Discuss

Discuss.

3 years to go, girl

who is everyone always talking about?

there's your answer

...

"look we half the second best!"

>1 owl
>losing 4 straight

I'm a Bears fan you fucking cuckold. You can't dispute it

>Same amount of Owls in 2010s
>One more playoff appearance
>More wins

You're lucky i didn't take the Carollcucks off alltogether.

I thought Bilels consistently came 2nd in the 90s

>Raiders
>not Redskins

Broncos won two Super Bowls. 2-0>0-4.

>Broncos
>runner-up Team of the 90s
>Raiders
>runner-up Team of the 80s

Umm, 80s should be the Redskins and 90s bills.

>4 Super Bowl losses is better than 2 Super Bowl wins

I'll give you the Skins. That was a mistake on my part.

How can the Bills be better than the Broncos if they didn't win the Super Bowl while the Broncos won back to back?

4 straight bowls is insane and Broncos cheated to get those Owls.

I absolutely can dispute it you moron.

Seattle went to two Super Bowls. Green Bay went to one.

lol if you're gonna make someone share with the seahawks at least make it the broncos. or are you one of those fags who thinks 1-0 is a better SB record than 1-1?

At least Razor Cakes didn't fudge salary cap rules and 4 superb owl appearances in a row is just unbelievable, also it's funnier to see them in runners-up again

Bills are the best franchise of all time then, amirite Reddit?

Guess what's more impressive than losing four Super Bowls?

Winning one.

>4 appearances

this doesn't aid your argument

I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. Is your head OK user?

If Seattle makes it to two Super Bowls, winning one and beating Green Bay to get to the other, how exactly is Green Bay as good?

>Losing Super Bowls is a quantifiable metric of success, according to neo Sup Forums

>losing before the Super Bowl is somehow better than losing in the Super Bowl

>making it to the super bowl isn't more impressive than getting knocked out in the first or second round
get a load of this astronomical faggot

>Are you one of those faggots that thinks 1.000 pct is better than .500 pct?


>Muh Super Bowl losses!!

Fucking disgusting

@73866703
>being unable to even get to the fucking owl is apparently better than succeeding in doing so
don't even deserve a (you) tbqh

thats how jordan got his status

>Succeeding in losing the Super Bowl

such legends

>all those afc west runners up

>winning the conference championship is comparable to getting knocked out in the first round

seattle since the beginning of 2010: 9 playoff wins, 2 super bowl appearances, 1 super bowl win

green bay since the beginning of 2010: 9 playoff wins, 1 super bowl appearance, 1 super bowl win

considering that the seahawks beat the packers to make it to their second super bowl, i think we can safely say you are retarded

But one team is literally 1.000 pct in the Owl.

The other team is .500.

Gibbs was incredible. By far the most underrated GOAT coach candidate.

Dude won 3 owls with 3 QBs. No one will ever touch that.

This is more accurate.

and green bay is .667 in the first round of the playoffs since then whereas seattle is 1.000.

see what i did there?

>1* owl in the 10's
>team of the decade

Whoah you had me going there for a second pham.

But the Super Bowl is more important than the first round, by your logic. So you spewed a moot point at me.

they have the same number of super bowls, same number of playoff wins, and seattle has made the super bowl more often.

if you really need someone to spell it out more simply than this, maybe you need more help than i can give you.

too sensible. majority of sports fan won't be able to comprehend this

Why aren't you trying to put the Ravens in the number 1 spot then.
They won an owl, Patriots have made it to 3 and only won 1 of them what losers.

'10 is the Patriots. Unless a team wins 3 superb owls '17-'19; even then, it would have to be a team that was somewhat dominant during the first half of the decade like Seattle or Denver. With Denver's offense in the dumpster for the foreseeable future and Seattle in decline, I don't see that happening.

Lol of course the Packersfag is an insufferable cunt.

If you're going to do a halvsie-runner up it should absolutely be the Broncos. Not only did they make it to two but they were true rivals to the team of the decade too, besting them quite a few times.

60s: Bart Starr
Runner Up: Johnny Unitas

70s: Roger Staubach
Runner Up: Joe Namath

80s: Joe Montana
Runner Up: Dan Marino

90s: Steve Young
Runner Up: Brett Favre

00s: Peyton Manning
Runner Up: Tom Brady

10s: Aaron Rodgers
Runner up: Tom Brady

>00s: Peyton Manning
>10s: Aaron Rodgers

if the pats lose, seattle and denver only need 1 more suppa bowl to be the team of the decade

>Runner Up: Tom Brady

'17, '18, and '19, baby.

First NFL team to threepeat.

>Joe Namath
>relevant at all in the 70s

>six straight AFCCG
Not even close. Either team would need two more owls to be in the running.

>70's
>Joe Namath

Losing a little credibility here bro. Other than that, pretty good. I might argue Favre takes the 90's over Young, but the 90's are tough to judge (Elway, Aikman and Kelly also have arguments).

70s:
>Not Bradshaw but the guy who couldn't win an owl when he had to play Bradshaw

THIS!

>QBs play each other head to head
>Bradshaw was the reason the Steelers won 4 owls

my sides

>defense babby

Troy Aikman was literally better than Favre in the 90's and there is no debate about this.

2-1>1-2

>not knowing that Bradshaw is better than Staubauch in almost every statistical category in the playoffs

topkek m8

>QBs play each other head to head
>Bradshaw was the reason the Steelers won 4 owls

my sides

>Carter Begins
>The Romo Knight
>The Dak Knight Rises

Part three is always the weak link.

Of these, only Quincy Carter was drafted by the Cowboys with the high hopes of him becoming the next Aikman.

I actually crack up whenever people put Rodgers above Brady in any sense. Shit is too funny.

When Max Kellerman said Rodgers was better than brady and it wasn't even close, I literally strained the fuck out of my jaw from smiling and laughing.

this

>can't even make it to the owl
wow definitely more successful

Decent defense, potentially historic offense, adequate coaching.

I wonder how Jerry is going to screw this up?

If you put Montana above Marino then you have to put Brady above Manning. If you intermingle these two options then your opinion is illogical.

Brady can't even hold a candle to Rodgers though

He's on the better team but not a better player

I don't want to seem argumentative, but how does this team differ from the Romo led teams of the late 00s early 10s? Weren't they "destined for greatness" as well?

I think Manning blew his shot at the 00s when he lost that 09 Super Bowl to the Saints.

he honestly has a better case fr the 10s than he has for the 00s. He was almost always considered the silver medal candidate to Brady's success up until his time in Denver.

The Patriots organization as a whole is a level above any in the league. When you have front office management and coaching that efficient, it's no surprise they make the playoffs pretty much every year.

Why though? Because he scrambles occasionally?

Rodgers sucked in the beginning of the year. His torrid end to the season was incredible but he was rather mediocre for much of the season.

...

Not too sure if Dak is a choke artist or not, still need more time

One one and done in the playoffs as a first seeded rookie warrants a two season grace period. Check back in 2020

>00s: Peyton Manning
>Runner Up: Tom Brady
>10s: Aaron Rodgers

>Runner up: Tom Brady

I thought I just heard a faggot squealing.

Five of them? I guess they really, really, really,really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, like girls.

>raidniggers
>runner up '80s

LMAO kys spic. Burrs and Niners ran the 80's

The man single handedly dragged a below average team to the NFC Championship pretty much

He did have a pretty bad start off to the season I will grant you but ended up leading the NFL in touchdown passes and overall doing a better job than Brady

Runner up in the 60s was the Cowboys.

Agree on 70s. 80s too.

Runner up in the 90s was the Packers imo. They were really fucking good from 1994-1999.

I'm a Broncos fan and the 10s clearly belong to the Pats unless the Seahawks or Broncos win two more this decade

60s: Bart Starr
Runner Up: Johnny Unitas

70s: Terry Bradshaw
Runner Up: Rodger Staubach

80s: Joe Montana
Runner Up: Boomer Esiason

90s: Troy Aikman
Runner Up: Brett Favre

00s: Tom Brady
Runner Up: Drew Brees

10s: Aaron Rodgers
Runner up: Tom Brady

>(You)

>Troy Aikman
>only guy more overrated than Bradshaw
Wew lad

Closer, but no cigar.

60s: Bart Starr
Runner Up: Johnny Unitas

70s: Terry Bradshaw
Runner Up: Rodger Staubach

80s: Joe Montana
Runner Up: Boomer Esiason

90s: Troy Aikman
Runner Up: Brett Favre

00s: Tom Brady
Runner Up: Ben Roethlisberger

10s: Tom Brady
Runner up: Aaron Rodgers

>Aikman
So clearly you're a teenage Cowsboys fans, cause not even Cowboys fans who watched the 90s NFL would say

no way in hell Aikman was better Elway, Marino, Favre, or Steve Young

I'm 31 and from Green Bay. Aikman was the best QB on the best team and only lost to Favre ONCE. Who is the better QB in the 90's than him?

Elway? He was washed up and relied on his running game to win.

Young? He inherited a super team and didn't do shit with it.

You make it sound like winning is a bad thing.

In the 2010s, Rodgers is better than Brady. Obviously, that may change in two weeks.

Marino was washed up in the 90s. I don't think he had more than 1 playoff win the 90s.

Are you seriously going to say that Elway relied on the run game while pumping up Aikman? Cowboys had an even better line and RB than they do now plus a great defense.

Aikman never threw for 20 TDs once his ENTIRE career. Yeah it's a different era but relative to his peers he wasn't close. He had to do less than any winning QB in NFL history (concerning leading a great offense).

>"i'm a bears fan you can't dispute it"
>praising green bay
nice bait.

Broncos were 2-3 on owls in the 90s

>being afraid to reply

Just how autistic are you?

90s are the decade that starts with a 9
>american education

Winning the AFC back then wasn't impressive at all, you know how conferences are uneven strength in basketball today? There was much more disparity than even that in the NFL.

Count the rings and cry a frozen river you fucking retard.

There is literally no debating this. Troy Aikman was the leader and QB of the greatest team of the 90's, Brett Favre and his band of misfits were curb stomped consistently along with every other team.

People that discount Troy Aikman are on another stratosphere of retardation.

He and Steve Young are the prototype for the modern day QB and were successful for a reason.

>Prototype for the modern QB
>not montana

>49ers not runner up for the 90s

>not Marino
Montana was just poor man's Drew Brees

The only true statement in that entire post is he lead the league in TD passes.

This fucker is 5-25 all time in the 4th quarter in comeback situations. Brady is 50-42.

Rodgers claim to fame is going to be he will go down in history as the most overrated QB of all time.

Pic related. You know who you don't see in this picture? Aaron Rodgers.

where does john elway fall on that list
let me guess
>i don't know i just copy paste whatever i hear on espn lol

Also, Rodgers is 9-7 in his career in the playoffs with 1 owl.

Brady is 24-9 at this point with 4 owls.

Rodgers is the only QB in history to make the playoffs 6 years in a row and not get to the superbowl.

Brady is the only QB in NFL history to make it to 6 straight AFC championship games.

And you're a retard so I already know you're going to go >waaahhh those are team accomplishments!
as if the QB isn't the single most important player on a team in this day and age, the player most responsible for their team's success.

All the stat-padding in the world can't hide Aaron's short comings. It's going to be so nice to see Brady stomp the team that just humiliated Rodgers.