Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worst Franchise in the NFL

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Billingsley26
    started a topic Worst Franchise in the NFL

    Worst Franchise in the NFL

    I think thats theres no question about this one-----




    ARIZONA CARDINALS

    they have been going for about 40 something eyars now, and have never HOSTED a playoff game. JESUS. They just cant get it right. It seemed like they were on the right track last year, yet managed to win 5 games. Their offense is set, and dont give me the old well they had no OL...well a good franchise would go out and get what they need. NE had a big problem at WR this past season and boy have they done a GREAT job making things right. theres no question that things should be good in Arizona, but as long as the current owner iss in place there, they wont win. I still dont think they've done anything to help the OL, for god skaes they lost their best OL. and he stil wasnt that great.

  • JCutlery
    replied
    Buccaneers. They had one good season, really.

    Leave a comment:


  • Billingsley26
    replied
    the topic is the worst franchise since the merge. so what teams have done recently shouldnt have that big of an effect on the whole state of the franchise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    At the risk of sounding like a total homer here.......

    Are we talking all-time worst or recent worst? If the original topic was about recent worst, then I completely agree with the Browns being one of the worst franchises. But if we are talking all-time, the Browns should in no way be in this discussion. Sure, they haven't won a super bowl, but they won all 4 AAFC championships and 4 NFL championships. They were dominant in the 50's and 60's, very good in the 80's, and decent (not good, but not terrible) in the 70's and 90's. They are also near the top in number of HOF players/coaches (17 HOF players I think).

    Yeah, we've been terrible since our expansion in '99, but to call the Browns one of the worst franchises in history is ridiculous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Billingsley26
    replied
    just wondering if you think that Atlanta could be thrown into the mix. they seem to always be a crappy team with high hopes going into many seasons. lately they have been respectable at certain times, but for the most part they seem to have one good year about every 5 years lol.im not saying their the worst, but they in the upper 10.

    also i would still have to throw NO in there, until last year they have done absolutely NOTHING. and i mean NOTHING. u see the raiders of last year, that was the Saints for like 30 years. nothing going forthem.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeMontainya
    replied
    Originally posted by BaLLiN72 View Post
    1. Houston
    2. Cleveland
    3. Detroit
    4. Arizona
    5. New Orleans

    Nothing against those teams
    Other than this year, what has New Orleans did to make there franchise better than Clevelands? You seem to only be looking at the last year or 2.

    N.O. is clearly the worste team in NFL history. The Browns have had some of the better teams in the 80's and early 90's hands down, but just had bad luck. They even made the playoffs once in the Butch Davis era. The Saints only made the playoffs how many times in the last 20 years? This year!

    Leave a comment:


  • Moses
    replied
    Detroit is the worst in recent memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • myinnerself
    replied
    Originally posted by JPLUFF View Post
    ummm....nope....1 playoff game

    1991 vs. Dallas if I'm not mistaken (before Dallas won their Super Bowls)

    And it's one playoff game during the Super Bowl era, and I don't think we've won an NFL Championship since 1957
    Yeah, well I wasn't speaking of just Super Bowl era. I said I thought they had won a championship in the 50's, which 1957 fits under. But most of the 90's they were contenders correct? With Barry? Maybe I am wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • JPLUFF
    replied
    Originally posted by myinnerself View Post
    I'm almost positive they have won way way way more than 1 playoff game in 60 years. I think the Cardinals have only won about 1, and the Saints too. I don't know where I would check, but didn't Detroit win championships in the 50's and 60's?
    ummm....nope....1 playoff game

    1991 vs. Dallas if I'm not mistaken (before Dallas won their Super Bowls)

    And it's one playoff game during the Super Bowl era, and I don't think we've won an NFL Championship since 1957

    Leave a comment:


  • SenorGato
    replied
    The Texans or Lions. Probably the Texans IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • fenikz
    replied
    Texans

    i don't know any team that has made so many dumb moves in such a short period of time


    btw the cards have 2 NFL championships, they may have been before the merger but at least thats something
    Last edited by fenikz; 03-30-2007, 11:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Is this topic regarding all time worst or just right now? If its all time then there is now way that the Browns are even remotely on ANY list. Without the Browns there is no merger.

    Leave a comment:


  • BaLLiN
    replied
    1. Houston
    2. Cleveland
    3. Detroit
    4. Arizona
    5. New Orleans

    Nothing against those teams

    Leave a comment:


  • San Diego Chicken
    replied
    Originally posted by Shiver View Post
    This is something I wanted to give my input on. Its ironic to me, that everyone proclaims Michael Vick as overrated, over hyped. Yet, these are the same people who are anointing Vince Young. Quite frankly; those people are short-sighted.

    There is nothing Vince Young did last year, that equaled Michael Vick's '02 season. Michael Vick outclassed Young, as a passer, runner, he led a mediocre team to the playoffs, and a road playoff win, he willed his team to victories that year. However, because he hasn't evolved since then, people conveniently forget about that. Vick didn't progress, for a multitude of reasons, which have been well noted. Thus far, there is no indication that Vince Young will become a elite passer, and runner, at the same time. Actually; it may even be presumptuous to assume he ever matches Michael Vick's '02 season, or even Randall Cunningham in his prime, dominance.



    It's amazing that no one recognizes the horrible scheme fit, Reggie Bush was. Even prior to the draft, rumors were the Texans weren't interested in Bush, word from Bush's camp was that the Texans didn't intend on taking him. Yet, everyone was a gasped as to how that could be. If you compare Bush's rushing production to any rookie RB, he was horrible. Even Wali Lundy, Leon Washington, day-2 players, were more productive on the ground. Reggie Bush should be thankful New Orleans took him, otherwise, he would have looked like a bust in Houston. It was never a good fit, which is why they didn't take him. Why people cannot grasp that basic concept, is bewildering to me.



    The Texans had one of the most acclaimed drafts last year, yet all anyone can think about is that first pick. To go along with your points, before his plantar fasciitis, he was out-performing his fellow draftees. Those who are vocal against the Texans' draft decision last year, assume Bush will improve as a runner, Young as a passer. Yet, they are hypocritical, because they assume Mario Williams, a 21-year old, won't improve his technique, and pass rush repertoire. Best case:
    • Reggie Bush becomes Brian Westbrook, except more durable.
    • Vince Young becomes Randall Cunningham.
    • Mario Williams can be Julius Peppers, only bigger, stronger.

    Just want to put my two cents into this debate, since nobody had a reasonable retort (and I think you are an intelligent poster with salient points, and I enjoy the debate)

    First, I think the rumors that Houston wasn't interested in Bush were just that: rumors. Houston was in serious negociations with the Bush camp up until the the Thursday before last year's draft. The Texans had made a few contract offers to Bush, which to me indicates their interest.

    What I think it comes down to is two guys, Charley Casserly and Gary Kubiak falling in love with Mario Williams' talent and potential. Other teams also had Williams #1 on their draft boards, so this wasn't an opinion out of left field, a minority opinion perhaps but everyone knew how talented Mario Williams was. There was however mixed feelings in the Texans organization as 7 out of 10 of Houston's scouts preferred Bush to Williams.

    What I will say, is that Casserly and Kubiak don't have much credibillity in the football world in my opinion. Casserly was out of a job only a few weeks after the selection. When he was Redskins GM, he inherited a championship caliber team that declined and ultimately bottomed out, mainly from his draft desisions (look them up - Washington was a terrible drafting team throughout the 90's). The jury is still out on Kubiak as a coach, and I'm personally skeptical of him for a few reasons. First of all, for a coach of Mike Shanahan's caliber, he doesn't have any kind of a coaching tree at all. He is such a control freak that I don't think his assistants, especially his offensive assistants, are anything but glorified yes-men, which explains why it took so long for Kubiak to get a head coaching job even after winning two Super Bowls. Kubiak doesn't appear to be a decisive man, another example: reccomending the Texans pick up David Carr's 8 million dollar option in 06 only to give up a boatload of draft picks for Matt Schaub and sign him to a lucrative deal.

    Also as far as the scheme fit argument. While I agree Bush's habit of dancing in the backfield isn't what the zone blocking scheme requires, there is some question of consistency in Houston's 06 draft as far as being perfect scheme fits for the offense. Namely, the offensive lineman they drafted. Charles Spencer was not someone looked at as a good fit for the zone blocking scheme either at 350 pounds. Eric Winston was a guy who you couldn't really say fits this or that particular scheme, but if the team was comitted to drafting for scheme, why did they pass on Daryn Colledge, who was an ideal fit and is now starting in Green Bay's zone? My thought is they were just players Casserly/Kubiak liked, just as Mario Williams was a player they liked. I don't feel that the scheme was a huge concern, they probably assumed that Bush could be taught to not make more than one cut through the line of scrimmage. I believe it was more of a case of them preferring to address their defense, assuming Domanick Davis would be healthy, and falling in love with Williams.

    Here is an article from last year that really goes into detail regarding Houston's thought process in the draft:

    http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...4dce26935a4dcf

    And yes, I'd have to say Houston is the worst run franchise in the NFL.
    Last edited by San Diego Chicken; 03-30-2007, 09:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • myinnerself
    replied
    Originally posted by T-Rat42 View Post
    I'm gonna have to say the Detroit Lions without question. 1 playoff win in almost 60 years is awful and that's just the start of their problems. Matt Milen doesn't care about winning at all and it shows. They haven't been to the playoffs since 1992 and have routinely been the last place finisher in one of the NFL's 2nd tier divisions. Their drafting is horrendous, besides Roy Williams and Barry Sanders try and name a draft pick that has lived up to their pro potential. The worst franchise in the NFL is 100% the Detroit Lions.
    I'm almost positive they have won way way way more than 1 playoff game in 60 years. I think the Cardinals have only won about 1, and the Saints too. I don't know where I would check, but didn't Detroit win championships in the 50's and 60's?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information