Who would you rather be?

[Toddzilla]

Based on an arguement I've had a thousand times.

Please, TELL ME WHY you choose who you choose.

[britrock88]

The Bills dominated the early 90s, and just got unlucky in their 4 SB appearances.

Marino never had the team to get him all the way, it seemed.

The Saints and Bucs did win, but only have 1 appearance each. Though the Bucs were good enough in the '00s that they'd be my 2nd choice. Plus, Steve Young!

[Abe Sargent]

None of thesze teams have had long term dominace, and two have no rings to show for it. Eac has players that were at the top of their game you could cheer for, suc sa Bruce Smith, Dan Marino, Drew Brees and Derrick Brooks.

Considering that each has dry spells, and two have no rings at all, Id go for a Ring and I'd rather have the recent offensive assualt of the Saints than the one and done Bucs really near the end of their years of recent dominance.

[Suicane75]

Bucs and Saints were so woeful that they were enjoyable, lovable losers if you will. When the Bills and Dolphins got bad it was just sad, although the Bills had the best run out of any of those teams.

I'd say the Bills but I guess my question to you in return is why the hell you're having this specific argument so much.

[MizzouRah]

I've always been a Bills fan.. especially their run back in the 90's.

[larrymcg421]

Dolphins

SB Wins: 0
SB Apps: 2
Division Titles: 7
Playoff Apps: 14
Losing Seasons: 6
Longest streak of Losing Seasons: 3

Bills

SB Wins: 0
SB Apps: 4
Division Titles: 6
Playoff Apps: 10
Losing Seasons: 16
Longest streak of Losing Seasons: 7

Bucs

SB Wins: 1
SB Apps: 1
Division Titles: 4
Playoff Apps: 8
Total Losing Seasons: 19
Longest streak of Losing Seasons: 14

Saints

SB Wins: 1
SB Apps: 1
Division Titles: 4
Playoff Apps: 8
Total Losing Seasons: 13
Longest streak of Losing Seasons: 6

The Bills and Bucs are clear losers here. If you go by SB wins, then it's clearly the Saints. If you go by prolonged years of success (and lack of prolonged years of suckage), then it's clearly the Dolphins.

[Kodos]

I voted strictly on how I think the teams will do from now on. Chose Tampa Bay.

[Julio Riddols]

I picked the Saints because I love underdogs. They are like the 05-06 Bengals in the way they play - They also historically have been the first team I pick when choosing someone other than the Bengals to control when playing Tecmo Super Bowl. Gil Fenerty, man.

[Fidatelo]

I picked the Bills because they have the nicest uniforms.

[Desnudo]

Saints. One recent SB win would erase the 30 years of suck. At least based on my experience as a Red Sox fan.

[Lathum]

I went with the Saints. Bills and LOLphins are out at once due to no superbowl wins. I would take 29 years of sucking and one title rather than being consistently decent.

I then decided the Saints because of the way they won with offense, as a fan it is more fun to watch offense than defense IMO

[Kodos]

Last time I checked, the Dolphins have 2 Super Bowl wins.

[britrock88]

The poll limits us to the last 30 years, though. The Fins' wins were in SB 7 and 8, some 39 years ago.

[Autumn]

That's a hard choice. I would have enjoyed the Marino years, but things have been awful ever since. That's a lot of suck, always looking like they're turning the corner and getting some wins. The Bills run in the '90s was fantastic, but you'd have to put up with a lot of boring teams the rest of the time. The Saints I would probably say for their exciting rise, but the current problems are kind of a stain there. The Buccaneers ... maybe it's best to just be the team that hardly seems like it's in the NFL. Your expectations are low.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Last time I checked, the Dolphins have 2 Super Bowl wins.

reading comprehension ftw!

[Toddzilla]

The point I'm trying to make - and I'm very happy some of you have picked up on it - is that winning the World Championship really is the be all and end all in professional sports. 30 good-to-great years with no championships doesn't even compare to 29 years of suck and the 1 magical year when you win it all.

I'm a Dolphins fan IRL and I have this discussion with my other Dolphins fans - that I'd trade all of it, Marino, Shula, all of it for just one Super Bowl win. Shit, ask Dan Marino himself - he'd trade his entire career - all of the accolades - for that ring. Give up all the tradition, great players, etc. to experience what a Ravens fan, Bucs fan, Saints fan got to experience. In a millisecond.

Have you ever heard a player say "You know, winning the (World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup) was nice, but I'd trade it for more all-star games and a few more winning seasons." That's fucking insanity. I guarantee you've heard hundreds of players say exactly the opposite, though.

I'd give up 30 years of losing the super bowl every year for 29 years of total suckitude and just one ring. Anything else just doesn't compute.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Last time I checked, the Dolphins have 2 Super Bowl wins.

PSST: I made the same mistake, though I managed to delete my post before they jumped all over me. For an old guy like me, 30 years seems kinda arbitrary.

[Kodos]

Ahh. Clearly I missed that.

I disagree with Toddzilla. With the Dolphins, there was always hope that this might be the year! Watching Marino play was a joy. As it turned out, they never quite made it. But I would not trade that to watch Trent Dilfer lead the Fins to a championship once amidst 30 years of suckitude.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Have you ever heard a player say "You know, winning the (World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup) was nice, but I'd trade it for more all-star games and a few more winning seasons." That's fucking insanity. I guarantee you've heard hundreds of players say exactly the opposite, though.

It's a separate question obviously, but do you think Dan Marino would give up his personal career...the records, the notoriety, and most importantly, the MONEY...if it meant he was a journeyman QB who bounced around for 7 years, earning $300k a season, earning a SB ring as a backup one of those years?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Have you ever heard a player say "You know, winning the (World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup) was nice, but I'd trade it for more all-star games and a few more winning seasons." That's fucking insanity. I guarantee you've heard hundreds of players say exactly the opposite, though.

So Dan Marino would happily trade places with say, Matt Cavanaugh?

edit: yeah, what Logan said, but with a specific example

[Logan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So Dan Marino would happily trade places with say, Matt Cavanaugh?

edit: yeah, what Logan said, but with a specific example

Yeah, I think he would say "yes" in a PC sense but wouldn't actually mean it. Maybe it's better to use current players since the money they earn now is on a whole other level compared to the 80s/90s guys. If Peyton never won, would he give back generational wealth (if managed well) just to have that elusive ring? Doubtful.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Ahh. Clearly I missed that.

I disagree with Toddzilla. With the Dolphins, there was always hope that this might be the year! Watching Marino play was a joy. As it turned out, they never quite made it. But I would not trade that to watch Trent Dilfer lead the Fins to a championship once amidst 30 years of suckitude.

The thing is that when a team wins the Superbowl they are generaly in the midst of a 4-6 year run of being a really good, fun team to watch. you arent really likely to get 29 years of sucking and one great season. You may get 24 years of sucking but will get a nice 6 year run in there ala the Saints current run

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Have you ever heard a player say "You know, winning the (World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup) was nice, but I'd trade it for more all-star games and a few more winning seasons." That's fucking insanity. I guarantee you've heard hundreds of players say exactly the opposite, though.

In addition to the Marino vs. Cavanaugh debate, we aren't players. We're fans. Yeah, winning the World Series would be the best feeling, but I'd rather be a fan through sustained success than be a fan of a team that sucks but once in a while wins the trophy (so, for instance, I'd rather be a fan of the Texas Rangers than the Florida/Miami Marlins).

[Young Drachma]

I think the Bucs because they have a better stadium in a market they can own for themselves (since no one cares about the Rays) and they've managed to overcome their moribund history. I think the Saints are 2nd because of their most recent success and Brees and the seemingly better run organization.

But no way I'd want to be Miami or Bills in this scenario.

[Autumn]

I don't think I"d agree. Maybe as a player, but as a fan I'd rather have a number of years of great, exciting teams, even if they don't win it all, then one superbowl ring and a bunch of years of boring teams.

[Logan]

The "heart and soul, lives and dies with the team" fan would prefer continued success over torment with a random championship. To use a current example...I have a lot of friends who consider themselves to be NY Rangers fans. They are enjoying the hell out of this Cup run. I wouldn't say they're bandwagon fans or front-runners, but they weren't killing themselves when the team was failing to make the playoffs from 1998 thru the lockout in 2005.

[Chief Rum]

Saints. They won a Super Bowl, and they're more fun than Tampa Bay.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I'd say the Bills but I guess my question to you in return is why the hell you're having this specific argument so much.

This. It's why you don't "choose" which teams you root for

[korme]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I then decided the Saints because of the way they won with offense, as a fan it is more fun to watch offense than defense IMO

Saints getting a lot of love here, but there's something to be said for a great defense. I feel like a great offense evokes the "WOOOO! YEAH!!!!!!" factor out of everybody, and great defense brings out the pride. "Nobody scores on us" kind of mentality is almost cooler.

Anyway, that's my .02 from rooting for the Buckeyes in the early 00's when they won with Craig Krenzel and a bad ass defense

[Toddzilla]

So do you think Cubs fans would be happy if, over the last 100+ years, they had been perennial contenders, always in the first division, playoffs more often than not, and still no Championship?

Meaning, is that good enough? Just to be "good"?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So do you think Cubs fans would be happy if, over the last 100+ years, they had been perennial contenders, always in the first division, playoffs more often than not, and still no Championship?

Meaning, is that good enough? Just to be "good"?

You were the one who came up with 30 years as the baseline.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think I"d agree. Maybe as a player, but as a fan I'd rather have a number of years of great, exciting teams, even if they don't win it all, then one superbowl ring and a bunch of years of boring teams.

I'd agree with that - relevance is the most important thing to my enjoyment when I'm following a team. If they're just terrible every year and don't compete to get into the playoffs, and nobody ever talks about them, I could see that getting old in a hurry. But if they have some good seasons, are occasionally in high profile situations, it's all good. I was a Boston fan who saw 15 years of 0 championships and then 12 years with 7 champions. it's a tossup which of those two periods I really enjoyed more at the time though, because even when they weren't winning championships, the teams were usually relevant and entertaining. I think I enjoyed the 1986 red sox and the 1996 patriots just as much as I enjoyed the 2007 red sox and 2004 patriots. The only team I root for I struggle paying attention to is Syracuse football, just because they don't matter at all.

[Kodos]

I can deal with irrelevance. I've been an IU football fan since 1989. They were 1-11 last year, and yet they are still the team I follow the closest.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

bills would be most fun to watch in the short term. plus they play in snow which is rare nowadays.

[Rizon]

I was a fan of the Dolphins from 1983-2011. Wish I never was.

[SteveMax58]

I'd go with the Dolphins. But I think there is 2 different questions here.

If the question is..."who has been more successful over the past 30 seasons?"...then I'd probably go Saints or Bills.

If the question is..."who would I rather watch for 30 years & be a fan of?"...then I'm going Dolphins.

Obviously they've been less relevant since Marino retired but they were a highly relevant team for the 16+ seasons before that. They've also been a much better team (since Marino) than the Saints,Bucs,Bills all were outside of their spurts of success.

Maybe I'm just a fair-weather fan but I could never sit through 10+ seasons of rooting for a team like the Bucs of the 70s/80s, or the Bengals of the 90s. It would drain my interest in being a fan.

Coming up a little short every year can also piss you off as a fan. Even to the point where you wish you'd just suck rather than get so close & not get it done. But honestly...I don't think I'd really prefer that experience.

[larrymcg421]

As a Braves fan, I wouldn't even consider trading their success with that of the Blue Jays just to get a 2nd championship. As painful as their postseason failures are, it doesn't even approach the pain of being out of it by the all-star break.

I can't speak for Marino, but I just don't buy that he'd trade places with Trent Dilfer. I doubt Barry Sanders would trade places with Timmy Smith.

Championships are awesome, but people have gone so overboard in assigning importance to them. I so badly wanted a championship for Marino, but there's no way in hell I'd give up watching one of the best QB's ever play for 17 years just for one year of glory.

[digamma]

The Saints fans have more fun.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So do you think Cubs fans would be happy if, over the last 100+ years, they had been perennial contenders, always in the first division, playoffs more often than not, and still no Championship?

Meaning, is that good enough? Just to be "good"?

Well, as a direct comparison, Red Sox fans prior to 2004 seemed to be far more pleased with their squad and their history than Cubbies fans.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

As a Braves fan, I wouldn't even consider trading their success with that of the Blue Jays just to get a 2nd championship. As painful as their postseason failures are, it doesn't even approach the pain of being out of it by the all-star break.

Or you could be a Marlins' fan . 2 Championships and a whole lot of crap (thought things are looking up now, obviously).

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So do you think Cubs fans would be happy if, over the last 100+ years, they had been perennial contenders, always in the first division, playoffs more often than not, and still no Championship?

Meaning, is that good enough? Just to be "good"?

Would you have rather rooted for the Braves (1 World Series and a bunch of other really good seasons) or the Marlins (2 World Series wins and a bunch of below .500 seasons) over the past 20 or so years?

edit: should have read to the end, larrymcg421 used a similar example

[Antmeister]

For me, it is the Saints and yes I agree with Toddzilla. San Diego sucks when it comes to the grand championships. The Padres never won a World Series and the Chargers have never won a Super Bowl.

The Chargers have only been there once (and this wasn't even in the Dan Fouts era) and, since then, all we can take away from that is that 8 players have died from that Super Bowl team. Thank goodness I am a Lakers fan.

[DougW]

[britrock88]

If that's what we're going by, Fins win. (Unless the Bucs cheerleaders are wearing their creamsicle outfits.)

[EagleFan]

Being a fan at this point it's all about what have you done for me lately. Have to say Saints among that group. All the years of futility have paid off over the past few years with some really good football to watch and a Super Bowl title.

Take either of the other three and they may have another 30 years of futulity. The Bills and Dolphins won't beat the Patriots and would be lucky to beat the Jets. The Buccs, well they are the Buccs.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Would you have rather rooted for the Braves (1 World Series and a bunch of other really good seasons) or the Marlins (2 World Series wins and a bunch of below .500 seasons) over the past 20 or so years?

edit: should have read to the end, larrymcg421 used a similar example

Irrelevant example. The difference between one championship and two is meaningless compared to the difference between zero championships and one.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I went with the Saints. Bills and LOLphins are out at once due to no superbowl wins. I would take 29 years of sucking and one title rather than being consistently decent.

I just don't understand this sentiment at all. It's such an overly reductive way of looking at sports. I like seeing my teams involved in big, meaningful games all season long. Over a 30 year period, if my team is accomplishing that on a consistent basis, then I'd much rather have that than one Superbowl
victory and years and years of misery. The opposite position makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So do you think Cubs fans would be happy if, over the last 100+ years, they had been perennial contenders, always in the first division, playoffs more often than not, and still no Championship?

Meaning, is that good enough? Just to be "good"?

Well if we go back 100 years, then the Dolphins clearly win this poll and it's not even close.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I just don't understand this sentiment at all. It's such an overly reductive way of looking at sports. I like seeing my teams involved in big, meaningful games all season long. Over a 30 year period, if my team is accomplishing that on a consistent basis, then I'd much rather have that than one Superbowl
victory and years and years of misery. The opposite position makes absolutely zero sense to me.

x10000! I'd just get completely bored of the sport if my team could never win. I'd probably have checked out by the time they won their championship .

[dawgfan]

Close call for me between New Orleans and Tampa Bay. Both are franchises that had years and years and years of futility, which makes them winning a Super Bowl that much sweeter for their fans. Miami had some good times early in that 30 year period with Marino, but have been mostly miss recently, and have to feel like a major disappointment to a fan base that got multiple Super Bowl wins in the early 70's. As for Buffalo - good run under Jim Kelly, but the heartbreak of multiple Super Bowl losses.

Gotta go with New Orleans in a slight edge over Tampa Bay just because of the more recent success.