It's August 24, 2025, 04:39:55 PM
Total Members Voted: 11
east coast biaseD? i listened green bay, chicago, dallas, San franhalf the list wasn't east coastyour just sad the Gayders didn't make the cut
Quote from: Hack Wilson on October 28, 2008, 12:37:13 PMeast coast biaseD? i listened green bay, chicago, dallas, San franhalf the list wasn't east coastyour just sad the Gayders didn't make the cutAnd you mad that I justified why they should by putting their record with everyone else.
Quote from: M Dogg on October 28, 2008, 08:21:23 PMQuote from: Hack Wilson on October 28, 2008, 12:37:13 PMeast coast biaseD? i listened green bay, chicago, dallas, San franhalf the list wasn't east coastyour just sad the Gayders didn't make the cutAnd you mad that I justified why they should by putting their record with everyone else.cuz ts like sayng "well the Celtics, Lakers, Spurs and Hornets are great, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JAZZ"or "babe ruth, ted williams and hanik aaron may be great BUT WHAT ABOUT CAP ANSON?"anyways i did fuck up wth the bears twce, so t's all good m-doggi voited packers, since they are historical and have 12 titles
Quote from: Hack Wilson on October 28, 2008, 08:26:43 PMQuote from: M Dogg on October 28, 2008, 08:21:23 PMQuote from: Hack Wilson on October 28, 2008, 12:37:13 PMeast coast biaseD? i listened green bay, chicago, dallas, San franhalf the list wasn't east coastyour just sad the Gayders didn't make the cutAnd you mad that I justified why they should by putting their record with everyone else.cuz ts like sayng "well the Celtics, Lakers, Spurs and Hornets are great, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JAZZ"or "babe ruth, ted williams and hanik aaron may be great BUT WHAT ABOUT CAP ANSON?"anyways i did fuck up wth the bears twce, so t's all good m-doggi voited packers, since they are historical and have 12 titles LOL... well the Raiders were one of 2 AFL teams mentioned in my list... lol... You might have a point if we have to have the Dolphins. The main thing is that pre-2002 there is no argument, the Raiders were great, and for 39 years they dominated. But in the past 6 years, they've sucked. But the Steelers sucked ass, I mean they were going bankrupted and had to merge with other teams bad, the only winless season and they still are on the list, and the Giants from 1964-1978, which is 14 years, only had 2 winning season. I mean come on, New York was rooting for their AFL team more than their NFL team. So to say 6 years disqualifies the Raiders, when they were the most feared franchise in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's is quite strange. All the way up to 2002 they were competitive almost every year, though the late 80's and late 90's they did do some rebuilding, it was in no time they were in AFC championship games. And unlike the Jazz, they did win something.Oh well, I will also say this, when I was actually getting the official numbers (I figured so we can get some stats to back up claims), I realized something, before the Super Bowl era, the Packers were just so damn good I almost switched my vote to them, but after the Super Bowl era the Cowboys have basically dominated modern football. Though the Packers being fairly good since the Super Bowl and their Farve era I think puts them as the top franchise. I still voted Cowboys because the Cowboys basically have dominated the modern game with their wins in the 70's and 90's and I found so many stats since 1969 that make them the top franchise since then.
the Raiders obviously need to be mentioned. its just a shame that oakland has been ran by the ego-maniac Al Davis.
in baseball it'syankees (.567 winning %, 39 pennants, 26 titles)....cardinals (.517 winning %, 21 pennants, 10 titles)athletics (.486 winning %, 15 pannants 9 titles)red sox (.516 winning %, 12 pennants 7 titles)dodgers (.524 winning%, 22 pennants, 6 titles)giants (..538, 20 pennants, 5 titles)reds (.507, 10 pennants, 5 titles)
Quote from: Hack Wilson on November 06, 2008, 07:30:42 PMin baseball it'syankees (.567 winning %, 39 pennants, 26 titles)....cardinals (.517 winning %, 21 pennants, 10 titles)athletics (.486 winning %, 15 pannants 9 titles)red sox (.516 winning %, 12 pennants 7 titles)dodgers (.524 winning%, 22 pennants, 6 titles)giants (..538, 20 pennants, 5 titles)reds (.507, 10 pennants, 5 titles)This dude has more Eastcoast bias that the Source pre-2006, or ESPN.