Ranking the franchises

by Ed Valentine on Jun 20, 2008 12:01 PM EDT in New York Giants News

How would you rank NFL franchises in terms of their all-time significance?

Cold Hard Football Facts took on that challenge recently. I think it's hard to argue with their conclusion that the Green Bay Packers are the best NFL franchise of all time.

The Giants are No. 3 all time in CHFF's rankings, behind only the Packers and the hated Dallas Cowboys.

Here's part of what CHFF had to say about the Giants.

New York’s historic victory over the undefeated Patriots in Super Bowl XLII earlier this year certainly didn’t hurt the organization’s ranking, either. But, amazingly, it was not the first time the Giants knocked off a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The 1934 Bears went 13-0 and outscored their opponents 286-86. Yet they were pounded, 30-13, by the humble 8-5 Giants in the NFL championship game.

The consistency with which the Giants have been NFL contenders is evident by their 18 championship game appearances. Basically, the Giants play for the NFL title two to three times each decade. That rate of success will certainly keep fans interested and will help explain why Giants season tickets are family heirlooms and the stadium-mate Jets are about as popular as herpes in the eyes of the average New York-area football fan. The Giants never produced a so-called “dynasty,” but they’ve won at least one championship in a record six different decades, failing only in the 1940s and 1960s. But even in those empty years, the Giants remained one of the league’s marquee franchises, playing in a combined five NFL title games over those two decades.

This is certainly a subjective ranking, but considering the lack of a prolonged dynasty at any time and the down period we have come to call "The Wilderness Years," I was a little surprised to see the Giants ranked quite that high.

Oh, the worst franchise of all time? Is anybody surprised CHFF chose the Arizona Cardinals?

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: green bay packers, nfl history

Comments

Interesting article

When I first read it, I was a little surprised at the Steelers being #8 and the Redskins #7, but I guess when you take the entire history of the NFL into account, the Giants are definitely better than both of them. Same goes for the Niners. If it was just the Super Bowl era, I wouldn’t see the Giants much higher than 7 or 8, with the Steelers and Niners in the top 3 along with the Cowboys.

At first I was surprised the Jets were as high as 23, but I guess that makes sense, considering the teams below them. The Cardinals absolutely deserve last place, and really should probably be demoted to the Arena League at this point. Last thought: it’s funny what a few years of success will do to a franchise. I was originally surprised at how low the Seahawks were, but then I remembered how they were always a joke of a franchise when I was growing up, right up until just a few years ago. Same sorta goes for the Pats too.

by cjmulrain on Jun 20, 2008 6:58 PM EDT reply actions

meant to say

“what a few years of success will do to the PERCEPTION of a franchise”

by cjmulrain on Jun 20, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Steelers...

....Redskin and 49ers all deserve to be much higher than the Giants. Cardinals shouldn’t be demoted to the AFL at all as they continue to sell out their stadium. Giants were solid in being 2nd place in att behind the ‘Skins and the Jets were still in 4th.

by Red Reign on Jun 20, 2008 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions

didn't mean to offend

I simply meant based on on-field success, well, the Cards haven’t had any. I’m rooting for them though, I’m a Leinart fan. And I don’t know if I’d say the others deserve to be “much higher” than the Giants, as the Giants were probably tied with the Packers as the second most successful pre-Super Bowl franchise, and both of them have won 3 SBs. The Giants were way more successful pre-SB than the Steelers, Skins, or Niners, and the Niners and Steelers both have 5 SBs to the Skins and Giants 3. Its a tough call, and it depends how heavily you weight Super Bowl success, I think. Either way, this past season helped the Giants a lot, certainly.

by cjmulrain on Jun 20, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Not offending...

...whatsoever. I know the Cards haven’t been a successful franchise. However, not many people outside of NY think of the Giants as a successful franchise. Also, what year in the 70s did the Gnats win the Super Bowl? According to the article quote it apparently happened but I am confused as to when. As far as I know that’s not a “Cold Hard Fact” and kind of discredits the source as a quote.

by Red Reign on Jun 20, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh...

....and the Giants never won a NFL championship in the ‘60s either. What a horrible source to site.

by Red Reign on Jun 20, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions

The writer seems to be referring to championship games played.

As you point out, the Giants played in no championship games in the seventies. They played in three in the sixties and lost them all.

by george cronin on Jun 20, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

George is right

The article states “Basically, the Giants play for the NFL title two to three times each decade”, so nowhere do they state that they won a title in the 60s.

by potroast on Jun 21, 2008 7:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Not many people outside of NY

think of the Giants as a successful franchise? That’s just ridiculous. The league never would have exploded if it wasn’t for the Giants. Anyone with any sense of football history outside of the SB era knows the importance of the Giants franchise. Plus outside the 70’s, they’ve been a contender in every decade. Let’s try to remember that the NFL is 88 years old, not 30 years.

by potroast on Jun 21, 2008 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Yea

I don’t know how anyone can argue that the Giants aren’t a successful franchise. Want to say we’re not as successful as the Steelers or the Niners, well, that’s your prerogative, but it’s impossible to say we’re not successful. List of teams with 3 SB victories:

Niners (5)
Cowboys (5)
Steelers (5)
Giants
Redskins
Packers
Raiders
Patriots

The Broncos and Dolphins are the only two teams not on the above list to play in more SBs than the Giants, and both of them lost more than they won, obviously. Going back to the pre-Super Bowl era, the list of teams with more than 6 total league championships (pre-1967 NFC Championships + Super Bowl championships) is:

Packers (12)
Bears (9)
Giants (7)

Finally, the only team with more than 15 total title game appearances, pre-merger + Super Bowl is:

New York Football Giants (18)

Can’t see how one could argue that the Giants aren’t a successful franchise.

by cjmulrain on Jun 21, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions

I love the last statistic

by TerraByte on Jun 21, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Why...

....do you love that stat? Getting to the championship game and losing shouldn’t mean anything. According to those stats, the Gnats are 7 for 18 in championship games. That means the Gnats have a 38% winning percentage. It doesn’t matter if you make it there if the Gnats lose.

by Red Reign on Jun 22, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Getting to the championship game

doesn’t mean anyting? really? do North Carolina’s 17 Final Fours mean nothing? hey, they only won FOUR championships out of those 17…i guess they aren’t a successful college basketball program to your standards. neither is Duke (14 Final Fours, 3 Championships).

dude, i know you’re pissed the the Cards were the Giants doormat in the NFC East for years, but don’t take it out on them now.

by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Jun 23, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions

wow

totally forgot that the Cards used to be in the NFC East. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why this guy seems to have such a problem with the G-men. Now it makes a little bit more sense. I can’t believe it’s only been like 6 years since they were in the NFC East too, it feels like it’s been ages. Maybe it’s just because they always finished last, so I never paid much attention to them.

by cjmulrain on Jun 23, 2008 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Well wsaid, potroast.

by george cronin on Jun 21, 2008 7:48 AM EDT reply actions

Easy you 2 (pot,GC)

remember your blood pressure!

We're only gonna score 17 points?

by big blue wrecking crew on Jun 21, 2008 8:49 AM EDT reply actions

LOL!!

I see the ‘veteran’ Giants fans have gotten a little fired up about this. That’s a good thing.

by Ed Valentine on Jun 21, 2008 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Wow...

...this was great. I wish Cards fans would get fired up like you guys.

by Red Reign on Jun 21, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

hey man

just gotta win once….compare Pats fans circa 2000 with Pats fans circa 2002.

by cjmulrain on Jun 21, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Cowboys #2??????

the cowboys before the giants??? no way. the cowboys are the ultimate bandwagon team, “america’s team”... which means that the rest of us who dont hop on the bandwagon, even those of us who arent giants fans (or redskin/eagle fans… ) cant stand the cowboys. I give the bears the #2 slot ,only because they’re the oldest franchise in the NFL before the Giants. I agree with the Packers being #1. I wish Giants fans had the loyalty that Packers fans do. Maybe one day I’ll open up an Eli Manning Bar and Grill in East Rutherford… but until then, they get the #1 slot. One thing I hate about the Packers though: I get it, Wisconsin makes cheese. Cheeseheads however are retarded, they have absolutely nothing to do with your team. How about all us Giant fans wear smokestacks on our head for New Jersey factories, or Apples for the big apple? Exactly. Stupid. Only in Wisconsin is such douchebaggery permissible. Its Ok though… they get the cheese, we get the titles ;)

by mahmoodzaky on Jun 21, 2008 9:21 AM EDT reply actions