Teams of the Decade

Home 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Complete List

Forward

Explanation

Since the Steelers of the 1970s were anointed the "Team of the Decade," each decade has seen its own dominant team. It's become routine to crown one team as the greatest of the decade. But, there was football before the 70s. The 1960s Packers are generally given the same praise, but what about the teams of the earlier decades? Shouldn't they receive the same accolade?

This website provides a glimpse into the great teams of all times and how they compare to other teams of their decade and to teams of other decades. This isn't to say what team is the greatest of all time, but to determine what teams had the greatest decade of all time. And since all teams are ranked, many "barguments" can be settled regarding whose team had a better decade in each decade.

What is the definition of the "Team of the Decade"? Certainly, championships help define the Team of the Decade, but it cannot be championships alone or the title would simply apply to the team with the most championships during a decade. In the 50s, two teams were good enough to win three championships each (Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions). To anoint them "Co-Teams of the Decade" would be paramount to the proverbial "kissing your sister." There are no tie champions in the NFL. For the other decades, one team indeed did win more championships than any other team in the decade, but that's no guarantee to continue. So this formula takes other factors into account as well. Consistency during a decade is rewarded. A good example is to look at the N.Y. Giants and Buffalo Bills of the 1990s:

Team	Years in Playoffs	Playoff Wins	Championships	Winning Percentage	Winning Seasons	Adjusted Decade Rating
Buffalo Bills	8	10	0	0.644	8.000	386.60
New York Giants	3	4	1	0.522	4.000	243.30

While I'm sure the Bills would rather have a championship, they clearly had a better decade overall than the Giants. In fact the Giants finished the decade barely winning half their games. This is more than just a list of teams who won championships. At some point, the other accomplishments a team has becomes greater than winning championships, when considering their success during the entire decade. To further illustrate this point, let's include the St. Louis Rams of the same decade:

Team	Years in Playoffs	Playoff Wins	Championships	Winning Percentage	Winning Seasons	Adjusted Decade Rating
St. Louis Rams	1	3	1	0.363	1.000	139.45

The Rams won it all in the last year of the decade so they have the trophy the Bills don't. But I think it would be very difficult to argue that a team that won just over 36 percent of their games during the decade had a better decade than a team of the Bills' accomplisments. And that's what this formula does: It separates successful decades from successful years. The Rams and Giants both had a more successful year during the decade than the Bills did, but the Bills had the better overall decade. In fact, several teams that did not win championships had better years than the Giants and Rams. Not surprisingly, the Bills of the 90s hold the distinction of being the highest ranked team without a championship.

The Formula

The formula starts with a fictional team that makes the playoffs every year of the decade, wins every playoff game, wins every championship, wins every regular season game, and has ten winning seasons. This team would have an Adjusted Decade Rating of 1000.

There are some consistencies among the decades. Every team has the opportunity to make the playoffs ten years, win ten championships, win all their regular season games, and have ten winning seasons. The only difference is in playoff games. Teams of recent decades play more playoff games than those of the 60s and before. In fact, from 1920 to 1932, teams did not even play championship games. So, the "Playoff Win" category has been adjusted to reflect this difference; much like the rate of inflation allows you to compare the cost of an item today to 50 years ago. Or to put it another way, the Packers of the 60s won 9 playoff games. That equates to just over 50 percent of the total playoff games the fictional team described above would have to have won to win all championships of the decade. The Steelers of the 70s won 14 playoff games. That equates to just under 50 percent of the possible playoff games. The formula considers the Packers' 9 playoff wins to be more impressive than the Steelers' 14 playoff wins.

Analysis and Conclusion

When looking at the Complete Decade Rankings, one cannot help but to notice the number of teams in the 1920s at the bottom of the list. One might conclude that the formula is biased against teams from the early years, but in reality, the simple fact is that the early days of the NFL were very fragile. Teams folded and generated routinely and then folded and regenerated. This instability led to several teams that won very few games and only lasted for a few years. Clearly, these teams don't have a chance when compared to modern teams. I could have limited the list to only teams that played ten years in each decade, but why? That would have eliminated the Seattle Seahawks of the 70s who only played four years, but still had a better decade than Giants, Jets, Saints, and their expansion brethern Bucanneers.

Taking it a step further, every decade beginning with the 1930s is represented in the top ten. And the decade with the most top ten teams is the 70s. For those who remember the NFL in the 70s, I bet this isn't surprising.

Sometimes, formal evaluation is used to justify empirical data. You watch a football game and you can tell which team is the best on the field that day; you don’t really need to see the final score. But, since they do keep score, if the team that you believe is the best wins the game, then the score really only confirms what you saw. This "eye test" is applicable. My eyes told me the Steelers of the 70s were the best team of that decade. They also told me the Forty-Niners were the best team of the 80s. So, had my formula drawn different conclusions, it would have been difficult to believe the formula.

To further the point, in recent news there is an article in Forbes magazine that lists the top General Managers in sports today. Their list has some very suspect people at the top. I've heard it said that if you create a system (or formula in this case) that gives you results that seem ridiculous, then you might want to disregard the system. This system passes that test.

Format

The information on this website is divided into each complete decade in which professional football has been played. The data for the current decade, beginning in 2000 and ending in 2009, is incomplete and will be posted at the end of the decade.. As mentioned previously, all the teams are also listed in order from the team that had the greatest decade, to the team that had the worst on the Complete Decade Rankings page..

At the bottom of each decade page, there is an explanation if necessary.

I invite your thoughts and opinions. I like nothing more than sitting around with a few friends at a local establishment over a cold drink having a little "bargument." Feel free to state your case why your team should be ranked higher and I'll try to present mine. And feel free to use this information to win your own "barguments."