Best Organizations for 2018-2022

[Ketchup]

2 hours ago, eagles18 said:

Philly just doesn't get any respect... ever. They just won the Super Bowl and already there are 8 or so teams better on paper.

I know I didn’t intend for my post to come off that way. Eagles should be #1 in every power ranking and betting odds. They, no doubt, have a team build to win for years. However, that doesn’t mean they will. The only point I was trying to make is it’s so hard to repeat and there is a crap ton of competition. 

[Iamcanadian]

The worst organization is quite easy, while the FO has changed, the HC is the same thanks to the absolute worst owner in pro sports. = Cleveland by a mile!!!

Other terrible organizations:

Cincy - simply lack the financial resources to compete on an even playing field.

New York Jets - just another miserable owner who hasn't a clue how to build a winner

Dallas - Ever since Jerry Jones fired Jimmy Johnson and made himself the GM, the team has basically stunk, even though he puts on a great show.

LA Chargers - another example of an owner who basically retards his franchise.

Chicago - Ownership seems weak as they have no excuse for not being more competitive.

 

The best organization is obviously New Englands, also by a mile!

Other solid organizations:

Pittsburgh - limited financial rersources, but is still competitive every year. 

Green Bay - almost ditto with Pittsburgh - limited financially but competitive every year.

Atlanta - Solid ownership that does everything to keep them competitive.

New Orleans - another solid franchise.

Philly - on the rise as a very solid franchise.

Seattle - has been competitive for a long time.

Carolina - Limited financially, but is a very competitive franchise. 

Denver - Solid franchise.

Kansas City - Solid Franchise.

Weaker but still competitive:

Arizona - limited financially.

New York Giants - Should bounce back.

Tennessee - On the rise.

Oakland - Also on the rise.

Minny - Probably should rank higher.

LA Rams - On the rise.

Houston - Should have a breakout season.

Baltimore - Slipping some.

 

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, BAConrad said:

You're funny comparing the 2016 Cowboys to the 2017 Eagles.

It's not just Eagles fans who have good reason to believe that the Eagles, right now, look like the team to beat for the next few years at least. Guys like Robert Mays, Kevin Clark, etc on the Ringer (who I think are some of the better football guys out there) are saying the same thing I am right now. That this Eagles team looks scary.

We have Wentz under contract for THREE more seasons. That's huge. Especially considering the fact that we already built our roster pretty much, and have 90% of our core locked up for the next 2 to 3 seasons.

I already listed all the players we have under contract in another thread (I believe it was the "Who Has the Best Roster" one. And I don't want to again because it took so damn long. That's how many guys we have locked up

 

Yet and still, none of this guarantees anything in the future. Just like it didn't for the Cowboys, Raiders and Falcons last year and every other team that looks good on paper every single year. History has proven this.

[lancerman]

59 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Yet and still, none of this guarantees anything in the future. Just like it didn't for the Cowboys, Raiders and Falcons last year and every other team that looks good on paper every single year. History has proven this.

This is kind of the overall point. EVERY year somebody thinks the previous years success is an indicator for the next year. It rarely is. 

Going into this year if you said the top two teams in the NFC would be the Eagles and Vikings, then the NFC South would produce 3 playoff teams, and the Rams would be one of the better teams the vast majority of people on this board would have thought you were being a contrarian.  

1 Seed: Cowboys. 2 Seed: Packers. 3 Seed: Falcons. 4. Seed. Seahawks. 5. Seed: Giants. 6 Seed: random. Would have been far closer to what people predicted compared to the last year. Also not to be that guy, remember when the 2011 Eagles were supposed to be unstoppable and then they went 8-8.

There's two teams in the league that you can generally bank on every year. Patriots and Steelers. Before Manning retired whatever team he was on as well. Don't forget when this decade started we thought the Niner's were going to be THE team for years. We thought the Seahawks were going to be a dynasty. I'm sure a lot of people thought the Packers were going to win more than they did. The Cardinals with Arians were supposed to make some runs. The Cowboys were supposed to be set for years to come and now everyone's questioning whether they have the right QB. You just don't know. 

There's one fast and hard rule in this league, until a team shows they can do it year in and year out, don't assume they will. Way too many teams look good on paper or had a great year one year and disappoint the next. It's not disrespectful to say that historically happens. Nor is it to acknowledge the NFC East has been been a Russian Roulette game every season. Nor that the NFC really hasn't had much consistency. 

[JAF-N72EX]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

EVERY year somebody thinks the previous years success is an indicator for the next year. It rarely is. 

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

There's one fast and hard rule in this league, until a team shows they can do it year in and year out, don't assume they will. Way too many teams look good on paper or had a great year one year and disappoint the next. It's not disrespectful to say that historically happens. Nor is it to acknowledge the NFC East has been been a Russian Roulette game every season. Nor that the NFC really hasn't had much consistency. 

Yep.

These two things need to be read more. Especially the underlined portions.

 

[Bolts223]

I get the appeal of this thread, but all of us are going to horribly wrong.

If you asked this question in 2000 nobody in their right mind would've said the Patriots.

Anyways, I'll answer this anyways.

Top 5

1) Eagles

2) Rams

3) 49ers

4) Falcons

5) Texans

 

Bottom 5

1) Browns

2) Bengals

3) Redskins

4) Bears

5) Giants

[Bolts223]

9 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

The worst organization is quite easy, while the FO has changed, the HC is the same thanks to the absolute worst owner in pro sports. = Cleveland by a mile!!!

Other terrible organizations:

Cincy - simply lack the financial resources to compete on an even playing field.

New York Jets - just another miserable owner who hasn't a clue how to build a winner

Dallas - Ever since Jerry Jones fired Jimmy Johnson and made himself the GM, the team has basically stunk, even though he puts on a great show.

LA Chargers - another example of an owner who basically retards his franchise.

Chicago - Ownership seems weak as they have no excuse for not being more competitive.

 

The best organization is obviously New Englands, also by a mile!

Other solid organizations:

Pittsburgh - limited financial rersources, but is still competitive every year. 

Green Bay - almost ditto with Pittsburgh - limited financially but competitive every year.

Atlanta - Solid ownership that does everything to keep them competitive.

New Orleans - another solid franchise.

Philly - on the rise as a very solid franchise.

Seattle - has been competitive for a long time.

Carolina - Limited financially, but is a very competitive franchise. 

Denver - Solid franchise.

Kansas City - Solid Franchise.

Weaker but still competitive:

Arizona - limited financially.

New York Giants - Should bounce back.

Tennessee - On the rise.

Oakland - Also on the rise.

Minny - Probably should rank higher.

LA Rams - On the rise.

Houston - Should have a breakout season.

Baltimore - Slipping some.

 

While I have nothing but negative feeling towards Dean Spanos for what he did in regards to leaving San Diego and how he handled the situation, I'm going to have to defend him a bit here.

Since 1994 (When Dean really took over) the Chargers have had a decent amount of success, including a SB appearance and winning the AFC West 5/6 years from 2004-2009. He really hasn't been that terrible from a football-ops perspective, at least relative to a lot of other teams.

And it also helps than Dean Spanos seems to be giving more of the reigns to his son, who seems to care a little bit more about winning that Dean ever did.

The Chargers are currently a team with a very young core an a Pro-Bowl veteran QB and could conceivably make a run at the end of his career. 

Not saying I think the Chargers should be in the top 5 or anything, just that they have no business being in the bottom 5 compared to other teams based on what we know right now.

[CP3MVP]

Yup. The Packers expected to be a dynasty after winning the title in 2010

19 hours ago, Ketchup said:

And GB. GB had a top 5 defense and a young MVP caliper QB in his prime when they won the bowl. Look how that turned out. Point being, SB's are very very hard to get back to, much less win again. Eagles will have their work cut out for them, especially with their cap situation not being great and Wentz needing a new contract in a year or two. 

 

[Nick_gb]

19 hours ago, August4th said:

still shocked that GB team from 2010 never made it back to the SB.. they were scary talented on both sides of the ball

Nick Collins career ending injury, JMike injury, Woodson not returning, Al Harris / Tramon Williams moving on, Jennings headed out the door, Dom Capers defense COMPLETELY regressing. I mean a lot went into that really. It seemed like we were losing more players then we were gaining because we weren't adequately replacing them through TT's philosophy of Draft and Develop. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

On 2/9/2018 at 9:28 AM, Forge said:

Too many people are bullish on the 49ers. As a fan, makes me nervous lol

I just hope we don't become the Colts. Whiffing on all our draft picks, and depending on Jimmy G (if he pans out) to drag the team to a Super Bowl title.

[Superman(DH23)]

15 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

 

Other terrible organizations:

Chicago - Ownership seems weak as they have no excuse for not being more competitive

 

This really shouldnt bother me as your takes are the absolute worst, but what is it that makes you believe that ownership is weak, or that the Bears arent being competitive?  Fyi Bears just drafted 4 starters in 5 picks in 2017, and 4 in 6 in 2016.  They have a top 10 defense in both yards and points and they just brought a plethora of offensive minds into the building.  Im guessing you just took a look at recent records and made your proclamation and didnt realize that the Bears with having a lot of very young talent, a gm with a real eye for drafting, $91M in cap space and the all important franchise qb on a rookie deal are one of the teams in better shape for the next 3 years.

[Pugger]

22 hours ago, eagles18 said:

Their OC is Doug Pederson

I would take Peyton Manning even at his worst rather than some of the bottom ten qbs in the NFL. Experience and brains play a  big role. 

 

Not true, the Eagles fans on here were the only ones having faith.

 

Doesnt' Matter since Wentz is our Starter. He held up  all season and got injured on a freak play.

 

We Packers fans know all too well your QB can get hurt on a freak play.  Happily for you guys Foles played great in the post season.  After 2010 we went 15-1 and still couldn't repeat.  Nobody here is saying the Eagles can't but the odds are stacked against ya.

[J-ALL-DAY]

On 2/9/2018 at 9:33 AM, JustAnotherFan said:

Hell yeah they were. Trying being a Bears fan and watching that crap develop for over 3-5 years.......

 

They should have the year they choked against Seattle, but definitely surprising. The fact Rodgers has gone to only one SB on face value is embarrassing. But the Packers did run into some VERY good ball clubs. The Seahawks were a play away from winning the SB, the Giants team they lost to did win the SB, and then lost to the Niners in back to back years that just had their number. 

 

[lancerman]

7 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

They should have the year they choked against Seattle, but definitely surprising. The fact Rodgers has gone to only one SB on face value is embarrassing. But the Packers did run into some VERY good ball clubs. The Seahawks were a play away from winning the SB, the Giants team they lost to did win the SB, and then lost to the Niners in back to back years that just had their number. 

 

Dan Marino only went to one. Steve Young only went to one. Rodgers only went to one. I'd argue if you made a list of the top QB's of all time purely on physical ability, those 3 would be at the top of the list.

[Apparition]

In light of the news about Reuben Foster, I might have to revise my rankings.