NFP - Ranking the NFL Organizations

[mayoclinic]

Robert Boland from National Football Post has been running a multiple part series ranking all 32 NFL organizations. He started in the middle and worked his way to the back, and finally he ranks his top NFL franchises:

The National Football Post | Ranking The NFL Organizations 4

He has the Pats ranked #3, behind Pittsburgh and the Giants. It's obviously arguable, but clearly we are in the elite category. Interestingly, he has Dallas a 7, Indy at 9, and SD at 17.

 

[Rob0729]

This quote from the article tells me why this article is BS:

Last year’s playoff teams were scattered throughout the ranks of the middle and bottom tier franchises, indicating that won-loss record was only one of several important criteria in rating owner and organizational success. But in the top tier, sustained success on the field becomes a key factor in differentiating these organizations. So while winning is far from the only thing, to paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi, it is, in a sense, everything to be at the top level.

If substained success on the field is a key factor in this ranking, how is the Giants second. They had one Super Bowl year and have been a fringe playoff team every other year besides last in recent years (and this ranking seems to only take into effect recent years). Based on this criteria, I would easily put the Pats and Colts over them.

I guess I am confused with the criteria. Is this a power ranking for who is best now (hence why the Colts would slide to 9) or who has been the best organization over the last decade or so. It seems that the author wants to cherry pick which way he goes on this.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

This quote from the article tells me why this article is BS:



If substained success on the field is a key factor in this ranking, how is the Giants second. They had one Super Bowl year and have been a fringe playoff team every other year besides last in recent years (and this ranking seems to only take into effect recent years). Based on this criteria, I would easily put the Pats and Colts over them.

I guess I am confused with the criteria. Is this a power ranking for who is best now (hence why the Colts would slide to 9) or who has been the best organization over the last decade or so. It seems that the author wants to cherry pick which way he goes on this.

The article is ranking the best owner/organization, with emphasis added to the owners.

He appears to deduct points from Kraft because of the credit he gives BB and Brady for the Patriots' success.

He appears to give him more credit for his private financing of the stadium and the relevant success of that venture than to the success of the Patriots overall.

I'm not sure I agree with Kraft being ranked 3rd. I'm just pointing out where the author appears to be coming from.