I guess I was mostly looking at continued/consistent success over that 35 year time frame Big L referred to. Yes we did slide a few years in that window but overall we've had reason to be in the mix for a Lombardi multiple times since the early 90's...the actual FINISHING of the job only twice obviously leaves something to be desired.
To me being the most underachieving franchise (I left out other major sports since we mostly refer to football here) would be a combo of no SB wins recently or ever, lack of "deep" playoff runs, and an organizations track record (lack thereof) of building sustained success over multiple seasons. I listed the Queens, Bears, and Lions. I live in MN and like the other major teams here EXCEPT the purple guys. I could have left them off the underachieving list but they have "dropped the ball" at many levels since the Grant years in the 70's. I'm also sore that I (via local taxes) have to help pay for the castle known as US Bank for a team that I despise...$500 million ponied up by taxpayers to help co-fund the NJ owners palace and now they want $280 million in upgrades for an 8 year old building?! Don't get me started...sorry I digress!
I get Big L's frustration that it seems we've been on the rope climbing the wall only to have it break so many times...but what about the teams that never even have that rope in their hands? The Lions do now...not a fan of them but they've done so little for so long. Underachieving? Yes, but that narrative may be changing for them. The NFC North may about to be more relevant now though and if so my above quote may not age well. If the Bears figure some things out I would be happy knowing that the Queens may be on the verge of looking up at all 3 teams for a while. Yes!!
