the greatest team "ever",produced failure. The Steelers make the best arguement for the top spot. Very tough division,two trophys,NO trophy losses...if only the Giants could have faced them in XLIII...I would say NE,Pitt,Ind,NYG,Balt...Now lets talk about the decade between 2003 and 2012.
A consistent bridesmaid.
Which team beat the very best, the 18-0 Patriots? The Giants.
The same playoff series in which they beat Green Bay and Dallas.
Comments above about the Eagles lack of success are right on.
If we count everything the Giants two SB'S put them right with Pittsburgh and Indy.
If just the first ten years (2000-2009)then the Philly argument has at least some merit, although still no championship.
So they have that going for them and we know a football fan would rather have a tshirt than a Super Bowl trophy
I'll take the rings, though.
For Eagles fans that might be the most disappointing decade of football.
Honestly it's probably
1) Patriots
2) Steelers
3) Colts
4) Ravens/Giants...
5) Bucs... They made the playoffs 5 times and had a superbowl.
6) Eagles, best team to not win a superbowl. They made the playoffs 8 times.
Honestly it's probably
1) Patriots
2) Steelers
3) Colts
4) Ravens/Giants...
5) Bucs... They made the playoffs 5 times and had a superbowl.
6) Eagles, best team to not win a superbowl. They made the playoffs 8 times.
Nevermind, totally blanked and didn't see the colts WERE on this list. I thought it said the packers the first time.
In that case just move the bucs up.
Agree about Pittsburgh as well...but the Eagles? Shouldn't even be above both the Giants nor Ravens
The Eagles @ 4 is ridiculous. I think that's been covered here already so I don't have much to chime in with.
We extended the shelf life of that eagles team....still cant believe we lost 2 mcnabb twice in 08. He was awful by then
Nice work fellas.
It's also a good conversation starter. I agree with the list by the way. :)
To limit it from 2000-2009, is just playing with numbers to fudge a team....
I can play the same game....
Then who was the best team from 2007 through 2011? I know, there are some people who think it is still NE....but we know better....
To be in three SB's during that time, should easily put the Giants ahead of Philly.....only thing holding the Giants back from being higher than fourth, is they have only had three post seasons in that time period where they won a playoff game....
And while it is just a random choice of when to start a decade, pop culture typically chooses to delineate by starting with a year ending in 0.
I would absolutely take the ring over being the better built team, though. having a better average is not much of a consolation prize. Would rather have both.
Nice work fellas.
You enjoy it? My past work with high school stuff on NJ.com trained me well with this. Eric and I wanted to start with a few of these a week to create debate. No better way to start than this topic.
We'll also be having articles on 'breaking news' updates such as injuries/trades/cuts/signings.
The Colts during that time period should easily be ahead of the Giants, as should the Steelers and Patriots.
Only Philadelphia is the oddball and, while I wouldn't put their consistency ahead of a SB win as a fan, I can understand why someone like Casserly would, as building a team that can win and get to the playoffs almost year in and year out is typically more of a sign of a better front office job than just winning an isolated title, given all the breaks a team has to get along the way to do that.
Those Eagles were far from perfect, of course. Their receivers and linebackers were mostly pretty bad, and relying on an erratic McNabb, a neurotic Owens and a fragile Westbrook might not have been a recipe for sustained success. Somehow, though, Reid did keep winning - largely at Coughlin's expense - even after all three of his offensive pillars broke down.