So it's pretty much confirmed that it's going to be the patriots again, right? been to 5 consecutive afccgs...

so it's pretty much confirmed that it's going to be the patriots again, right? been to 5 consecutive afccgs, won two of them, and took a ring from one of their top potential challengers. '10s broncos and seahawks are going to just end up being this decade's '80s redskins or '90s packers.

Patriots or Seattle

Broncos have a smaller window

Let's see if Based Jim can perform in the post season. Brady managed those super bowl winning teams perfectly, that is not an easy task to do.

>Seattle
They'll be in cap hell soon when Ruslel starts getting $21M+ cap hits. They have a 2 year window, that is it.

>sleeping on Carr , Cooper and Mack

barring injury. brady's got at least 2 more seasons. that puts him through the 2018 season. even if jimmy g (or whoever) shits the bed in '19-'20 and another team rises the 1990s broncos can confirm that two late strong years don't make you the "team of the decade".

unless the broncos, seahawks, or maybe packers win 2 more rings in the next 4 years pats have it wrapped up.

Jury is still definitely out, but Pats do seem to have the best chance.

panthers are gonna reel off 5 straight ships, no one denies this

Pats=Seahawks>Broncos>>>>>rest of the NFL

raiders might be set up for '20s, but no way they'll take the title from the pats this decade. unless they threepeat, beating the pats at least twice in the playoffs.

You know there's only 4 years left and you haven't done jack shit yet. You'd need to win 3/4. 2 wouldn't cut it

their core is young and locked up, they can go to the draft for whatever holes pop up

>the 10's are mostly over

Damn...

Kek you fags say this EVERY YEAR

>top 2 afc teams beat 2 top nfc teams
>third top nfc team ekes past bad afc team
>nfc big dog=afc big dog
>mfw

He barley got his extension last year you dumbfuck

meant for

I feel superbowls trump all so the jury is still out, considering no one has multiple Lombardi's this decade I would say the Patriots are winning because they and the sea-hawks are both 1-1 this decade with the pats winning. Green bay is still in the running with their Superbowl from 2011 and general dominance from Rodgers, for-sure need one more though. I would eliminate the Giants though because they have been such shit that a second lombardi wouldnt mean much, the would need at least two apperences and another victory to even have a chance.

Seattle
>multiple playoff appareances many consecutive almost all consecutive
>many NFCC appareances
>one SB win
>repeat SB appareances
Can't think of another team with this much success

"Barely" means nothing. He did. They made room. Now they're good to go for half a decade.
It's time you came up with since other criticism

>HURR YOU SAY IT EVERY YEAR
>get proven wrong
>backtracking hard
user come on now.

>It's time you came up with since other criticism
What? Speak english on Sup Forums, Juan.

I literally just said they're good to go, you were proven wrong.
As for the English, it's late and you got me

packers are right on their heels: 6 consecutive playoff appearances, a ring, aaron rodgers 2x mvp. 4 consecutive division champs. the only thing they need to match the seahawks is a sb loss.

wtf are you talking about, the hawks are only 2-0 in the NFCC, they lost the divisional in 2011, 12, and 15.

Super Bowl wins are all that matters with conference titles as a tiebreaker. Right now every team that's won has only 1. I'd say Seattle (1 SB/2 NFC) or New England (1SB /2 AFC) has the lead but if neither wins another Super Bowl then no one really claims it.

and broncos: 5 consecutive playoff appearances, afcw champ 5 consecutive years, 1 sb win, 1 sb loss, 1 league mvp

True

Rankings...

Front runner tier. Seahawks (1/2), Pats (1/2), Broncos (1/2)

Champion tier: Packers (1/1), Ravens (1/1), Giants (1/1)

Need a ring tier:
Steelers (0/1), 49ers (0/1), Panthers (0/1)

>no one really claims it
nah, there'll still be a "team of the decade" that people compare all other concurrent team performances against. sbs are the obvious key, but consistency is, too. if the giants or ravens keep shitting it up the next couple years then fluke into another sb win in 2019 it won't suddenly make them the team of the '10s.

I dunno, maybe. A lot of casuals only seem to care about Lombardi trophies. If one team has 2 and everyone else has 1 then I could easily see that argument being made.

It's going to be the Raiders. This is going to be the year Derek Carr explodes and becomes a HoF talent and takes the Raiders to the promised land.
I'm not a Raiders fan, but I know it's coming.

TYBC

>Steelers (0/1)
i just realized they were actually real close to taking it: won a sb mid AND late '00s, lost a sb early '10s. if they had beaten the packers in 2011 they'd already be "the" team running into this decade.

Packers are a meme dynasty btw and shouldn't be included

nah, every year they basically snuck in and both wins were against shitty teams and had BS refball save them

Is it even a question?

true. and every other decade has really made it easy with one team winning the most sbs AND sustaining success every season.

but nobody says that the giants were better than the pats from 2005-2014 just because they won 2 rings in that span, even though they took them both from the pats (except for contrarians). they were just weird-ass fluke seasons.

regardless, a win's a win, and they have "brand recognition" (for lack of a better word). can you imagine what a hard on the media would have had for them if they won 3 in 6 years?

>all 6 of these rings were won WITHOUT cheating

unless massive teamwide steroid abuse is counted as cheating

But WITH refball

Hmmm what's that? It sounds like somebody with less than 6 rings is trying to talk shit...

All because of Mendenfumble. Fuck him.

Any one of those first six teams could lock it up with another SB win, assuming another team on that list doesn't get another win or two. Do division titles or record play into this at all?

first 4, yes. ravens or giants? i'm less sure. they've been to inconsistent. take all the teams from the op pic-they all had a periods of sustained success. ravens and gianst have been high-low. especially the giants. even the year they won they weren't very good until eli released his playoff retard strength. they were a wild card that year, iirc.

>Do division titles or record play into this at all?
it's not a mathematical formula, but just about public perception, so yes, but not in a concrete "sb=10 points, div champ=3 points, 10+ wins=2 points..." kinda way.

Sorry my mang it's gotta be the Chiefs

>mfw

smeff's old team has a better chance than you guys do:
>3 consecutive nfccg appearances
>1 sb appearance

Parity and free agency

>using the past against us

Stop trying to deny it mang.

>2 playoff appearances this decade
>1 playoff win this decade
>using the past against you
>mfw
nah, i'm using the present against you.

>Alex Smeth: Time Manager
>Travis Kelcie: Great TE in both regards
>Jeremy Maclin: Huge play maker
>Chris Conely: Great backup for Maclin
>Spencer Ware: Huge RB for the Chiefs and a major playmaker.
>Defense: Elite as shit

The teams the best it has been in years and YOU are denying it? Why?

Seahawks are it if they win another Owl.

Chiefs window of opportunity is pretty much over. I'd give them 2 more years tops to do something

>give up 400 yards and 27 points
equating your defense to shit is very accurate

>tfw the Chiefs wasted the prime years of a good defense on le checkdown to Charles man

as of right now it's for sure the patriots

>sleeping on Dak and Ezekial

it's not going to be anybody. the NFL has more talent spread out across its teams than ever before.

>I feel superbowls trump all so the jury is still out, considering no one has multiple Lombardi's this decade I would say the Patriots are winning because they and the sea-hawks are both 1-1 this decade with the pats winning

The Broncos are also 1-1

This is a thread about the future, not past accomplishments. Enjoy your laurels,past greats, and rest comfortably upon them. They were well-earned, unless your team cheated like a sumbitch or something, but they are past -- the future beckons. Embrace the guture.

The guture loves you.

broncos got blown out though biggest ever

Pats > Seahawks
Seahawks > Broncos
Broncos > Pats

Rock Paper Scissors

super bowl 24 was worse. although that was also the broncos taking the beating.

Its the decade of the baltimorons sorry
flacco is
E
L
I
T
E

>meme chucker
>elite
kek

>Kurt warner cardinals
>shitty

>time manager

Did a tip top fucking job of that against NE last year.

85 bears beat the pats like 55-3

the grey will be come the white
...................at the turn of the tide

Redskins had kind of a mini dynasty at the end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s.

This. When the Ravens go to the playoffs again, everyone will realize. Ravens always bounce back from a bad season.

I consulted my tea leafs and apparently the answer is the Bucs

>Elite as shit defense

You wish kiddo. I can name at least 7 defenses off the top of my head that are better than that mediocre defense.

This was supposed to be another Packers defense

Then we acquired the most chokey defense possible

*another Packers decade

It'll be the Patriots IF Belichick stays. He goes, so does the dynasty.

I's time for the Bears reign now.

I think Seattle DESU
If they get another Super Bowl

The problem with making the Pats repeat for the '10s is the lone Super Bowl win and the fucking embarrassing SB loss. No one has clearly put themselves out there; 2+ for 3 or more championships make a dynasty. There may not even be one depending on how the rest of the decade plays out.

Is this the most balanced decade?

They also have the highest win percentage and you can pencil them in to the AFCCG every year.

I'd say it's the Patriots until the Packers/Seahawks/Broncos/whoever win another Super Bowl. Or a random team becomes a dynasty at the tail end of the decade

but this decade except for 1 of 6 seasons they've always been the bridesmaid and not the bride. Another SB win and they'd be the closest to a dynasty for the NFL.

Vikings will be the first team to win 2 superbowls in a row with 2 different quarterbacks. Cap this

So who is currently set up to take the '20s?

>tfw the Bills will never be relevant again

but they have carry over from the 00s. until someone takes it it's theirs.

no way of knowing. 70s 49ers were abysmal, then walsh+montana (to sinplify things) happened and they became on of the greatest teams ever.

Kek. Chefsfags BTFO.

just to add on to this, the Broncos and Seahawks are also 1-1.
>Patriots had the greatest TE combo ever and lost
>Patriots made biggest comeback in Super Bowl history to win
>Broncos had highest scoring offense and got killed
>They also had an amazing defense that won them an Owl against a seemingly unstoppable freight train of a 15-win team
>Seattle had top-5 GOAT defense in win
>Allowed said comeback from the Pats to lose

All three teams have a stake, but I guess I'd hand it to the Pats because of their playoff record in this period of 6 full seasons.

>but they have carry over from the 00s.
same with the Naners from the 80s. They were constantly competing with the Cowboys until Steve Young won his Owl and then retired a few years later.

packers are in the discussion, too. they're just a sb loss behind new england, seattle and denver:

but when the cowboys took 3 of 4 lombardis they jumped the niners. niners were still good in the 90s, but not THE team of the nfl.

yeah, you can pencil the Packers in for best NFC record every season, but the gacking up in the playoffs has hurt their standing.

yeah, there really wasn't a dynasty in the latter half of the 90s I suppose.

Same goes for the Broncos and Patriots, though. They're all 1-1 this decade.

pats have been to the Superbowl twice, winning one and also been in every afc conference championship since the 2011-2012 season

plus when they make the playoffs, steve smith will probably pull a ray lewis which will push them to another superbowl...though at this point in the season, I'm even worried about playing McCown next week now so who the fuck knows with this team

both seattle and NE have good shots to win another title in the next 4-5 years

Could have been the Pats again but
>18-1

1. Past
2. Seacawks
>POWERGAP
5. Donkeys

Everyone talks about how the pats haven't missed the playoffs but doesn't mention 1st round bye every time and 2 of the times they didn't get 1st was injury related

Pic related respect to the second best of his time

>2007
>this discussion

Loinz. Believe it.

This topic made me wonder, half way through, how obvious the other teams of the decade were.

The Packers through '65 had already won three championships, and lost a fourth. It would have taken the Giants going ballistic to dethrone them.

While the Steelers sure looked like the favorites going in to '76, the decade was still very much up in the air.
>Pit had actually started the decade with a couple of losing seasons.
>The Cowboys were masters of roster construction, and had three conference titles and one championship.
>The Dolphins roster had been pulled apart, but they did have an undefeated season, and two titles on three straight appearances.
>The Raiders didn't have a championship yet, but like the Cowboys they were contending for it every year, and were a golden franchise who you could easily see finishing stronger than the Steelers.
>As late as January 1979 it was still up in the air. Cowboys are probably the team of the decade if Jackie Smith can hold on to the ball.

The 80s were similar to the 70s, though with the contenders more clear. The Raiders and 49ers each had two, and there was probably no reason to think the Raiders would be moving to Tier 2 among elite franchises. The Bears had just finished being maybe the greatest team ever assembled, and the expectation was that they would continue. The Redskins could have been called a dark horse, as well.

The Cowboys had wrapped it up by '95, and the collapse still hadn't happened. Going in to '96 the Broncos and Packers were clearly the most likely teams to make it interesting, but that was still a long shot.

'00 Patriots were in a similar spot to the '90s Cowboys. Team of the decade was effectively over, outside of something crazy. And unlike the '90s Cowboys, they didn't collapse, they merely failed to seal the deal again before the decade was over.

I think where we are now is most like the 70s, but even then you could see where it was heading more easily.