I know I know the Browns stink right now, but in 3 years they'll be in the playoffs.

I don't keep up with them that close, but have the Browns sunk that low since that 2007 Wild Card appearence?

.............of the UFL.

Yes, yes they have.

Ho ho very funny buster! Ha ha it is to laugh!

I agree with the list on everything except the Redskins at #5.  They are the highest valued franchise in the NFL at over $1.2 billion, and the Rams have sucked something awful since they lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl.  They also have been for sale for the last few years with threats of relocation as well as a thin pool of bidders for the franchise.  The Redskins put butts in the seats and field a competitive team every year, much more than I can say for the Rams, or even the Chiefs (in recent years).

You could be right, but they have to have to get their QB situation straightened out. Too much back and forth last year. Gotta commit to someone.

 Rams Jets 49er Bills ... all worse than the Deadskins. 

Time to go with Quinn, what do they have to lose at this point?

I WISH MY BENGALS WERE NOT ON THIS LIST. IT IS JUST DISGUSTING THAT MANAGEMENT DOES'NT WANT TO PUT A BETTER PRODUCT ON THE FIELD. I WAS PLANNING ON GOING THERE TO SEE THEM PLAY ON OCTOBER 25TH, BUT NOW I WON'T!

Redskins are #2.  Cowboys are valued at $1.8B. But your point remains valid.

oooh, Skins fans will not agree with this..

More Games lol.....But I think Quinn Will Help Them Out

You are correct.  I was going off of what I remember from last year's values, but Jerry Jones new palace for the team has kicked them up to #1.  New stadiums drive the value of NFL franchises more than anything else.  No wonder all 3 California teams are ranked in the bottom 10%, all stadiums are from the 1960's.

True that.  I just can't stand to see the Redskins ahead of the Cowboys in any ranking. Haha.

that's my 'skins!

 How can the Bills not be top 5, closer to 3, when they will probably be in Toronto in 5 years?

I feel ya on that one.  Unfortunately the only time my Raiders are ranked highly in anything now, it is either a first round draft choice, or something else that is completely negative.

 ok i finally took the time to read the article  and i won't argue with his points on the Redskins, Because I believe that Snyder should take a lot of the blame.  But the same could be said for the Cowgirls.  And the Redskins have won playoff games since the last time the Cowgirls won a playoff game.

The 49ers should be #5, not the 'Skins.

I don't like Daniel Snyder.

The end.

You ask this one season ago and the Cards are guaranteed to be 1st or 2nd.

true that I mean since when is 7 and 9 really all that bad

noone cares about skins fans GO EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!

Mangini and Kokinis have the Browns headed in the right direction it seems, building from the inside out . This year I expect both our offensive and defensive lines to be among the top units in the league, and as we all know it all starts up front. Once we find a solid running back to take over for Jamal this team will be among the playoff contenders once again.

The Houston Texans will surprise many next season. Look out!

Really? The niners weren't worse than the skins when they beat them 27-24 in the last game of the season for both teams last year.

Rams? For sure they are worse than the skins. I'd take the skins off the list and replace them with the rams.

 If I squint my eyes real tight like, it really looks like the LIONS are NUMBER ONE at something or rather...that's like a Gold medal performance right?

Dude....

The niners went 7-9 and they *beat* the 'skins. Aren't you kind of making my point for me? If you are saying that the 'skins shouldn't be on the list because they went 7-9,  and the niners also went 7-9 and *beat* the skins, how can you replace the skins on the list with the niners? That's just dumb.

Clearly the rams should replace the skins on this list, not the niners.

Hopefully not for long... it looks like the niners are going to get a new stadium soon and deservedly so.

The Niners very well deserve to make the Top 5 based on that reason alone.  I don't think they break ground until 2015 at the earliest, as this stadium thing has dragged on for far too long, and unsuccessfully too.  Jed York and Scot McCloughan are trying to do some things right, but the DeBartolos and Yorks parents have dug quite a big hole for the 49ers with many bad drafts, bad signings, and again, not making any progress on the stadium thing.  Bay Area football needs a huge overhaul, and it's going to take quite a bit of time as it appears now.

Well, you are a raiders fan so I'm sure you are quite the expert on bad drafts and bad signings, so I'll just have to take your word for it on that front.

But as far as the new stadium goes.... look, the niners ownership tried and tried to get the city of SF to get the thing done and the city is the party that dragged their feet, which forced the niners to look elsewhere, i.e. Santa Clara.

To me, that's commendable that the niners didn't just *start* with Santa Clara and not even give the city of SF a chance to get a stadium deal done. Not like the raiders, who when they want something new their first tactic is to go to the city and say "Hey, we're moving to Oakland (or LA or vice versa) if you don't do something for us". The niners went to the city and said "Hey, we don't wanna go anywhere else other than SF. In fact, we're going to give you guys plenty of time to debate it and decide if you want us here nor not. 10 years from now, if you still don't have a deal for a new stadium, then we'll look into going to another city".

Different strokes for different folks, I'd guess. So if you want to blame the niners for the stadium thing dragging on for too long, you can, but I give the niners credit for letting it drag on long enough that it was emphatically clear that the city of SF was not going to work on a new stadium before the niners looked into moving to Santa Clara.

You also seemed to suggest in your earlier post that you'd take the 'skins off this list and replace them with the Rams, which is a point I agree with.

But now if you are saying the niners also should make the top 5, who else are you taking off this list to make room for the niners? Or are you now saying that you'd replace the skins on this list with the niners, and you'd leave the rams out of the top 5?

As I'm sure you are aware of, when the San Francisco Giants wanted a new park, it was no easy task.  After months and months of meetings, forums, and councils, it was decided that no tax money would be available to build the stadium.  The entire $357 million used to build the stadium was privately funded, for the first time in over 4 decades.

In California, the state is in a lot of debt, and the city of San Francisco has made it clear that funds would be extremely limited in attempting to construct a new stadium and team facilities (which nowadays cost at least a billion dollars on the low end of things).  The DeBartolos & Yorks pitched an idea where they would build condominiums, shopping centers, and make a sort of stadium community that would cost billions upon billions of dollars, of which would also require numerous subsidies to test out, and of course they were only offering to cover about 1/3 of the costs up front.  Of course the plan was rejected, re-submitted, and rejected again, because the ownership group could not grasp the fact that while they were sitting on billions of dollars themselves, the municipality would not put up that kind of tax money.  It would not sit well with the tax-paying public, and it would not make the city look good on a state as well as a national level.

In the NFL, there is an assistance fund called the G3 fund which assists teams in necessary improvements, renovations, or new stadium costs.  It is a grant-based program has subsidized stadium construction or renovation, and the loans are repaid with the visiting teams' share of club-seat revenue once the project is finished. The fund has since run dry with as a result of over $300 million (fund dollars) being approved and used to build the Jets and Giants new stadium. 

The fact is however, that they had a sound plan in how they would retrieve funds to repay their loans and such (minus the absolutely horrid idea of selling PSL's).  The DeBartolo's and Yorks have been too stubborn to do what needs to be done, and the only improvements they have made on the dump that is Monster Park/3Com Park/Candlestick or whatever, have been very minuscule types of things.  Part of it can be blamed on he economy, but the majority of the blame needs to fall on the ownership group, since they have been pitching unrealistic and unnecessarily extravagant stadium proposals for years now, only to fail miserably.

Per your second question, I think the Niners or Rams could replace the 'Skins at #5 as they currently are.  I think the Niners are just as bad as any of the other 5 teams listed (not counting the 'Skins and counting the Rams) but they shouldn't be above any of the teams listed because they at least are showing signs of improvement and change.  Jed York (although still in the same family and same name) is a fresh and new voice who gave Mike Singletary a chance to lead the team in a new direction with a new identity and attitude. 

The Alex Smith draft choice has been a huge bust for them, and the ownership can only blame themselves as they had a different OC every year Smith has been there.  I do like how they restructured his contract and are giving him a fair shot, because they really don't have crap at the QB position.  Ultimately though, the Niners are in just as poor of a state as the other teams mentioned (again, minus the 'Skins) but they are in a weak division and are at least showing an effect in change.

The only thing I'll disagree on here is that, again, both the niners and the skins went 7-9 last year with the niners beating the skins when they played heads up. To me, that means the niners or skins shouldn't take the rams place on this list. Definitely the niners are not "even" with the rams in terms of stinkyness. The niners were the better team last year in that match up as well.

The question being "What are the 5 worst franchises in the NFL right now."  If the 'Skins were in the NFC West, they would probably go undefeated in the division quite easily.  One game from last year involving two teams on the list is pretty irrelevant and should not be used as a gage as to the original question, "what are the 5 worst franchises in the NFL right now."  Organization-wise, the Redskins are one of the most popular and most valuable franchises in the league.  And despite their spoiled and crazy owner, they are much more well off than any team on the list, as well as any of the honorable mentions listed. 

The original question can very well be posed another way to current (and former) players, "What are the Top 5 teams you would least want to play for?"  I guarantee you the list would be pretty close to what the list above is (minus the Redskins of course).

Well, if I'm using your criteria I'd have to say that "worst" at least in part means unpopular and not valuable. Since if you are popular, and valuable, then you aren't on the "worst" list.

And I guess under that criteria, you'd have to say the five worst teams are jags, falcons, niners, raiders and vikings as all of those teams are at the bottom in terms of how much the team is worth.

But when you look at revenue, which I would assume would have to include the value of local TV/Radio contracts, merchandise sold and tickets sold you'd see the that worst teams in the league are the colts, cardinals, falcons, niners and vikings.

And if you just look at operating income the worst teams are the bills, chiefs, seahawks, niners and lions.

So there are plenty of ways to slice it, depending on which stat you want to look at.

For me, I prefer looking at terms of wins and losses and you are only as good as your last game. So under that criteria, I'll still say the niners are superior to the skins.