Since San Francisco won their last Super Bowl in 1994 they have gone 5 wins and 9 losses in the playoffs, most of those 10 or more years ago. Over that same period the Seahawks have gone 6 wins and 7 losses in the playoffs, most of those in the last 10 years.... yet SF is still far more "popular" in the media and still pulls considerably more "prime time" attention... obviously for what they were nearly 20+ years ago...

Shock2k wrote:Giants have won 2 with Manning and still get no respect. Green bay has won 1 with Rogers and get's all the respect in the world.

The country is fickle.

GB keeps putting up good numbers in regular season while Giants are putting up strange regular season numbers and then suddenly doing good in the playoffs.

So if you are commiting to MNF or SNF games before the season do you go with the guaranteed competitor or the maybe up maybe down team?

Part of the problem isn't just # of Super Bowls, but also franchise age. The Packers, Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Bears, Lions, and Steelers have been around since the Great Depression or before. The Browns and 49ers showed up in 1944, most of the rest of them in 1959. Most teams have family lines of fans and traditions going back decades; the Seahawks are still in their second generation of fans. We're in there with the Bucs, Panthers, Jaguars, and Texans, still fighting to wedge ourselves into the national consciousness amidst generations of tradition looking at us going, "Who the hell are you?"

Like the Cowboys, a handful of Super Bowls will do it.

who cares? I would just like to see the Hawks peel off 3 or 4 in a decade that would be nice, put Pete and the Seahawks into the Hall of Fame..

sheesh SF already has 5, don't really wanna see them get a nuther, GB 4, ginats 4, stealers 6. cowboys 5... fairly lopsided gig, only 18 teams have rings out of 32, that means 14 teams don't have a superbowl win, 14 teams... does SF really need another? green bay?

Montana echos my thoughts. 2 or 3 will hold you for a decade. If you are a trend-setter, such as the 9ers were with Walsh or the Pats with Belicheck/Brady, then you have a good chance to stay in the limelight.

If you have a marquee QB for a decade or so, you should remain in the nation's interest. The youth will become veterans, so planning and luck has to lend a hand as well. Or the young exciting team becomes old and incapable of hanging near the top of the league.

LawlessHawk wrote:Since San Francisco won their last Super Bowl in 1994 they have gone 5 wins and 9 losses in the playoffs, most of those 10 or more years ago. Over that same period the Seahawks have gone 6 wins and 7 losses in the playoffs, most of those in the last 10 years.... yet SF is still far more "popular" in the media and still pulls considerably more "prime time" attention... obviously for what they were nearly 20+ years ago...

They made their mark last year.

Ask yourself how many teams go 13-3 during the regular season?

No they didn't, they made their mark with the 5 super bowl championships between 1981 and 1994. They did have a terrific season last year for sure, but their continued "elite franchise" status comes from what they did 20 to 30 years ago. The Hawks need a run like that to get into that group.

CaptainSkybeard wrote:The giants have the least respect of any team that has won two superbowls recently. Probably because they got in with a sub-par record and all that. Then they couldn't even make it back to the playoffs the next year. Makes them look like a fluke.

You don't have to win it every year, but you have to get at least one and be contending for one every year.

Does anyone remember the Buccaneers winning? Doesn't that sound strange now?

I think the Giants problem is they have no big personality at QB or Coach. There is no face of the team. I bet if you polled general NFL fans (not hard core), and they wouldn't even know the Giants have won 2 superbowls.

I want this one. We can talk about the others when the time comes.

I say lets win 1 and let each season build it's own legacy.

Building a dynasty is a hope and it takes the right pieces and a lot of luck and health to keep it going.

Many of the things stated above, but you also have to have a core of players that break out together and stay together for a period of time. They then get associated with a team and coach and legends get born. Bradshaw and Harris, Montana and Rice, Lott, Cowboys had Staubach and Hill and Thomas and Golden Richards. Brady and Bellichek are tied at the hip, New England rotates players in and out but Brady has been steady.

Once you get there you get credit for teams past if you have a style and charisma about how you do stuff. Dallas has been self promoted for a long time. Tex Schram before Jerry Jones, Giants issue is they rotate a lot of players as well, since Tiki was running the ball who really knows much about them year in and year out. Eli is there but thats it, Coughlin runs a silent camp pretty much till crap blows up.

Parcells was a coach that got attention and had opinions, he also had a damn good defense that was electric and Bavarro and Simms.

Besides when the previous Superbowl winners are overshadowed in their own town by the Rivals they share a stadium with you know that there is a certain mentality.

People respect the Raiders of years past until Davis was so far gone he looked more corpse then alive. They had a reputation, and brought it every week and won Superbowls playing that style of football. Think about all the names of guys that played there, they come pretty easy.

I kinda like not having any recognition. Its fun when we all know we can win but everyone else is still surprised.... And I like not having bandwagon fans lol