NFL All-Time Power Rankings, by conference

[murksiderock]

The 80s window for Washington isn't enough for me, the Commanders they've basically fallen off a cliff while the Eagles have been much more consistent for the last 30 years and are 2nd behind Dallas in division titles. Pre-80s is a wash and at best it's an overall wash.

Also Panthers ain't over the Saints

The Skins have one of the strongest playoff resumes ever, and have a better regular season record than Philly, too. The Skins have played in 11 Super Bowls/NFL Championships compared to 7 for Philly, and have won 5 of them compared to 4 for Philly...

Washington has had more than just the 80s. They had 1936-45 Baugh era; they were one of the best teams of the 70s with 0 losing seasons between 1971 and 1979, they just couldn't get over the hump, very similar to Reid's 00s Eagles that you lend higher credence too; and the aforementioned Joe Gibbs era from 1981 thru 1992 is one of the GOAT runs in NFL history, a 12-season run that saw just one losing season...

Philadelphia doesn't have any period of success that could be considered GOAT. The Gibbs run is up there with the Brady/Belichick run, the Lombardi run, etc. Go back and dive into that run. There was a ton of dominance in that era. The Eagles were great in the late 40s and then were ass for almost 30 years. Again really similar to Washington's garbage run of the last 30 years, I don't see how Philly benefits in a way we don't unless you admittedly have recency bias...

They had the 78-81 run and then 88-92 but for their entire history until the 00s the were never great for longer than a 4-5 year stretch, in every single era of Skins success they doubled that longevity and that's relevant...

Andy Reid really elevated them to a place of prominence they hadn't really achieved prior, 2000 to 2010 was a helluva run. The 00s Eagles and 70s Skins are the same team in terms of stature. Both were one of the best squads of the era but couldn't quite reach the pinnacle, though again I give us the edge as we didn't have a losing season in our run...

The Eagles just rose back to prominence a few years ago in 2017. It's not like they've had uninterrupted success for 30 years, you didn't say they did, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a Packers-esque 30-year run...

It's this gap in Washington having peaked higher as an organization, and in postseason success, why I have us over Philly. Granted, I clearly don't think it's a large gap, but it's a gap nonetheless. The Eagles are gonna smack San Jose this Sunday and get back to another Super Bowl, and if the Sirianni/Hurts/Brown/Smith core stays intact with those prominent lines on both sides, they may ne getting ready to go on a run. Which would elevate them over Washington really soon...

Panthers/Saints, again I think it's close enough that arguing for New Orleans isn't crazy. My argument for Carolina, though:

•better playoff record;
•better regular season record;
•more Super Bowl appearances and went in two different eras, there are two high level eras of Carolina ball. The Saints had a really good 15-year run but the other 41 years of existence are fukking awful;
•the Panthers were NFC finalists in three different eras, the 90s as an expansion franchise, then the 00s and 10s. They've been relevant at some point in each of the past three decades...

The Saints had a 28-year head start on Carolina and only have one more playoff victory and one more Super Bowl. The Super Bowl and the Brees/Payton run are the reason this is even close, otherwise we'd be talking a Panthers runaway...

 

[Shadow King]

The Skins have one of the strongest playoff resumes ever, and have a better regular season record than Philly, too. The Skins have played in 11 Super Bowls/NFL Championships compared to 7 for Philly, and have won 5 of them compared to 4 for Philly...

Washington has had more than just the 80s. They had 1936-45 Baugh era; they were one of the best teams of the 70s with 0 losing seasons between 1971 and 1979, they just couldn't get over the hump, very similar to Reid's 00s Eagles that you lend higher credence too; and the aforementioned Joe Gibbs era from 1981 thru 1992 is one of the GOAT runs in NFL history, a 12-season run that saw just one losing season...

Philadelphia doesn't have any period of success that could be considered GOAT. The Gibbs run is up there with the Brady/Belichick run, the Lombardi run, etc. Go back and dive into that run. There was a ton of dominance in that era. The Eagles were great in the late 40s and then were ass for almost 30 years. Again really similar to Washington's garbage run of the last 30 years, I don't see how Philly benefits in a way we don't unless you admittedly have recency bias...

They had the 78-81 run and then 88-92 but for their entire history until the 00s the were never great for longer than a 4-5 year stretch, in every single era of Skins success they doubled that longevity and that's relevant...

Andy Reid really elevated them to a place of prominence they hadn't really achieved prior, 2000 to 2010 was a helluva run. The 00s Eagles and 70s Skins are the same team in terms of stature. Both were one of the best squads of the era but couldn't quite reach the pinnacle, though again I give us the edge as we didn't have a losing season in our run...

The Eagles just rose back to prominence a few years ago in 2017. It's not like they've had uninterrupted success for 30 years, you didn't say they did, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a Packers-esque 30-year run...

It's this gap in Washington having peaked higher as an organization, and in postseason success, why I have us over Philly. Granted, I clearly don't think it's a large gap, but it's a gap nonetheless. The Eagles are gonna smack San Jose this Sunday and get back to another Super Bowl, and if the Sirianni/Hurts/Brown/Smith core stays intact with those prominent lines on both sides, they may ne getting ready to go on a run. Which would elevate them over Washington really soon...

Panthers/Saints, again I think it's close enough that arguing for New Orleans isn't crazy. My argument for Carolina, though:

•better playoff record;
•better regular season record;
•more Super Bowl appearances and went in two different eras, there are two high level eras of Carolina ball. The Saints had a really good 15-year run but the other 41 years of existence are fukking awful;
•the Panthers were NFC finalists in three different eras, the 90s as an expansion franchise, then the 00s and 10s. They've been relevant at some point in each of the past three decades...

The Saints had a 28-year head start on Carolina and only have one more playoff victory and one more Super Bowl. The Super Bowl and the Brees/Payton run are the reason this is even close, otherwise we'd be talking a Panthers runaway...

I will concede Philly/Washington is recency bias.
Washington's been a non-factor in a historically hostile division basically all my life.

I guess Panthers/Saints is recency bias also but in my lifetime (the Panthers inception on, the formation of the NFC South) the Saints have been the more relevant/consistent threat within the conference. And the 1 Bowl they made, they won. If Carolina won one of theirs (dammit Cam) I'd agree.

Also the Saints have the most division titles with 7 not Tampa.

 

[murksiderock]

ALMOST ELITE TIER
Rams
Commanders
Colts
Eagles
Dolphins
Bears
Vikings
Chiefs

With these Super Bowl runs, I'd move Philly up one spot to #11 (over Indy), and I'd move KC up four spots to #12, right behind Philly...

I'd justify Philly over KC still based on the following:

•Eagles were superior for significantly longer in the pre-Super Bowl era
•Eagles still have more division titles
•Eagles have a better playoff record and more playoff wins

But KC is coming, similar to how NE wasn't on any historic radar before Brady and now they are the shining franchise, Mahomes is gonna have KC running up these boards year after year and it won't be too long before we're talking about the Chiefs as a Top 5 franchise...

 

[b. woods]

The Skins have one of the strongest playoff resumes ever, and have a better regular season record than Philly, too. The Skins have played in 11 Super Bowls/NFL Championships compared to 7 for Philly, and have won 5 of them compared to 4 for Philly...

Washington has had more than just the 80s. They had 1936-45 Baugh era; they were one of the best teams of the 70s with 0 losing seasons between 1971 and 1979, they just couldn't get over the hump, very similar to Reid's 00s Eagles that you lend higher credence too; and the aforementioned Joe Gibbs era from 1981 thru 1992 is one of the GOAT runs in NFL history, a 12-season run that saw just one losing season...

Philadelphia doesn't have any period of success that could be considered GOAT. The Gibbs run is up there with the Brady/Belichick run, the Lombardi run, etc. Go back and dive into that run. There was a ton of dominance in that era. The Eagles were great in the late 40s and then were ass for almost 30 years. Again really similar to Washington's garbage run of the last 30 years, I don't see how Philly benefits in a way we don't unless you admittedly have recency bias...

They had the 78-81 run and then 88-92 but for their entire history until the 00s the were never great for longer than a 4-5 year stretch, in every single era of Skins success they doubled that longevity and that's relevant...

Andy Reid really elevated them to a place of prominence they hadn't really achieved prior, 2000 to 2010 was a helluva run. The 00s Eagles and 70s Skins are the same team in terms of stature. Both were one of the best squads of the era but couldn't quite reach the pinnacle, though again I give us the edge as we didn't have a losing season in our run...

The Eagles just rose back to prominence a few years ago in 2017. It's not like they've had uninterrupted success for 30 years, you didn't say they did, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a Packers-esque 30-year run...

It's this gap in Washington having peaked higher as an organization, and in postseason success, why I have us over Philly. Granted, I clearly don't think it's a large gap, but it's a gap nonetheless. The Eagles are gonna smack San Jose this Sunday and get back to another Super Bowl, and if the Sirianni/Hurts/Brown/Smith core stays intact with those prominent lines on both sides, they may ne getting ready to go on a run. Which would elevate them over Washington really soon...

Panthers/Saints, again I think it's close enough that arguing for New Orleans isn't crazy. My argument for Carolina, though:

•better playoff record;
•better regular season record;
•more Super Bowl appearances and went in two different eras, there are two high level eras of Carolina ball. The Saints had a really good 15-year run but the other 41 years of existence are fukking awful;
•the Panthers were NFC finalists in three different eras, the 90s as an expansion franchise, then the 00s and 10s. They've been relevant at some point in each of the past three decades...

The Saints had a 28-year head start on Carolina and only have one more playoff victory and one more Super Bowl. The Super Bowl and the Brees/Payton run are the reason this is even close, otherwise we'd be talking a Panthers runaway...

Nut-ass Jim Mora and CarL Smith

Ditka

HASSLett and Venturi

Sean P. did not help matters with those "drafts" during "7-9 Purgatory" and being far too loyal to his weed pill carriers (Gibbs, Vitt, McMahon, Johnson).

And of course I cannot forget the "Random #s".

And Gregg going rogue and selling the team out to save his own ass

 

[murksiderock]

Haven't updated this in 3 years, but here's my list now, thru the 2025 season, All-Time power rankings:

Top ⅓ Franchises
1 Packers
2 Pats
3 Steelers
4 Cowboys
5 Niners
6 Giants
7 Eagles
8 Commanders
9 Rams
10 Chiefs
11 Bears

Middle ⅓ Franchises
12 Broncos
13 Colts
14 Raiders
15 Dolphins
16 Browns
17 Vikings
18 Bills
19 Seahawks
20 Ravens
21 Titans

Bottom ⅓ Franchises
22 Chargers
23 Bengals
24 Bucs
25 Saints
26 Lions
27 Falcons
28 Cardinals
29 Jets
30 Panthers
31 Jags
32 Texans

 

[FTBS]

I get not making it all about SB era but shouldnt everything post FA get extra weight? Being in constant contention and winning multiple chips now is way harder than it used to be because of the cap and FA. The Pats doing what they have done in this era should put them at number 1 IMO. I would put Broncos over Bears for that same reason.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Haven't updated this in 3 years, but here's my list now, thru the 2025 season, All-Time power rankings:

Top ⅓ Franchises
1 Packers
2 Pats
3 Steelers
4 Cowboys
5 Niners
6 Giants
7 Eagles
8 Commanders
9 Rams
10 Chiefs
11 Bears

Middle ⅓ Franchises
12 Broncos
13 Colts
14 Raiders
15 Dolphins
16 Browns
17 Vikings
18 Bills
19 Seahawks
20 Ravens
21 Titans

Bottom ⅓ Franchises
22 Chargers
23 Bengals
24 Bucs
25 Saints
26 Lions
27 Falcons
28 Cardinals
29 Jets
30 Panthers
31 Jags
32 Texans

Nah Niners are #1 in the NFC

 

[Bboystyle]

SB era or not, if your team hasnt won an SB, u shouldnt be ranked above teams that have (vikings being higher than SEA).

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

You have to balance history versus modern success.

Packers and Steelers rank high (to me) because they've been good before AND after free agency and have had multiple periods of greatness.

Niners have been good recently but lack the hardware. They had a single long dynasty from 1981 to 1990 and then won a ring in the middle of the Cowboys dynasty.

Patriots have been excellent since 2001 but were mostly trash before that.

Cowboys had two periods of greatness (70s and 90s) mixed with some good (early 80s and Romo/Dak) but they need another period of sustained elite in modern times. A run like the Shanahan Niners but with a ring or two would put them back on top.

Win percentage overall and championships pre and post merger....plus having success across multiple eras is key.

 

[Harry B]

It’s just crazy that Brady’s post season record is 35-16 and the Giants since 1901 is 25-26

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

@murksiderock 49ers are tied with most Super Bowl victories in the NFC with Dallas. They are tied for 2nd in Super Bowl appearances overall. They have the most NFC Championship Game appearances. They have the most playoff wins of any franchise.

How can they be 5th?

 

[No1]

You have to balance history versus modern success.

Packers and Steelers rank high (to me) because they've been good before AND after free agency and have had multiple periods of greatness.

Niners have been good recently but lack the hardware. They had a single long dynasty from 1981 to 1990 and then won a ring in the middle of the Cowboys dynasty.

Patriots have been excellent since 2001 but were mostly trash before that.

Cowboys had two periods of greatness (70s and 90s) mixed with some good (early 80s and Romo/Dak) but they need another period of sustained elite in modern times. A run like the Shanahan Niners but with a ring or two would put them back on top.

Win percentage overall and championships pre and post merger....plus having success across multiple eras is key.

The Patriots made the SB at least once every decade since the 80s and their 20 year run was the greatest in NFL history. They’re top 2 and probably not 2.

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

The Patriots made the SB at least once every decade since the 80s and their 20 year run was the greatest in NFL history. They’re top 2 and probably not 2.

That's why they deserve to be high but not #1. They went to the SB in 85 and 96 but not sure I'd call them good in those decades. AFC was weak from the early 80s until the Broncos won in 1997.

 

[murksiderock]

I get not making it all about SB era but shouldnt everything post FA get extra weight? Being in constant contention and winning multiple chips now is way harder than it used to be because of the cap and FA. The Pats doing what they have done in this era should put them at number 1 IMO. I would put Broncos over Bears for that same reason.

I hear your point. The Bears history pre-FA is so much more dominant than the Broncos history post-FA, though.

Nah Niners are #1 in the NFC

The Packers have more championships than the Niners; both Cowboys and Pack have more wins, and a higher All-Time win percentage than the Niners; the Cowboys have more division titles than the Niners; and both the Pack and Cowboys have more playoff appearances than the Niners. Which is really saying something as the Cowboys have been mid for 30 years while the Niners have been mostly elite for most of the last 15 years, and mostly good for most of the last 30 years.

In none of those categories I named, are the Niners #1 in anything, they have 0 case as best All-Time franchise in the NFC.

SB era or not, if your team hasnt won an SB, u shouldnt be ranked above teams that have (vikings being higher than SEA).

There's no way this would be consistent, because then you're advocating for ranking the Jets over the Browns, Vikings, or Bills, because the Jets have won a Super Bowl. When those latter 3 franchises objectively have a better history than the Jets.

The Saints have a Super Bowl win, in their only appearance. The Bengals have been to three Super Bowls in two different eras, and have been to more AFC Championships, than the Saints have been to NFC Championships. The Saints are not a more successful franchise historically than the Bengals (the Bengals have won their division more, the Bengals have more playoff appearances and playoff games, etc).

I can keep going, there are other inconsistencies if we just rank everybody with a Lombardi, over everybody without one.

 

[murksiderock]

You have to balance history versus modern success.

Packers and Steelers rank high (to me) because they've been good before AND after free agency and have had multiple periods of greatness.

Niners have been good recently but lack the hardware. They had a single long dynasty from 1981 to 1990 and then won a ring in the middle of the Cowboys dynasty.

Patriots have been excellent since 2001 but were mostly trash before that.

Cowboys had two periods of greatness (70s and 90s) mixed with some good (early 80s and Romo/Dak) but they need another period of sustained elite in modern times. A run like the Shanahan Niners but with a ring or two would put them back on top.

Win percentage overall and championships pre and post merger....plus having success across multiple eras is key.

This sums up how I view it perfectly. I understand the value of modern, post-FA success, but I have to weigh it with balance.