Well,
Boeing 717, what's the point?
Lockheed Tristar, nothing compared to the DC-10
Tuploev TU-144, sales never exactly got anywhere
Lockheed C-130, not as powerful as the C-17 or Starlifter.
As Vodka said, the Boeing 717 was a McDonnell Douglas plane built under the Boeing name after their buy-out. As far as design goes, it's not terrible. It's about the same speed as a MD-80, but both are slower than the 737. There has not been a hull-loss of a 717 either, though there aren't many flying. The only really bad thing about the aircraft was that it was not commercially successful. It's place in the market is easily served by larger regional jets or smaller 737s. It also doesn't "fit in" with the rest of the Boeing line as far as configuration and systems.
The C-130, C-17, C-5 (which fills the retired C-141 Starlifter's roll) have to entirely different missions, which they each excel at.
The C-130 is a pure-bread tactical airlifter, which means it's job is inter-theater transport. It's ability to fly low and slow and get into and out of tight spots make it one of the best tactical airlfters in the world.
The C-17 is a hybrid, capable of both tactical and strategic airlift. It has a much higher payload capacity and a much faster cruise speed, but sacrifices the low level and short/soft field capabilities of the C-130.
The C-5 is purely a strategic airlifter and is the aircraft of choice when you need to move a lot of equipment (or just very heavy equipment) into our out of theater. For that, it sacrifices any ability to do tactical airlift.
If I had to choose a worst of the 3, I'd have to say it is the C-5, because of its heavy maintenances requirements. Though you still can't knock it too much because the C-5 has the second highest payload capacity of any military transport ever produced. And there were only 2 An-225s ever made. By contrast, there were well over 100 C-5s built.