What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Team of the decade for the 2010s, three years in (1 Viewer)

The_Man

The_Man

Footballguy
I think it’s cool that there’s a consensus NFL “Team of the Decade” for each of the last 5 decades.

60s: Packers

70s: Steelers

80s: 49ers

90s: Cowboys

00s: Patriots

So who’s the front-runner for the Team of the Decade for the 2010s so far? To me, it clearly comes down to the Ravens and Packers. For the time being, I give the slight edge to Baltimore; they both have 1 Super Bowl title, but the Ravens have appeared in Conference Championship games twice in this decade’s three years, the Packers just once.

After that, it’s hard to list the Giants as #3, since they haven’t made the playoffs in any year this decade except their championship year. But they did win that Super Bowl, so they go third. The Patriots are #4, the highest ranked team not to win a title, as they are the only 3-time division champ in the NFL during the '10s, and they’ve won 1 Conference Championship game, while reaching another.

Just behind the Pats are the 49ers, who have also gone 1-1 in Conference Championship games this decade, but have only 2 division titles during that time and a much worse regular season record than New England.

The only 2 other teams currently in the conversation might be Pittsburgh (one AFC Championship, and 2 playoff appearances) and Atlanta, based on reaching three straight post-seasons; winning just one playoff game in 3 years marks them down considerably.

1. Ravens (34-14, 6-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; One Conference Championship runner-up; two division titles; three playoff appearances

2. Packers (36-12, 5-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; two division titles; three playoff appearances

3. Giants (28-20, 3-0 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; one division title; 1 playoff appearance

4. Patriots (39-9, 3-3 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 3 division titles; 3 playoff appearances

5. 49ers (30-17-1, 3-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 2 division titles; two playoff appearances

6. Steelers (32-16, 2-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; 1 division title; 2 playoffs appearances

7. Falcons (36-12, 1-3 playoffs)

One Conference runner-up; 2 division titles; 3 playoff appearances

 
Probably easier to start by eliminating teams.

Raiders, Jaguars, Jets, Dolphins, Chargers, Chiefs, Rams, Bills, Bears, Browns, Vikings, Bucccaneers, Panthers, Lions, Eagles.

All out

 
Not only has a team not won multiple SBs, no team has reached multiple SBs in the 2010s. I don't think anyone is standing out yet. Of course, that's not crazy over just a 3-year span. In the 70s, it started to look like it would be Miami. In the 80s, it took until the end of the decade to clearly be SF.

If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd actually lean towards there not being a clear team of the decade in the 2010s. I'd put the highest odds on GB, then maybe NYG and SF. But, I think it's almost as likely that someone comes out of nowhere soon and wins a couple SBs in the next few years.

 
I came into this thread thinking we'd be predicting who would wind up being the team of the decade when all was said and done, which sounded much more interesting (for my money, give me the 49ers).

 
Adam Harstad said:
I came into this thread thinking we'd be predicting who would wind up being the team of the decade when all was said and done, which sounded much more interesting (for my money, give me the 49ers).
Click to expand...
Considering where they were in 2010 and where they are now, i agree
 
The_Man said:
I think it’s cool that there’s a consensus NFL “Team of the Decade” for each of the last 5 decades.

60s: Packers

70s: Steelers

80s: 49ers

90s: Cowboys

00s: Patriots

So who’s the front-runner for the Team of the Decade for the 2010s so far? To me, it clearly comes down to the Ravens and Packers. For the time being, I give the slight edge to Baltimore; they both have 1 Super Bowl title, but the Ravens have appeared in Conference Championship games twice in this decade’s three years, the Packers just once.

After that, it’s hard to list the Giants as #3, since they haven’t made the playoffs in any year this decade except their championship year. But they did win that Super Bowl, so they go third. The Patriots are #4, the highest ranked team not to win a title, as they are the only 3-time division champ in the NFL during the '10s, and they’ve won 1 Conference Championship game, while reaching another.

Just behind the Pats are the 49ers, who have also gone 1-1 in Conference Championship games this decade, but have only 2 division titles during that time and a much worse regular season record than New England.

The only 2 other teams currently in the conversation might be Pittsburgh (one AFC Championship, and 2 playoff appearances) and Atlanta, based on reaching three straight post-seasons; winning just one playoff game in 3 years marks them down considerably.

1. Ravens (34-14, 6-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; One Conference Championship runner-up; two division titles; three playoff appearances

2. Packers (36-12, 5-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; two division titles; three playoff appearances

3. Giants (28-20, 3-0 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; one division title; 1 playoff appearance

4. Patriots (39-9, 3-3 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 3 division titles; 3 playoff appearances

5. 49ers (30-17-1, 3-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 2 division titles; two playoff appearances

6. Steelers (32-16, 2-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; 1 division title; 2 playoffs appearances

7. Falcons (36-12, 1-3 playoffs)

One Conference runner-up; 2 division titles; 3 playoff appearances
Click to expand...
This thread will be fun because it will last until the end of the decade.

The Falcons are a good example of a team that does not belong on the list now and won't be there even in a year or two.

 
I agree this is way premature for this, especially because this year's results will dramatically impact the outcome for the "after 4 years" question.

For example, if NE wins the SB this year, I think they jump to the top of the list having 1) tied for most SB wins, 2) most SB appearances (or at least a tie for most SB appearances depending on who makes it from the NFC), 3) most likely the most total wins, 4) tied for most playoff appearances, and making AFCC 3 times. If SF wins the SB, they could go to the top of the list. If BAL, GB, or NYG wins the SB they would be the only 2-time winner and would be #1.

Bottom line, it's too fluid a situation which would mean there is no clear frontrunner. Predicting who it will end up being might be an interesting exercise, however . . .

 
Good point that Miami was team of the 70s through 1973 (3 SB appearances, two titles) before getting passed by Pittsburgh. And Washington and SF were neck and neck through 87 (3 SBs, 2 wins for Washington; 2 wins in 2 SBs for SF) before SF won back-to-back in 88 and 89.

To clarify, I wasn't awarding the title with 70 percent of the decade left, was just trying to spark some talk about who has been the best so far, and who is likely to emerge in the coming years. If that offended you, please ignore this thread and resume intense discussion about who you should take as your WR6 with your 15th round pick.

 
The_Man said:
I think it’s cool that there’s a consensus NFL “Team of the Decade” for each of the last 5 decades.

60s: Packers

70s: Steelers

80s: 49ers

90s: Cowboys

00s: Patriots

So who’s the front-runner for the Team of the Decade for the 2010s so far? To me, it clearly comes down to the Ravens and Packers. For the time being, I give the slight edge to Baltimore; they both have 1 Super Bowl title, but the Ravens have appeared in Conference Championship games twice in this decade’s three years, the Packers just once.

After that, it’s hard to list the Giants as #3, since they haven’t made the playoffs in any year this decade except their championship year. But they did win that Super Bowl, so they go third. The Patriots are #4, the highest ranked team not to win a title, as they are the only 3-time division champ in the NFL during the '10s, and they’ve won 1 Conference Championship game, while reaching another.

Just behind the Pats are the 49ers, who have also gone 1-1 in Conference Championship games this decade, but have only 2 division titles during that time and a much worse regular season record than New England.

The only 2 other teams currently in the conversation might be Pittsburgh (one AFC Championship, and 2 playoff appearances) and Atlanta, based on reaching three straight post-seasons; winning just one playoff game in 3 years marks them down considerably.

1. Ravens (34-14, 6-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; One Conference Championship runner-up; two division titles; three playoff appearances

2. Packers (36-12, 5-2 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; two division titles; three playoff appearances

3. Giants (28-20, 3-0 playoffs)

One Super Bowl; one division title; 1 playoff appearance

4. Patriots (39-9, 3-3 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 3 division titles; 3 playoff appearances

5. 49ers (30-17-1, 3-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; One Conference Championship runner-up; 2 division titles; two playoff appearances

6. Steelers (32-16, 2-2 playoffs)

One Conference championship; 1 division title; 2 playoffs appearances

7. Falcons (36-12, 1-3 playoffs)

One Conference runner-up; 2 division titles; 3 playoff appearances
Click to expand...
I really don't agree with a lot of this list... the Ravens definitely aren't first. They lost most of their team leadership after the Super Bowl victory and more than likely will see a steep drop off this season. Them and the Steelers will likely watch Cinci win it's first division title in quite some time this season. If I'm making my most educated guess I'm going like this:

1. Packers - One Super Bowl and if they can get the defense back on track are likely to win another one within the decade.

2. Giants - One Super Bowl and just as the Packers if they can get the defense back on track they'll likely win another within the decade.

3. Seahawks - I think they've already surpassed the 49ers for the NFC West juggernaut. The 49ers quite possibly missed their most likely chance at a SB win last season.

4. Broncos - It's not insane to think that they pull a 90's Broncos and win back to back Super Bowl's this season and next season and Peyton retires on top.

5. Patriots - Always a contender and can win a Super Bowl at any moment as long as Bill and Tom are together.

 
Packers have the best chance in my opinion, right behind them would be San Fran, Seattle, and the dark horse could be Cincy. That said it is way to early to tell, because things change so fast in the NFL, 3 years ago the 49er's were a wreck, the Bengals were the Bungels, and the Jets were on their way to back to back AFC title games and are now one of the worst teams in the league

 
Teams with youngish good to great QBs.

ATL

BAL

GB

IND

WAS

SEA

SF

If NE, DEN, NO rattle off a couple SBs, maybe.

 
Niners seem like they've got the right combination of youth, talent, coaching, and coaching youth (tenure, age). The team I see not mentioned that could also make some waves is the Colts.

 
Run It Up said:
Includes conference championship wins and losses, doesn't include super bowl losses... what?
Click to expand...
Conference championship wins that don't result in SB wins do include SB losses. Mentioning both would be redundant.

 
Half way through the 2010s, who we got?

Super Bowl winners are:

Packers

Giants

Ravens

Seahawks

Patriots

I guess you have to give the nod right now to New England, since they and Seattle are both 1-1 in Super Bowls this decade, and the Patriots won head-to-head.

Feels like Seahawks and Packers are more likely to win another couple of titles before 2020 than anyone else, though.

 
Yep agreed. I think by the end of it, it will be a tie between Hawks and Packers. I KNOW Rodgers has at least one more in him. Russ? That's a really young, really talented team. This offseason will be HUGE. If they can keep Russ, Lynch, and Wagner along with the guys they resigned last offseason, they're a lock for at least one more, quite possibly more.

 
NEP 63 17 1 SB W 1 SB L 2 AFCC L

GBP 56.5 23.5 1 SB W 1 NFCC L

BAL 52 28 1 SB W 1 AFCC L

PIT 51 29 1 SB L

SFO 50.5 29.5 1 SB L 2 NFCC L

SEA 50 30 1 SB W 1 SB L

DEN 50 30 1 SB L

NOS 49 31

ATL 46 34 1 NFCC L

IND 45 35 1 AFCC L

CIN 44.5 35.5

CHI 42 38 1 NFCC L

DAL 42 38

PHI 42 38

SDC 42 38

NYG 41 39 1 SB W

ARI 39 41

HOU 39 41

KCC 39 41

DET 38 42

NYJ 37 43 1 AFCC L

MIA 36 44

CAR 34.5 45.5

MIN 31.5 48.5

BUF 31 49

TEN 30 50

STL 29.5 50.5

WAS 28 52

OAK 27 53

TBB 27 53

CLE 25 55

JAC 22 58

 
Seattle, green bay and new England are obviously in it.

But who are the dark horse candidates to step up now?

Out of the teams not currently in the top 10, over the next 5 years watch out for

Carolina

Philly

St Louis

 
FUBAR said:
Seattle, green bay and new England are obviously in it.

But who are the dark horse candidates to step up now?

Out of the teams not currently in the top 10, over the next 5 years watch out for

Carolina

Philly

St Louis
Click to expand...
Don't buy St. Louis for a second. Isn't every season supposed to be the one where they make a move? They still have an unsettled QB situation, a revolving door at RB and no stud WR. And if they don't do well in 2015, would it be a shock if Fisher is let go? For a team that supposedly dominated the RG3 trade, they sure don't have much to show for anything.

As for a darkhorse, I'd say Pittsburgh. Their offense is going to be very dangerous with Ben, Bell, Brown and Bryant. The new age "Killer B's" if you will. They get a couple pieces on defense and they could be really tough.

 
MattFancy said:
FUBAR said:
Seattle, green bay and new England are obviously in it.

But who are the dark horse candidates to step up now?

Out of the teams not currently in the top 10, over the next 5 years watch out for

Carolina

Philly

St Louis
Click to expand...
Don't buy St. Louis for a second. Isn't every season supposed to be the one where they make a move? They still have an unsettled QB situation, a revolving door at RB and no stud WR. And if they don't do well in 2015, would it be a shock if Fisher is let go? For a team that supposedly dominated the RG3 trade, they sure don't have much to show for anything.

As for a darkhorse, I'd say Pittsburgh. Their offense is going to be very dangerous with Ben, Bell, Brown and Bryant. The new age "Killer B's" if you will. They get a couple pieces on defense and they could be really tough.
Click to expand...
My worry about Pittsburgh is their defense. As their offense looks better, their defense has fallen apart. In 17 games, only 4 times did opponents score less than 20 points. The Browns scored 27 and 31. They seem like a team that wins 1 or none in the playoffs, like this year. I just don't see them with that defense in the playoffs putting together two in a row and I don't see them in that division/with that defense winning enough games to get a bye.

I do agree with FUBAR on Carolina. If they somehow pull a starting LT out of the draft, I really like them. The game at Seattle was frustrating to watch the mistakes (like a 90 yard INT for a TD = a 14 point swing). Their offense looks like they are close and the D was playing much better during the winning streak at the end. They put up 15 less total yards than the Patriots did against Seattle. If Cam, Stewart and a new LT go into next season healthy, I like their chances a lot. They are the best team in their division, which helps to get to the playoffs and they can play with Seattle, who right now is the 2 time reigning NFC champ. GB looks solid as well and maybe the Cowboys (not sure with their salary situation if they fall back). God forbid Newton works on his mechanics and becomes more accurate. I'm looking forward to a nice run of success over the next few years following a good past two years in the playoffs.

 
MattFancy said:
As for a darkhorse, I'd say Pittsburgh. Their offense is going to be very dangerous with Ben, Bell, Brown and Bryant. The new age "Killer B's" if you will. They get a couple pieces on defense and they could be really tough.
Click to expand...
Not much of a dark horse when they're #4 right now with a Super Bowl appearance. But yes, they "could be good".

 
FUBAR said:
MattFancy said:
As for a darkhorse, I'd say Pittsburgh. Their offense is going to be very dangerous with Ben, Bell, Brown and Bryant. The new age "Killer B's" if you will. They get a couple pieces on defense and they could be really tough.
Click to expand...
Not much of a dark horse when they're #4 right now with a Super Bowl appearance. But yes, they "could be good".
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess dark horse was a little exaggerated. But of teams outside the Pats, Seattle, GB trifecta, I think they have the best chance to crack it.

 
Anarchy99 said:
NEP 63 17 1 SB W 1 SB L 2 AFCC LSEA 50 30 1 SB W 1 SB L GBP 56.5 23.5 1 SB W 1 NFCC L BAL 52 28 1 SB W 1 AFCC LNYG 41 39 1 SB W SFO 50.5 29.5 1 SB L 2 NFCC L PIT 51 29 1 SB L DEN 50 30 1 SB L ATL 46 34 1 NFCC L IND 45 35 1 AFCC LCHI 42 38 1 NFCC LNYJ 37 43 1 AFCC LNOS 49 31 CIN 44.5 35.5 DAL 42 38 PHI 42 38 SDC 42 38 ARI 39 41 HOU 39 41 KCC 39 41 DET 38 42 MIA 36 44 CAR 34.5 45.5 MIN 31.5 48.5 BUF 31 49 TEN 30 50 STL 29.5 50.5 WAS 28 52 OAK 27 53 TBB 27 53 CLE 25 55 JAC 22 58
Click to expand...
Sorted by playoff success.

 
I think NE will be the team of the 2010s. I see Brady playing another day three years. (He says longer, but that would be hard to predict). He usually only throws a handful of even medium length throws. As long as he. An keep getting the ball out quickly for throws underneath he will be fine. I think the Pats win at least one more SB with Brady. Barring an upset, also see them continuing their streak of AFCC appearances for awhile.

 
ShamrockPride said:
Seattle makes at least 2 more super bowls this decade...probably more.
Click to expand...
I don't know, Carroll gives his loose cannons a long leash... (mixed metaphors ftw!) If they ever go in a bad slump it could go south real bad. They had to dump a tier one player to fix the locker room this year.

 
Here's something I really like about the Colts:

The timing on Luck is such that they're going to be able to break the bank to lock him up long-term, at a time when they don't really have any other pieces they need to do that for...

...AND they can do that at 2015 prices, when in about another year or so, the cap is going to be such that they're going to have incredible flexibility to build around him as that number skyrockets.

Among all the obvious contenders who will be moving into that new cap era with elite QB's, they appear best poised to reap that harvest due to fairly minimal assets they are compelled to lock up now.

Now, both Luck and the GM are going to have to knock it out of the park for that to happen, but they're in unique position to have that chance.

 
Freelove said:
Here's something I really like about the Colts:

The timing on Luck is such that they're going to be able to break the bank to lock him up long-term, at a time when they don't really have any other pieces they need to do that for...

...AND they can do that at 2015 prices, when in about another year or so, the cap is going to be such that they're going to have incredible flexibility to build around him as that number skyrockets.

Among all the obvious contenders who will be moving into that new cap era with elite QB's, they appear best poised to reap that harvest due to fairly minimal assets they are compelled to lock up now.

Now, both Luck and the GM are going to have to knock it out of the park for that to happen, but they're in unique position to have that chance.
Click to expand...
Yes, he still have to pick wisely even with all that cap money.

 
Old Smiley said:
ShamrockPride said:
Seattle makes at least 2 more super bowls this decade...probably more.
Click to expand...
I don't know, Carroll gives his loose cannons a long leash... (mixed metaphors ftw!) If they ever go in a bad slump it could go south real bad. They had to dump a tier one player to fix the locker room this year.
Click to expand...
OTOH, they were willing to do so without seemingly much angst. those types of decisions are what great GMs do.

 
MattFancy said:
Don't buy St. Louis for a second. Isn't every season supposed to be the one where they make a move? They still have an unsettled QB situation, a revolving door at RB and no stud WR. And if they don't do well in 2015, would it be a shock if Fisher is let go? For a team that supposedly dominated the RG3 trade, they sure don't have much to show for anything.
Click to expand...
QB is certainly an issue if Bradford doesn't come back healthy or if he falters, but Mason seems like the real deal at RB and do they really need a stud WR to win a Super Bowl? I think this past Super Bowl shows that they do not - plus Brian Quick played pretty well this past season.

Their defense is for real.

 
FUBAR said:
Old Smiley said:
ShamrockPride said:
Seattle makes at least 2 more super bowls this decade...probably more.
Click to expand...
I don't know, Carroll gives his loose cannons a long leash... (mixed metaphors ftw!) If they ever go in a bad slump it could go south real bad. They had to dump a tier one player to fix the locker room this year.
Click to expand...
OTOH, they were willing to do so without seemingly much angst. those types of decisions are what great GMs do.
Click to expand...
The Hawks are definitely looking like a short run favorite.With respect to the cap, naysayers are probably overestimating how much damage extensions for Wilson and a few other key components are likely to do. They truly ought to be able to re-sign or extend virtually every key component of that roster, with maybe one or two exceptions -- but none they can't replace.

At the same time, homers are probably underestimating the damage that could do in a couple years. When the cap opens up in a few years, and it becomes a spending orgy for teams that reserved flexibility, they are likely to be comparatively limited. Spending big to lock up young, elite talents is a no-brainer, and if all goes well, it should keep you in contention for a few years.

But it kills depth, and it kills flexibility. And in a league where trauma ensures player fortunes are ever-shifting sands, being locked into a fistful of highly-paid players can be a devil's bargain. Much more so when many of your competitors should be taking big steps forward.

I think at the moment, they should be among the favorites to gather another Lombardi in the next year or two. But after that, I think they may find themselves poorly positioned.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Cleveland Browns road to the number 1 seed!
Replies
8
Views
796
Gatorman
Gatorman
Deamon
***OFFICIAL 2024 OFFENSE/DEFENSE CONTEST PLAYOFF EDITION*** WEEK 1 (1 Viewer)
Replies
26
Views
652
Neil Beaufort Zod
Neil Beaufort Zod
Deamon
***OFFICIAL 2024 OFFENSE/DEFENSE CONTEST PLAYOFF EDITION*** WEEK 2
Replies
19
Views
844
BearsFan4Life
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top