The Mt. Rushmore of NFL Franchises? (Super Bowl Era; My 4 are Pit, SF, Dal, NE)

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:
For the sake of the NFL you should probably go back to the 60's and include the Packers as well.

They won the 1st 2 SB's. A dynasty typically needs 3 or 4. Really just depends if you factor in the league pre Super Bowl.

It's not really the Packers fault that they were dominating for 10 years prior to the invention of the Super Bowl. They would have won tons of them easily if had the Super Bowl then. Plus they won 2 and won under Favre and under Aaron Rodgers. They have a lot of Super Bowl wins over all. They would have 10 of them if they Super Bowl era started sooner. It's not their fault that the marketing and naming of the "Super Bowl" era started at the end of their run. If it started 10 years earlier they would have tons more of them.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

For the sake of the NFL you should probably go back to the 60's and include the Packers as well.

They won the 1st 2 SB's. A dynasty typically needs 3 or 4. Really just depends if you factor in the league pre Super Bowl.

It's not really the Packers fault that they were dominating for 10 years prior to the invention of the Super Bowl. They would have won tons of them easily if had the Super Bowl then. Plus they won 2 and won under Favre and under Aaron Rodgers. They have a lot of Super Bowl wins over all. They would have 10 of them if they Super Bowl era started sooner. It's not their fault that the marketing and naming of the "Super Bowl" era started at the end of their run. If it started 10 years earlier they would have tons more of them.

Agreed. They have 3 more titles in the 60s besides the first 2 super bowls

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:
For the sake of the NFL you should probably go back to the 60's and include the Packers as well.

They won the 1st 2 SB's. A dynasty typically needs 3 or 4. Really just depends if you factor in the league pre Super Bowl.

It's not really the Packers fault that they were dominating for 10 years prior to the invention of the Super Bowl. They would have won tons of them easily if had the Super Bowl then. Plus they won 2 and won under Favre and under Aaron Rodgers. They have a lot of Super Bowl wins over all. They would have 10 of them if they Super Bowl era started sooner. It's not their fault that the marketing and naming of the "Super Bowl" era started at the end of their run. If it started 10 years earlier they would have tons more of them.

Agreed. They have 3 more titles in the 60s besides the first 2 super bowls

Correct. Plus it is still part of "NFL history." Just because it is pre Super Bowl doesn't mean it doesn't count. The Super Bowl as it is named was just a marketing ploy at the time when 2 different conferences were to meet and they wanted to have a real big name to get interest so people would watch and follow it. But it's not like stuff in the prior era doesn't count. Of course it does.

For this thread's purpose, it's intended for the Super Bowl era as the number of teams involved when the NFL and AFL merged most closely resembles what we have today. This isn't saying at all that anything pre-Super Bowl didn't count. If anyone wants to make an "NFL history" Mt. Rushmore of franchises, feel free to make a separate thread (though the AFL didn't officially join until 1970).

If you include things pre SB where do you stop? Chicago has 8 NFL Championships are they now on the list? GB has 9 + 4 SB's so yeah I do agree they're hard to keep off but I was going SB era only.

If you include GB then Dallas and Pittsburgh are mandatory I think it would be a coin toss between us and NE for the last spot.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
If you include things pre SB where do you stop? Chicago has 8 NFL Championships are they now on the list? GB has 9 + 4 SB's so yeah I do agree they're hard to keep off but I was going SB era only.

If you include GB then Dallas and Pittsburgh are mandatory I think it would be a coin toss between us and NE for the last spot.

Good post.

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:
For this thread's purpose, it's intended for the Super Bowl era as the number of teams involved when the NFL and AFL merged most closely resembles what we have today. This isn't saying at all that anything pre-Super Bowl didn't count. If anyone wants to make an "NFL history" Mt. Rushmore of franchises, feel free to make a separate thread (though the AFL didn't officially join until 1970).

Green Bay still counts under that scenario which is an arbitrary starting spot scenario. But they still won 4. The first 2, 1 in the Brett Favre era and 1 in the Aaron Rodgers era. They won 4 times. Why don't they belong on there? Of course they do.

SF, GB, PIT, DAL. The damn trophy is named after a green bay coach. If you don't wanna count GB then I suppose you can put in NE instead.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LottDMontanaO:
For this thread's purpose, it's intended for the Super Bowl era as the number of teams involved when the NFL and AFL merged most closely resembles what we have today. This isn't saying at all that anything pre-Super Bowl didn't count. If anyone wants to make an "NFL history" Mt. Rushmore of franchises, feel free to make a separate thread (though the AFL didn't officially join until 1970).

Green Bay still counts under that scenario which is an arbitrary starting spot scenario. But they still won 4. The first 2, 1 in the Brett Favre era and 1 in the Aaron Rodgers era. They won 4 times. Why don't they belong on there? Of course they do.

O.k., great. You've got Green Bay on there. Of course you can make a good case they belong - not saying otherwise. But who do you have for your other three?