PDA

View Full Version : Who are the worst fans in the NFL?



GentleGiant
02-10-2013, 09:39 PM
I know I live in Pittsburgh but I've met steelers fans who whine,whine,whine. They're the only fans I know that think football is fixed. I get that they're rabid fans that care but some are just spoiled. You've won 2 rings in less than a decade and you think football is fixed? You should see the conspiracy theories they had after the ravens won. Giants fans get mad fast too but we don't say it's fixed. Also the eagles obviously. The sad part is eagles fans act like spoiled steelers fans which is weird since they've had 0 success.

IamGiantsfan
02-11-2013, 01:34 AM
Giants fans don't say it's fixed, there'll be 50 posts after every game saying the refs ****ed us over =P

gabriel_1
02-11-2013, 01:43 AM
The worst fans are the Cowboys fans, because they keep whining saying that they have a good team. Well guess what Cowboy's fans?! It doesn't matter, if your team doesn't win and Tony keeps throwing pick you guys will always be bad.

Ntegrase96
02-11-2013, 11:35 AM
Depends on what you mean by 'worst'. But I'll go with the 49ers.

Rudyy
02-11-2013, 01:01 PM
Eagles, Redskins, and 49er fans are some of the most obnoxious fans in the world.

Ntegrase96
02-11-2013, 01:14 PM
Eagles, Redskins, and 49er fans are some of the most obnoxious fans in the world.

Obnoxious is very subjective though. I personally have Saints fans high on my list of most annoying, but that's just because of proximity. They're pretty obnoxious to me, but I don't think they're the worst fans, or even bad fans for that matter.

I'd still keep the 9ers and Eagles in the running for worst fans. Honestly, I could make a strong case for the Cowboys having the worst fans also.

Rudyy
02-11-2013, 01:33 PM
Obnoxious is very subjective though. I personally have Saints fans high on my list of most annoying, but that's just because of proximity. They're pretty obnoxious to me, but I don't think they're the worst fans, or even bad fans for that matter.I'd still keep the 9ers and Eagles in the running for worst fans. Honestly, I could make a strong case for the Cowboys having the worst fans also.Cowboys are delusional, but I don't think they are the worst. Saints fans are just spoiled. Obnoxious is subjective, you're right.

Ntegrase96
02-11-2013, 01:52 PM
Cowboys are delusional, but I don't think they are the worst. Saints fans are just spoiled. Obnoxious is subjective, you're right.

Delusional, impatient, front-running, etc. I think the only redeeming quality for us to not be placed at the top of 'worst NFL fans' is that we're generally not violent.

sharick88
02-11-2013, 04:24 PM
Eagles fans and it's not even close. They've had this crown for the longest time.

sharick88
02-11-2013, 04:27 PM
I know I live in Pittsburgh but I've met steelers fans who whine,whine,whine. They're the only fans I know that think football is fixed. I get that they're rabid fans that care but some are just spoiled. You've won 2 rings in less than a decade and you think football is fixed? You should see the conspiracy theories they had after the ravens won. Giants fans get mad fast too but we don't say it's fixed. Also the eagles obviously. The sad part is eagles fans act like spoiled steelers fans which is weird since they've had 0 success.

I have to admit that some of our fans are kind of strange. A player that potentially leaves via free agency (Bennett, Beatty, Cruz, etc) all of a sudden suck just because they are potentially gone. If these guys were staying here, these same types of fans would be talking about how awesome they are.

Greg Schiano
02-11-2013, 04:46 PM
Rebecca, Dave, and Darrell are good people. Obviously they don't fill up our stadium in Tampa, but Rebecca is very loud. It's nice to say I know our entire fanbase. Maybe if they bring friends, we'll have record attendance.

And the Eagles fans are an irritating bunch if I ever saw them. Skins can be pretty annoying, but they aren't as bad as Philly.

Die-Hard
02-11-2013, 05:17 PM
Philly fans, across all 4 major sports, are world class dirtbags for the most part. There are a lot of good ones, but they are badly overshadowed by the idiots who have the most annoying sense of entitlement, as if any of their teams have done anything worth remembering, the Phillies being the exception.

I've never been around a bigger bunch of true idiots than when I've attended sporting events involving a Philly team.

sharick88
02-11-2013, 05:50 PM
49ers fans are gaining ground on eagles fans though. That whole "who's got it better than us" stuff has obviously made their fans high.

giantscolombia
02-11-2013, 05:53 PM
Philly fans, across all 4 major sports, are world class dirtbags for the most part. There are a lot of good ones, but they are badly overshadowed by the idiots who have the most annoying sense of entitlement, as if any of their teams have done anything worth remembering, the Phillies being the exception.

I've never been around a bigger bunch of true idiots than when I've attended sporting events involving a Philly team.

SAINTS FANS ARE GROSS!!!!!!!!

YOUR TEAM IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT A COUPLE YEARS BACK.... PIPE DOWN B/C YOU WON A SUPERBOWL.... YOUR FRANCHISE IS A BUNCH OF CHEATING, VODOO PRACTICING, GUMBO EATING D BAGS!

Honorable mention.... Jets fans.

GentleGiant
02-11-2013, 08:05 PM
Giants fans don't say it's fixed, there'll be 50 posts after every game saying the refs ****ed us over =P Yeah but that's different. Steelers fans will say the referees planned it, the commissioner is out to get them, the players are payed. It's pathetic. Ray Lewis is friends with goodell so that means the ravens Sb was rigged. Or maybe the ravens were a good team?

TheEnigma
02-11-2013, 08:23 PM
Not sure there is an overall worst fanbase in the NFL that can be agreed upon universally. Raiders and Eagles fans can be dirty but you can't really question their loyalty to their teams. Steelers fans are passionate but like previously mentioned, they get extremely whiny when things don't go their way and you could argue the same for Giants fans too. Saints fans are to be questioned because they were hard to find before the Drew Brees era and I'm sure a good chunk of them will just run back into LSU's arms when Brees is gone.

Rusty192
02-11-2013, 09:03 PM
Not sure there is an overall worst fanbase in the NFL that can be agreed upon universally. Raiders and Eagles fans can be dirty but you can't really question their loyalty to their teams. Steelers fans are passionate but like previously mentioned, they get extremely whiny when things don't go their way and you could argue the same for Giants fans too. Saints fans are to be questioned because they were hard to find before the Drew Brees era and I'm sure a good chunk of them will just run back into LSU's arms when Brees is gone.or Bama.

GentleGiant
02-11-2013, 09:50 PM
SAINTS FANS ARE GROSS!!!!!!!!YOUR TEAM IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT A COUPLE YEARS BACK.... PIPE DOWN B/C YOU WON A SUPERBOWL.... YOUR FRANCHISE IS A BUNCH OF CHEATING, VODOO PRACTICING, GUMBO EATING D BAGS!Honorable mention.... Jets fans. You mad?

GentleGiant
02-11-2013, 09:52 PM
Not sure there is an overall worst fanbase in the NFL that can be agreed upon universally. Raiders and Eagles fans can be dirty but you can't really question their loyalty to their teams. Steelers fans are passionate but like previously mentioned, they get extremely whiny when things don't go their way and you could argue the same for Giants fans too. Saints fans are to be questioned because they were hard to find before the Drew Brees era and I'm sure a good chunk of them will just run back into LSU's arms when Brees is gone. I've met some hardcore saints fans. Talking about their rivalry with the falcons, Archie manning, the fact that they had one of the greatest LB corps ever. Trust me. They're out there and they were here before Brees.

fanpetitions
02-11-2013, 11:42 PM
Hands down no question Boston fans. I live in Arizona, on the opposite side of the country, and I'm still going with Boston fans. Pittsburgh comes in a distant second place.

fanpetitions
02-11-2013, 11:43 PM
Philly's pretty bad, but I'd say Boston is a step above. Garbage fans.

BuffyBlueII
02-12-2013, 11:52 AM
San Francisco 49ers fans are the lowest.

SweetZombieJesus
02-13-2013, 08:28 AM
Philly's pretty bad, but I'd say Boston is a step above. Garbage fans.

Very similar but Boston still loves their players when they fail. Philly immediately flips and wants to run them out of town.

Toadofsteel
02-13-2013, 09:28 AM
Only fanbase I truly hate is Philly. Even in comparison to our other divisional rivals... most Dallas fans I know are fairly reasonable people. They generally don't talk about their fandom unless asked... I've never had the problem of a dallas fan that was in your face about it (unless you count sporting a dallas t-shirt while going about your business "in your face")...

Likewise, most long-time Washington fans are fairly nice as well (yeah we trade friendly jabs, but it's never anything serious, even in the 2012 season)... and those old-timers in Washington even join us giants fans in showing up the RG3 bandwagoners. They're sort of like the pre-2004 Boston Red Sox fans... yeah they were the enemy and referred to their NY rivals as the "evil empire", but at least you could get along with them as people.

Even other organizations (such as the Saints) I feel are more misunderstood than anything. The fans there are real passionate about their team, win or lose, and the team responds in kind, often being found helping the community (especially after Katrina) during the offseason. The city and the team are very close, which is why many people of New Orleans, right or wrong, took the bountygate scandal as a personal affront to them. By the same token, I have been able to wear Giants apparel in New Orleans before (during the 2011 playoffs no less) and most people still treated me courteously... often the point that Eli is a favorite son of the town helped, and in fact after the saints loss to SF most Saints fans that I had met started rooting for the Giants.

But there's no redeeming quality about Philly. As Obi-Wan Kenobi once said, You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany. They claim to love their team, yet flip out on said team if they lose in a way that makes this board look like amateurs. Wearing any shade of blue that resembles Giants colors in Philly during football season can, at best, draw funny glances, and at worst, get you killed or beaten up. If forced to wear either Yankees apparel at Fenway or Giants apparel at the Linc, I'd pick Yankees at Fenway any day. At least that way I'd know I would survive the day...

TroyArcher
02-13-2013, 05:50 PM
Eagles and Jets. Eagles fans are barely human and Jets fans are jealous and stupid and I can't stand the high school J-E-T-S chant.

Broadway Blue
02-13-2013, 07:18 PM
Eagles and Jets. Eagles fans are barely human and Jets fans are jealous and stupid and I can't stand the high school J-E-T-S chant.

Fly Eagles Fly is worst then the Jets chant

NYCDBS
02-14-2013, 02:03 PM
Eagles if you've ever been to the "Linc" you would agree wholeheartedly

Rudyy
02-14-2013, 02:06 PM
I don't think Giants fans are bad per se, but we are very very impatient and that can be very annoying lol.

TroyArcher
02-14-2013, 05:41 PM
Eagles if you've ever been to the "Linc" you would agree wholeheartedly

I know better than to go to that cesspool.

Die-Hard
02-14-2013, 05:48 PM
Eagles if you've ever been to the "Linc" you would agree wholeheartedly

I was at the Vet several times. Something tells me that the Linc, atmosphere-wise, wont be an improvement LOL

SweetZombieJesus
02-15-2013, 07:22 AM
Fly Eagles Fly is worst then the Jets chant

This. Just replace it with this and sing along

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp106/graham82462/cryeagles.jpg

SweetZombieJesus
02-15-2013, 07:23 AM
I was at the Vet several times. Something tells me that the Linc, atmosphere-wise, wont be an improvement LOL

Because of PSLs it's an entirely higher class of scumbag.

joemorrisforprez
02-15-2013, 11:37 AM
Depends on what you mean by 'worst'. But I'll go with the 49ers.

I was originally thinking Eagles fans, but sounds like there is a large thug element at 49er games.....that will probably be getting priced out when they move to their new stadium.

JB456
02-15-2013, 11:38 AM
Eagles, Redskins, and 49er fans are some of the most obnoxious fans in the world.

This is a pretty much a perfect list. Even though my sister married an Eagles fan and his family is pretty cool (they have an 85 year old grandmother who is a huge Eagles fan and talks smack, fin hilarious), I've heard countless horror stories with run ins with Eagle fans.

As for the band wagon 49er and Redskin fans, they have become almost unbearable. "RGIII will be better than Joe Montana, John Elway, and Aaron Rogers combined. We will win multiple Superbowlz!.

Toadofsteel
02-15-2013, 12:59 PM
I was originally thinking Eagles fans, but sounds like there is a large thug element at 49er games.....that will probably be getting priced out when they move to their new stadium.

I agree on this part... most likely those cheapskates will become raider fans...

Ntegrase96
02-15-2013, 01:01 PM
I was originally thinking Eagles fans, but sounds like there is a large thug element at 49er games.....that will probably be getting priced out when they move to their new stadium.

Yeah I hope so. Who knows though? I've never been to the Bay, but I have a couple of friends who lived there. They always felt pretty unsafe at Candlestick, but also had a great time at Giants games right down the road-- said the fans there were very polite and knowledgeable.

And these friends of mine were attractive, wholesome girls from North Texas in their early 20s. I can only imagine what it would be like for a guy rocking opposing fan gear.

TheBookOfEli
02-15-2013, 10:36 PM
This. Just replace it with this and sing along

http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp106/graham82462/cryeagles.jpg

LOL! I"ve always loved that song.

FBomb
02-16-2013, 09:42 AM
This is a no brainer for me......Eagles fans. Scum of the Earth.

blueribbon
02-17-2013, 10:41 PM
Eagles fans all the way .... classless pond scum.


464

bigblue58
02-18-2013, 11:55 AM
I know I live in Pittsburgh but I've met steelers fans who whine,whine,whine. They're the only fans I know that think football is fixed. I get that they're rabid fans that care but some are just spoiled. You've won 2 rings in less than a decade and you think football is fixed? You should see the conspiracy theories they had after the ravens won. Giants fans get mad fast too but we don't say it's fixed. Also the eagles obviously. The sad part is eagles fans act like spoiled steelers fans which is weird since they've had 0 success.

Philly Fans-least hospitable
DallASS fans- most delusional
San Fran fans- sorest losers

eLi MusT gO dEEp
02-20-2013, 06:21 PM
I wouldn't go to an Oakland or SF game without a gun on me because that's how bad it seems those games are getting out there.

What's going on out there at least with Philly, Boys, Skins fans it's always just loud mouthed obnoxious homerism. [And us too of course]

Imagine if SF won the SB? I think we all know they would have needed to call the National Guard in..

SweetZombieJesus
02-21-2013, 08:10 AM
I wouldn't go to an Oakland or SF game without a gun on me because that's how bad it seems those games are getting out there.

What's going on out there at least with Philly, Boys, Skins fans it's always just loud mouthed obnoxious homerism. [And us too of course]

Imagine if SF won the SB? I think we all know they would have needed to call the National Guard in..

Back in the days of Montana and Young, the 49er fans had a reputation for being Sonoma County wine-and-cheese types. Now it seems like they're as bad as the Oakland crowd. In fact I'm guessing that's what happened, the Raider fanbase has infected the 49ers? Anybody know for sure?

Joe Morrison
02-21-2013, 12:02 PM
San Fran losing all those years let the lowlife get to the games and basically turn it into the hood on game day, now that they are winning again the owners of the tickets will be back at the game and the punks will be back on the corner shooting each other over a bottle of night train!

Carter.525
02-21-2013, 12:07 PM
Jaguars

giantscolombia
02-21-2013, 01:04 PM
Jaguars

HHAHAHA how?

i didnt know if that was even a team still...

egyptian420
02-21-2013, 04:58 PM
So many to choose from, Eagles, 49ers, Jets, Oakland.....I would have to say Eagles take the cake

killerbootz
02-21-2013, 05:40 PM
I live in south jersey and the eagles fans are the most bi-polar fans i ever met. when they win one game, they think their team is going to the super bowl, but when they lose one game, they want the eagles to change the whole coaching staff and roster. 49ers fans just be whining like the 49ers head coach and players. thats why some other fans be calling them 40 whiners

sharick88
02-21-2013, 06:44 PM
I wouldn't go to an Oakland or SF game without a gun on me because that's how bad it seems those games are getting out there.

What's going on out there at least with Philly, Boys, Skins fans it's always just loud mouthed obnoxious homerism. [And us too of course]

Imagine if SF won the SB? I think we all know they would have needed to call the National Guard in..

The thing about bay area football is win or lose, they riot. I used to live up there in NoCal and 49ers fans are by far more annoying than raider fan. I really hate that "who's got it better than us" gimmick

Imgrate
02-21-2013, 07:10 PM
Kc chiefs fans are scum

Dorothy
02-26-2013, 08:11 AM
Hands down no question Boston fans. I live in Arizona, on the opposite side of the country, and I'm still going with Boston fans. Pittsburgh comes in a distant second place.

Don't agree. I'm from Boston, lived there for 40 years, wear my Giants shirts everywhere, of course I get lots of comments, most are in humor. The SB years are no different. Won lots of bets those two years. And I wear my Giants gear to the stadium when the Giants are in town.

Giantz4Life
02-26-2013, 12:33 PM
when they win one game, they think their team is going to the super bowl, but when they lose one game, they want the eagles to change the whole coaching staff and roster.

You're a noob on this message board so I don't expect you to know this, but come on here after a loss or win and it is the exact same mentality.

I usually completely avoid this site after a Giants loss simply because I do not wish to read hundreds of ridiculous "Fire _____, Cut _____" threads.

Gmen#1Chick
02-26-2013, 03:17 PM
We hit our local sports bar every Sunday during the season. In a crowd full of people (almost all wearing blue) it's always the Jets and the Cowboys fans that drive me nuts! :rolleyes:

Giants5699
02-27-2013, 01:10 AM
Eagles fans and that should be the answer for any Giants fan and no other fan base comes close.
1) Eagles
2) Jets
3) 40-whiners
4) Foreskins
5) Houston

Dallas fans actually aren't that bad. Go to a game in Houston and you'll see how bad they are

killerbootz
02-27-2013, 10:33 PM
You're a noob on this message board so I don't expect you to know this, but come on here after a loss or win and it is the exact same mentality.

I usually completely avoid this site after a Giants loss simply because I do not wish to read hundreds of ridiculous "Fire _____, Cut _____" threads.

im telling you i dont really see the same thing on this giants forums... eagles are much worse than the giants in person. yea you have a few giants fans here and there doing the same thing but i believe most of giants fans are even keeled

SweetZombieJesus
02-28-2013, 07:26 AM
You're a noob on this message board so I don't expect you to know this, but come on here after a loss or win and it is the exact same mentality.

I usually completely avoid this site after a Giants loss simply because I do not wish to read hundreds of ridiculous "Fire _____, Cut _____" threads.

But that's not really reflective of the actual fanbase. And it shows you don't know Eagles fans, it's true, they are the worst bipolar fans in the world and it's 90% of the fanbase. Listen to one of their sports talk stations on the internet the day before a big game and the day after they lose it, you've never seen anything like it.

Flip Empty
02-28-2013, 08:41 AM
Giants fans seem to be as bad as any others.

The amount of hate that stemmed from Steve Smith's departure was pathetic and embarrassing.

Rudyy
02-28-2013, 10:03 AM
Giants fans seem to be as bad as any others.The amount of hate that stemmed from Steve Smith's departure was pathetic and embarrassing.Well that was understood because nobody knew who else would fill the slot position. The hate was definitely uncalled for however.

Ntegrase96
02-28-2013, 11:21 AM
But that's not really reflective of the actual fanbase. And it shows you don't know Eagles fans, it's true, they are the worst bipolar fans in the world and it's 90% of the fanbase. Listen to one of their sports talk stations on the internet the day before a big game and the day after they lose it, you've never seen anything like it.

I don't know about radio, because I don't listen to anything other than local FM her in Dallas, but based on the 10+ message boards I regularly peruse, I think that's pretty reflective of every fan base.

Alive741
03-14-2013, 10:20 AM
Patriots fans--hands down...no doubt about it. If you aren't convinced visit their forums...

BlessedinBlue22
03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
Cheese Heads..Lambaeu Packer fans, always raving about aaron rogers, and they can't even get passed us in the playoffs lol

Rusty192
03-14-2013, 03:11 PM
Cheese Heads..Lambaeu Packer fans, always raving about aaron rogers, and they can't even get passed us in the playoffs lolhaha gotta love our buddies over on Packer forum. I remember how arrogant they were, and how we couldn't possibly beat them. I also loved how pretty much all of them joined their board around 2010-11 lol. right after the Packers won the SB. Some of them even rooted for two teams simultaneously.

Good times.

BlessedinBlue22
03-14-2013, 04:58 PM
haha gotta love our buddies over on Packer forum. I remember how arrogant they were, and how we couldn't possibly beat them. I also loved how pretty much all of them joined their board around 2010-11 lol. right after the Packers won the SB. Some of them even rooted for two teams simultaneously.

Good times.

And the funny thing is they call us the arrogant ****y Giant fans. That Eli is not elite, but Rogers is. And, how it's almost impossible to get tickets for their home games. Basically we got lucky twice, i love it, keeps us the under dog.

Mlerman17
03-14-2013, 10:32 PM
eagles (cons)

mrg3
03-17-2013, 12:29 AM
Dallas alot of front running big mouths. Sorry True Yankee fans, but some of your bandwagon fans relate

SweetZombieJesus
03-17-2013, 08:38 AM
Giants fans seem to be as bad as any others.

The amount of hate that stemmed from Steve Smith's departure was pathetic and embarrassing.

You mean the guy who positioned himself as Mr. Giant, who was working out at the team facility in the offseason even though he was no longer officially on the team, the guy who had an anti-Eagles poster in his locker and tweeted out a picture of it during the Osi-Lesean feud, the guy who would not return Reese's phone calls after they made an offer, the guy who then signed with the Eagles without countering the offer? That Steve Smith?

It's not like the disproportionate hate came for no reason.

SweetZombieJesus
03-17-2013, 08:39 AM
I don't know about radio, because I don't listen to anything other than local FM her in Dallas, but based on the 10+ message boards I regularly peruse, I think that's pretty reflective of every fan base.

It's especially true with the Eagles. Every minor failure is a mutiny.

I urge skeptics to tune into WIP (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/station/94wip/) or their other new sports station that I can't remember offhand. Tune in before and after a loss in a big game.

They have no doubt of assured victory before, and no mercy for blood afterwards.

Flip Empty
03-17-2013, 08:57 AM
You mean the guy who positioned himself as Mr. Giant, who was working out at the team facility in the offseason even though he was no longer officially on the team, the guy who had an anti-Eagles poster in his locker and tweeted out a picture of it during the Osi-Lesean feud, the guy who would not return Reese's phone calls after they made an offer, the guy who then signed with the Eagles without countering the offer? That Steve Smith?

It's not like the disproportionate hate came for no reason.
Ah, so it's cool to will injury or death upon a guy for leaving a freaking sports team. Right.

Now there are people calling Kenny Phillips a traitor. So childish.

Die-Hard
03-17-2013, 11:31 AM
You mean the guy who positioned himself as Mr. Giant, who was working out at the team facility in the offseason even though he was no longer officially on the team, the guy who had an anti-Eagles poster in his locker and tweeted out a picture of it during the Osi-Lesean feud, the guy who would not return Reese's phone calls after they made an offer, the guy who then signed with the Eagles without countering the offer? That Steve Smith?

It's not like the disproportionate hate came for no reason.

The amount of true HATRED, and on such an incredibly personal level, that was directed at Steve Smith was an absolute embarrassment. The people who did that are the scum of the earth, and I dont consider them Giants fans at all. Wishing death on him and his family? There isn't a single argument in existence that can justify that type of behavior.

blueribbon
03-17-2013, 04:46 PM
Philly by far!

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/eagles-fans-babin.jpg

blueribbon
03-17-2013, 04:49 PM
Even their own players hate the Eagle fans.

“During the game, there was a good section of fans chanting some of the most vile things I've ever heard,” Babin said according to CBSSports.com's Kevin Noonan (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nfl-rapidreports/20777679/eagles-de-jason-babin-rips-foul-mouthed-philadelphia-fans). “And not just at a football game, but in life, in general. Talking about attacking [coach Andy Reid], talking about people's wives and kids and chanting them. And I just thought there was no place for that in the NFL -- none whatsoever.”


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/20788461/eagles-de-jason-babin-lashes-out-at-fans-for-vile-chants

Giants5699
03-18-2013, 03:39 AM
I wouldn't hate the Eagles as much if it weren't for their fans. I've been going to Giants games since 1933. I've hated Eagles fans since 1940.

Greg Schiano
03-18-2013, 05:18 PM
Man... I thought the Jets would be cool... I was all like, hey guys, I'm Greg, the Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and we should work out a trade for Revis. They are like...

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b92/jrscag/bannedSchiano_zps32750423.jpg

GentleGiant
03-18-2013, 09:38 PM
Man... I thought the Jets would be cool... I was all like, hey guys, I'm Greg, the Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and we should work out a trade for Revis. They are like...http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b92/jrscag/bannedSchiano_zps32750423.jpg Coach. How do you feel about getting shutout by the saints who had a historically bad D?

Greg Schiano
03-19-2013, 10:35 AM
Coach. How do you feel about getting shutout by the saints who had a historically bad D?

Terrible... tears of sadness streamed down my face and into the gap between my teeth. A part of me died that day.

GentleGiant
03-19-2013, 05:35 PM
Terrible... tears of sadness streamed down my face and into the gap between my teeth. A part of me died that day. Did Doug Martin kick your *** when you called him the muscle hamster?

darrin99
03-19-2013, 09:23 PM
Worst in terms of conduct is definitely the Eagles. Hell, they used to have their own court and jail in the stadium.
Nicest I've encountered was in Arizona. I was there for SB XLII, and the Cardinals fans were almost too nice.
Biggest front runner are the Cowboy fans, especially outside of Texas.
Dumbest, I'll give it to the Jet fans based on their calls to sports radio, and the few of them I know. ;)

pokerpunk
03-21-2013, 01:04 AM
Patriot fans get my vote. I work in a sports bar and I have to laugh when I hear the Patriot fans refere to themselves as being on the team when they win ie: "we played a great game" or "my offense looked awesome". When they lose its, "they looked bad".

darrin99
03-23-2013, 02:45 AM
Patriot fans get my vote. I work in a sports bar and I have to laugh when I hear the Patriot fans refere to themselves as being on the team when they win ie: "we played a great game" or "my offense looked awesome". When they lose its, "they looked bad".

They are the most arrogant fans I've encountered.

BuffyBlueII
03-28-2013, 01:24 PM
I wouldn't hate the Eagles as much if it weren't for their fans. I've been going to Giants games since 1933. I've hated Eagles fans since 1940.Going to NY Giants games since 1933, wow. That is awesome. You must have incredible memorier upon incredible memories of NY Giants a different times of your life.

Morehead State
03-28-2013, 05:34 PM
Patriot fans get my vote. I work in a sports bar and I have to laugh when I hear the Patriot fans refere to themselves as being on the team when they win ie: "we played a great game" or "my offense looked awesome". When they lose its, "they looked bad".
I live in Pats country and I can say that circa 2003 thru 2007 they were incredibly arrogant. They have mostly calmed down a bit since then.
Not as bad to be around anymore.

zimonami
03-28-2013, 06:03 PM
Very similar but Boston still loves their players when they fail. Philly immediately flips and wants to run them out of town.
just read this, SZJ, and I had to smile thinking about Billy Buckner.

Ntegrase96
03-28-2013, 06:17 PM
I live in Pats country and I can say that circa 2003 thru 2007 they were incredibly arrogant. They have mostly calmed down a bit since then.
Not as bad to be around anymore.

To be fair, that's all fans. Win a championship, become obnoxious. Lose the next year, return to humble roots.

mr. bozack
03-28-2013, 06:26 PM
oak raider fan hands down! they rock like thier fresh off a sb win EVERY yr.

Morehead State
03-28-2013, 08:10 PM
To be fair, that's all fans. Win a championship, become obnoxious. Lose the next year, return to humble roots.
Not really what was going on here. What happened is all the casual fans, who don't have respect for the game, got all obnoxious. The old time fans never got that way. Those are the guys who called me to congratulate me for our win in 2008.
It was the casual fans that were the poor losers.

Die-Hard
03-29-2013, 06:28 AM
Not really what was going on here. What happened is all the casual fans, who don't have respect for the game, got all obnoxious. The old time fans never got that way. Those are the guys who called me to congratulate me for our win in 2008.
It was the casual fans that were the poor losers.

Frontrunners dont like losing teams. Thats what causes them to become angry frontrunners. Laughing at them hurts them the most

darrin99
04-02-2013, 02:50 AM
I live in Pats country and I can say that circa 2003 thru 2007 they were incredibly arrogant. They have mostly calmed down a bit since then.
Not as bad to be around anymore.

You should have seen them at Super Bowl XLII. Before the game, they were already celebrating their "19-0 Season".

ShakeandBake
04-02-2013, 10:45 AM
To be fair, that's all fans. Win a championship, become obnoxious. Lose the next year, return to humble roots.

True, but there is definitely a varying degree of "obnoxiousness" when talking about different teams. By the way congrats on being the NFC offseason champs again this year. According to ESPN, Dallas is #1 in the power ranking for the NFC East.

Ntegrase96
04-02-2013, 11:18 AM
True, but there is definitely a varying degree of "obnoxiousness" when talking about different teams. By the way congrats on being the NFC offseason champs again this year. According to ESPN, Dallas is #1 in the power ranking for the NFC East.

Wait what? I saw that the skins were in 1st, you guys in 2nd on ESPN

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/74371/espn-coms-nfl-pre-draft-power-rankings-2


And same for NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000136368/article/nfl-power-rankings-ravens-earn-top-spot-going-into-offseason

ShakeandBake
04-02-2013, 11:40 AM
Wait what? I saw that the skins were in 1st, you guys in 2nd on ESPN

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/74371/espn-coms-nfl-pre-draft-power-rankings-2


I guess they all are projecting it differently, not like it matters at this point. I was watching ESPN yesterday when they were doing the rankings, and tbh I forget which analysts were on but they had it ranked Dallas/Giants/Skins/Eagles. I just had to point it out because it seems that every year no matter how Dallas performs, they seem to be projected to win the east before the season starts.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000136368/article/nfl-power-rankings-ravens-earn-top-spot-going-into-offseason

I was watching ESPN yesterday and tbh I forget which analysts were on, but they had it ranked Dallas/Giants/Skins/Eagles. I just had to point it out because it seems that every off season, no matter how Dallas has performed the season prior, they are projected to win the East. Seems that there are many differing opinions out there at this point though, which makes sense considering there are still plenty of roster changes yet to be made.

Ntegrase96
04-02-2013, 12:12 PM
I was watching ESPN yesterday and tbh I forget which analysts were on, but they had it ranked Dallas/Giants/Skins/Eagles. I just had to point it out because it seems that every off season, no matter how Dallas has performed the season prior, they are projected to win the East. Seems that there are many differing opinions out there at this point though, which makes sense considering there are still plenty of roster changes yet to be made.

Yeah. Still a ways to go.

Side note, I'm done watching ESPN nowadays because of their ridiculous lack of integrity, so I may be out of the loop on stuff like that. Their publications are still okay, but they are seemingly only interested in fabricating stories for ratings or presenting opinions to incite a crowd on the network. It's sad.

ShakeandBake
04-02-2013, 02:37 PM
Yeah. Still a ways to go.

Side note, I'm done watching ESPN nowadays because of their ridiculous lack of integrity, so I may be out of the loop on stuff like that. Their publications are still okay, but they are seemingly only interested in fabricating stories for ratings or presenting opinions to incite a crowd on the network. It's sad.

Yeah I agree they are turning into the TMZ of the sporting world.

SamHuff70
04-07-2013, 01:09 AM
Patriots fans are far worse than any fans in the NFL. Biggest bunch of losers and crybabies going.

SamHuff70
04-07-2013, 01:11 AM
You should have seen them at Super Bowl XLII. Before the game, they were already celebrating their "19-0 Season".

Every time I watch a game at Gillette Stadium, I never fail to laugh my *** off at their 16-0 Regular Season banner. If I'm a Patsie fan (God forbid), I'm begging Kraft to take that piece of crap down.

SamHuff70
04-07-2013, 01:13 AM
I know I live in Pittsburgh but I've met steelers fans who whine,whine,whine. They're the only fans I know that think football is fixed. I get that they're rabid fans that care but some are just spoiled. You've won 2 rings in less than a decade and you think football is fixed? You should see the conspiracy theories they had after the ravens won. Giants fans get mad fast too but we don't say it's fixed. Also the eagles obviously. The sad part is eagles fans act like spoiled steelers fans which is weird since they've had 0 success.

Dude I couldn't disagree with you more. I've had more Steelers fans come up to me shaking my hand - some buying me a beer - because I'm a Giants fan. Why? Because we beat the Patsies twice in the SB.

Colorado49er
04-14-2013, 11:09 PM
49ers fans are gaining ground on eagles fans though. That whole "who's got it better than us" stuff has obviously made their fans high.

seems like youre a little mad that the cough cant come up with something as inspiring. Oh well, I guess all cant be as clever.

Drez
04-14-2013, 11:32 PM
seems like youre a little mad that the cough cant come up with something as inspiring. Oh well, I guess all cant be as clever.lmao.

stupid niner fan is stupid

zimonami
04-15-2013, 01:30 AM
Dude I couldn't disagree with you more. I've had more Steelers fans come up to me shaking my hand - some buying me a beer - because I'm a Giants fan. Why? Because we beat the Patsies twice in the SB.
You're right, Sam. You'll find some obnoxious Steeler fans, but in general, and especially among older fans, there's a lot of history and respect, as well as a marriage between the Mara's and Rooneys. The two families are quite close. So, any ****** Steeler fans you see are probably ignorant of those facts, or just don't care.

GentleGiant
04-15-2013, 08:04 AM
Dude I couldn't disagree with you more. I've had more Steelers fans come up to me shaking my hand - some buying me a beer - because I'm a Giants fan. Why? Because we beat the Patsies twice in the SB. Well I live in the heart of it all and these boys are far from humble. Hell you can on steeler forums right now and see how many trolls are on it. They hate everyone. They think every D player is a wuss. They hate Ben( even though right now I think he's better than Brady and Peyton nowadays). Most of them don't know a thing about the 70s.

Toadofsteel
04-15-2013, 08:57 AM
Well I live in the heart of it all and these boys are far from humble. Hell you can on steeler forums right now and see how many trolls are on it. They hate everyone. They think every D player is a wuss. They hate Ben( even though right now I think he's better than Brady and Peyton nowadays). Most of them don't know a thing about the 70s.

Those are probably newer fans with no sense of their team's history. All the steeler fans I know are very respectful towards the Giants for the reasons SamHuff70 mentioned.

It extends to the teams themselves as well, such as this image when Dwyer got hurt on a return last season:
http://p.twimg.com/A65QwKYCUAApgtB.jpg:large

GentleGiant
04-15-2013, 07:04 PM
Those are probably newer fans with no sense of their team's history. All the steeler fans I know are very respectful towards the Giants for the reasons SamHuff70 mentioned. It extends to the teams themselves as well, such as this image when Dwyer got hurt on a return last season:http://p.twimg.com/A65QwKYCUAApgtB.jpg:large That makes sense. Although I recommend never going on a forum if your a steelers fan. Most are actually ravens pretending to be steelers( literally). They're mostly trolls. I get that. I don't question the team. They're the most consistently successful franchise in NFL history. They draft people from penn state and Pitt not because they're good but just to give back to the community. Not to mention the giants are literally family related to them. But I have one rule. If the QB of a team shows any promise, you should support him through anything, cause he's the most important player. The dolphins, lions, and bengals have no idea how lucky they are now that they have QBs. So when the very idea that the majority of these guys hate on a 2 time SB winning QB disgusts me. Ryan Clark even said they were spoiled. When I was little, the steelers were my favorite. My dad and pap watched the immaculate reception live. They lived through the 70s. I considered Hines ward, Ben, and Troy as family. JPP, Eli, and Cruz are my new and true family, but it doesn't mean I can't feel bad for Pittsburgh.

SweetZombieJesus
04-16-2013, 08:02 AM
seems like youre a little mad that the cough cant come up with something as inspiring. Oh well, I guess all cant be as clever.

It's not clever at all -- especially when you aren't the last team standing. It's something a 5 year old would say.

http://i.qkme.me/35skts.jpg

SweetZombieJesus
04-16-2013, 08:05 AM
They're (Pittsburgh) the most consistently successful franchise in NFL history.

NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.

Not disrespecting the Steelers but they didn't even make the playoffs one single time for their first 40 years. They were consistent cellar-dwellers for decades.

That title has to go to the Packers (13 championships, multiple dynasties, last team to win 3 in a row)... Bears and Giants belong in the conversation. All of those 3 have been competitive in almost every era. Pittsburgh belongs in the SB era conversation but even their success is contained in 2 of 5 SB decades.

GentleGiant
04-16-2013, 07:36 PM
NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.Not disrespecting the Steelers but they didn't even make the playoffs one single time for their first 40 years. They were consistent cellar-dwellers for decades.That title has to go to the Packers (13 championships, multiple dynasties, last team to win 3 in a row)... Bears and Giants belong in the conversation. All of those 3 have been competitive in almost every era. Pittsburgh belongs in the SB era conversation but even their success is contained in 2 of 5 SB decades. Oh don't give me that crap. Where were the bears in the 60s, 70s, and 90s? Where was the pack in the 70s and 80s? Where were the giants in the 60s, 70s, and 90s? I'm getting sick of people acting like the pre SB wins actually count. The pack doesn't have 13 championships. They have NFC/AFC championships and 4 REAL championships. The fact that the AFL had its own championship obviously shows that the NFL championships don't count.

MULTIPLE DYNASTIES? HA! The only way the pack ever had a dynasty is if the bills going to 4 SBs is a dynasty cause that's all they did. Win NFC/ AFC championships. The 2 teams that went to the championship weren't even the actual best teams in the league. It was basically CFB. A bunch of people debating who should go. No playoff system. Why do the NFL championships count but the AFL doesn't? Face it. SBs are the only things that count. The fact that the NFL merged at all means the old ones have no merit. Congratulations pack. You WENT to the SB 9 times.

I'm a giants fan but even I know the old ones are not the same stature as SBs. There wouldn't have been a merge if they did matter.

And no this isnt the same as baseball. There wasn't 2 MLB leagues that merged like the NFL did.

Next you'll tell me is that the lions and browns are better than the steelers, cowboys, and niners. Oh the browns being bad after the merge counts but the packs doesn't?

The steelers actually played the game to get their rings. The pack got lucky cause the boarding room felt bad for them. SBs are harder. The system actually works to make sure the 2 teams left are actually the best. A SB should be worth 10 old ones.

Not taking anything from the players and coaches. That's different.

BlueSanta
04-17-2013, 06:38 AM
Dude I couldn't disagree with you more. I've had more Steelers fans come up to me shaking my hand - some buying me a beer - because I'm a Giants fan. Why? Because we beat the Patsies twice in the SB.
I am with you.


I don't live in the NY area and for a long time I spent my Sundays in sports bars among fellow football fans. I never liked going to sports bars where just 1 group of fans would hang. The Steeler fans always represented well, and were among the best guys to have a beer and a laugh with. They have a lot in common with the Giants you know:

-Kate Mara, and little sis Rooney
-They hate the Cowboys for the 1996 Superbowl, among other numberous obnoxiouses.
- They dislike the Eagles as cross state rivals, and for making outsiders thing all of the state of Penn is like what you see at an Eagles game.
- The 2 teams owners have been friends for a long time.
- and lastly, Kate Mara. Because it is my post and I get to put her 2x.

SweetZombieJesus
04-17-2013, 12:13 PM
Oh don't give me that crap. Where were the bears in the 60s, 70s, and 90s? Where was the pack in the 70s and 80s? Where were the giants in the 60s, 70s, and 90s? I'm getting sick of people acting like the pre SB wins actually count. The pack doesn't have 13 championships. They have NFC/AFC championships and 4 REAL championships. The fact that the AFL had its own championship obviously shows that the NFL championships don't count.

Oh, so you're one of "those." The NFL has been around since 1920. The 8 team AFL merged with it in 1970. The first AFL-NFL Championship (Super Bowl) was in 1966.

Where were the Steelers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s? Certainly not in the playoffs. But guess what, they were in the league and they were playing. The Steelers were one of the league's worst franchises for their first 40 years.

Since the ABA merged with the NBA, please tell me which NBA titles no longer count. I guess all those Celtics championships get thrown out by your logic.

As for the Bears -- playoff appearences in 60s/70s/90s: 1963, 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1977-78),197 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1979-80)9, 1990,1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1991-92), 1994
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1994-95)As for the Packers -- playoff appearences in 70s/80s: 1972, 1982
As for the Giants -- playoff appearences in 60/s/70s/90s: Three straight championship games (1961, 1962, 1963), 1990 (Super Bowl win), 1993, 1997 (and Super Bowl loss in 2000)

The Pack does have 13 championships even if you stomp your feet and deny it.
http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/history/champions_top_2011.jpg

Even the NFL itself acknowledges it on its site -- I'll dig up a link.


MULTIPLE DYNASTIES? HA! The only way the pack ever had a dynasty is if the bills going to 4 SBs is a dynasty cause that's all they did.

I'll just leave it by saying you are ignorant, as in the dictionary definition, meaning uneducated. Did you ever stop to think why the trophy is named after Vince Lombardi? His Packers won 5 championships in 7 seasons, including the first two Super Bowls. 61-62-65-66-67. That's the very definition of a dynasty, and no other since has reached those heights. Not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the 49ers, not the Patriots. They're also the only team to 3-peat as champions, and they've done it twice. 29-30-31 and 65-66-67.


Win NFC/ AFC championships. The 2 teams that went to the championship weren't even the actual best teams in the league. It was basically CFB. A bunch of people debating who should go. No playoff system.

More ignorance. From 1920-1932 the team with the best standing won the championship. The Giants won in 1927 this way. From 1933-1965 there were two divisions and the two teams that won the divisions played in the championship game, which is a playoff system. No ambiguity, no CFB ranking system.

Further, there was no AFL until 1960. So how is the NFL supposed to compete with a league that doesn't exist? How can the Giants' 1956 Championship be discounted as an "NFC Championship" when the other league wouldn't even exist for 4 more years? And in fact, the other league would be created because of the 1958 Championship between the Giants and Colts. Do you need a history lesson on that too? (Crib notes version: That game put pro football on the map and people wanted new NFL teams to spread across the country. When the NFL said "no", they started their own league -- the AFL).

By the way, baseball operated the same way until 1969 -- the team with the best standing of each league played the other league's champion in the World Series. So do those old World Series no longer count either?


Why do the NFL championships count but the AFL doesn't?

Several reasons. The AFL merged into the NFL. The AFL only awarded 6 stand-alone AFL championship titles (1960-1965). The NFL had awarded 46 (1920-1965).


Face it. SBs are the only things that count. The fact that the NFL merged at all means the old ones have no merit. Congratulations pack. You WENT to the SB 9 times.

I disagree. The teams played. They tried to make the postseason and win championships. If the team won a championship in its system of the day, how can it be invalid? I'm not for erasing/ignoring 45 years of NFL history. We don't do that in any other sport.


I'm a giants fan but even I know the old ones are not the same stature as SBs. There wouldn't have been a merge if they did matter.

The Giants don't agree with you.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3306/img3779cropped.jpg


And no this isnt the same as baseball. There wasn't 2 MLB leagues that merged like the NFL did.

More ignorance... The AL and NL were two rival leagues operating under the MLB umbrella, but until very recently they kept their business operations quite separate (including league offices and umpiring crews).


SBs are harder. The system actually works to make sure the 2 teams left are actually the best. A SB should be worth 10 old ones.

Really? Because the exact opposite could be argued. Up until 1965 the two best teams played in the championship game. In 1965, that meant a 2-in-14 chance of making the playoffs (14%). Today it's a 12-in-32 chance (38%). How does having 1/3 of the league making the playoffs, and having a 3x greater chance of making the playoffs, ensure that the two teams left are actually the best?

zimonami
04-17-2013, 02:42 PM
Oh, so you're one of "those." The NFL has been around since 1920. The 8 team AFL merged with it in 1970. The first AFL-NFL Championship (Super Bowl) was in 1966.

Where were the Steelers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s? Certainly not in the playoffs. But guess what, they were in the league and they were playing. The Steelers were one of the league's worst franchises for their first 40 years.

Since the ABA merged with the NBA, please tell me which NBA titles no longer count. I guess all those Celtics championships get thrown out by your logic.

As for the Bears -- playoff appearences in 60s/70s/90s: 1963, 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1977-78),197 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1979-80)9, 1990,1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1991-92), 1994
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1994-95)As for the Packers -- playoff appearences in 70s/80s: 1972, 1982
As for the Giants -- playoff appearences in 60/s/70s/90s: Three straight championship games (1961, 1962, 1963), 1990 (Super Bowl win), 1993, 1997 (and Super Bowl loss in 2000)

The Pack does have 13 championships even if you stomp your feet and deny it.
http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/history/champions_top_2011.jpg

Even the NFL itself acknowledges it on its site -- I'll dig up a link.



I'll just leave it by saying you are ignorant, as in the dictionary definition, meaning uneducated. Did you ever stop to think why the trophy is named after Vince Lombardi? His Packers won 5 championships in 7 seasons, including the first two Super Bowls. 61-62-65-66-67. That's the very definition of a dynasty, and no other since has reached those heights. Not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the 49ers, not the Patriots. They're also the only team to 3-peat as champions, and they've done it twice. 29-30-31 and 65-66-67.



More ignorance. From 1920-1932 the team with the best standing won the championship. The Giants won in 1927 this way. From 1933-1965 there were two divisions and the two teams that won the divisions played in the championship game, which is a playoff system. No ambiguity, no CFB ranking system.

Further, there was no AFL until 1960. So how is the NFL supposed to compete with a league that doesn't exist? How can the Giants' 1956 Championship be discounted as an "NFC Championship" when the other league wouldn't even exist for 4 more years? And in fact, the other league would be created because of the 1958 Championship between the Giants and Colts. Do you need a history lesson on that too? (Crib notes version: That game put pro football on the map and people wanted new NFL teams to spread across the country. When the NFL said "no", they started their own league -- the AFL).

By the way, baseball operated the same way until 1969 -- the team with the best standing of each league played the other league's champion in the World Series. So do those old World Series no longer count either?



Several reasons. The AFL merged into the NFL. The AFL only awarded 6 stand-alone AFL championship titles (1960-1965). The NFL had awarded 46 (1920-1965).



I disagree. The teams played. They tried to make the postseason and win championships. If the team won a championship in its system of the day, how can it be invalid? I'm not for erasing/ignoring 45 years of NFL history. We don't do that in any other sport.



The Giants don't agree with you.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3306/img3779cropped.jpg



More ignorance... The AL and NL were two rival leagues operating under the MLB umbrella, but until very recently they kept their business operations quite separate (including league offices and umpiring crews).



Really? Because the exact opposite could be argued. Up until 1965 the two best teams played in the championship game. In 1965, that meant a 2-in-14 chance of making the playoffs (14%). Today it's a 12-in-32 chance (38%). How does having 1/3 of the league making the playoffs, and having a 3x greater chance of making the playoffs, ensure that the two teams left are actually the best?
Wow, SZJ, what a thorough reply.
You said much more completely than I would have, but my answer was essentially the same.
I have to smile when youn g people think the world started when they were born, and history startes there. I remember well in the 50's and 60's, when I first started watching football, that the Steelers were the ultimate cellar dwellars, which made it all the more difficult to take when they absolutely killed YA Tittle in thet '63 (?) game. The classic one where you see him on his knees, his helmet off and blood coming down his face. That was about the worst beating I've ever seen a QB take in my life.

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 10:17 PM
Oh, so you're one of "those." The NFL has been around since 1920. The 8 team AFL merged with it in 1970. The first AFL-NFL Championship (Super Bowl) was in 1966.Where were the Steelers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s? Certainly not in the playoffs. But guess what, they were in the league and they were playing. The Steelers were one of the league's worst franchises for their first 40 years.Since the ABA merged with the NBA, please tell me which NBA titles no longer count. I guess all those Celtics championships get thrown out by your logic.As for the Bears -- playoff appearences in 60s/70s/90s: 1963, 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1977-78),197 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1979-80)9, 1990,1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1991-92), 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1994-95)As for the Packers -- playoff appearences in 70s/80s: 1972, 1982As for the Giants -- playoff appearences in 60/s/70s/90s: Three straight championship games (1961, 1962, 1963), 1990 (Super Bowl win), 1993, 1997 (and Super Bowl loss in 2000)The Pack does have 13 championships even if you stomp your feet and deny it. http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/history/champions_top_2011.jpgEven the NFL itself acknowledges it on its site -- I'll dig up a link. I'll just leave it by saying you are ignorant, as in the dictionary definition, meaning uneducated. Did you ever stop to think why the trophy is named after Vince Lombardi? His Packers won 5 championships in 7 seasons, including the first two Super Bowls. 61-62-65-66-67. That's the very definition of a dynasty, and no other since has reached those heights. Not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the 49ers, not the Patriots. They're also the only team to 3-peat as champions, and they've done it twice. 29-30-31 and 65-66-67. More ignorance. From 1920-1932 the team with the best standing won the championship. The Giants won in 1927 this way. From 1933-1965 there were two divisions and the two teams that won the divisions played in the championship game, which is a playoff system. No ambiguity, no CFB ranking system.Further, there was no AFL until 1960. So how is the NFL supposed to compete with a league that doesn't exist? How can the Giants' 1956 Championship be discounted as an "NFC Championship" when the other league wouldn't even exist for 4 more years? And in fact, the other league would be created because of the 1958 Championship between the Giants and Colts. Do you need a history lesson on that too? (Crib notes version: That game put pro football on the map and people wanted new NFL teams to spread across the country. When the NFL said "no", they started their own league -- the AFL).By the way, baseball operated the same way until 1969 -- the team with the best standing of each league played the other league's champion in the World Series. So do those old World Series no longer count either?Several reasons. The AFL merged into the NFL. The AFL only awarded 6 stand-alone AFL championship titles (1960-1965). The NFL had awarded 46 (1920-1965).I disagree. The teams played. They tried to make the postseason and win championships. If the team won a championship in its system of the day, how can it be invalid? I'm not for erasing/ignoring 45 years of NFL history. We don't do that in any other sport.The Giants don't agree with you.http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3306/img3779cropped.jpgMore ignorance... The AL and NL were two rival leagues operating under the MLB umbrella, but until very recently they kept their business operations quite separate (including league offices and umpiring crews). Really? Because the exact opposite could be argued. Up until 1965 the two best teams played in the championship game. In 1965, that meant a 2-in-14 chance of making the playoffs (14%). Today it's a 12-in-32 chance (38%). How does having 1/3 of the league making the playoffs, and having a 3x greater chance of making the playoffs, ensure that the two teams left are actually the best? I never seen so much pointless banter in my life. It's cute how you call me ignorant despite the fact that I literally just said that everything the coaches and players did was different. Yet you just continued off in your idiotic banter. So any cheesehead rant about Lombardi is irrelevant.

Under the MLB umbrella? Yeah sure old man. So umbrella was the NFL and AFL under? Cute how you somehow think only the AFL merged despite the fact that the Browns and colts were originally NFL before moving to the NFL. So I'm supposed to care that the giants have banners? The patriots have ones for going 16-0( as if that means anything). The packers won a championship by winning 7 games. SEVEN. Cause there was no overtime. They went 7-1-6. Yeah they CLEARLY deserved it. It was clearly harder. The highest records doesn't mean the best team. There's a reason why CFB is changing the system. Cause most regular reasons doesn't mean best team. Notre dame had the most wins. How is one championship game considered a playoff system? Take off the cheesehead old man. I never said that the championships be forgotten. I they aren't SBs. The pack has 4 SBs. Not 13.

Yeah the pack did better than the 9ers, cowboys and steelers despite the fact that the pack played ONE playoff game. Obviously it's easy to win an old championship if theirs 16 teams. One championship game. That's not a playoff system old man. That's a bowl game. You literally just described a college system. I'm sorry if I offended your college system.

Oh the old championships are suddenly harder than SBs. I guess the pack only has 9 championships.

Tell me the browns and lions are better than the steelers, cowboys, and 9ers. I dare you.

I bet you'll tell me Otto graham could beat Joe Montanna.

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 10:36 PM
Wow, SZJ, what a thorough reply.
You said much more completely than I would have, but my answer was essentially the same.
I have to smile when youn g people think the world started when they were born, and history startes there. I remember well in the 50's and 60's, when I first started watching football, that the Steelers were the ultimate cellar dwellars, which made it all the more difficult to take when they absolutely killed YA Tittle in thet '63 (?) game. The classic one where you see him on his knees, his helmet off and blood coming down his face. That was about the worst beating I've ever seen a QB take in my life. You know who was cellar dwellers in the 80s and 70s? The pack. I never said that the players, coaches, and events have no merit. Hell the championships have some merit. But full blown SBs? No.

zimonami
04-17-2013, 10:46 PM
You know who was cellar dwellers in the 80s and 70s. The pack. I never said that the players, coaches, and events have no merit. Hell the championships have some merit. But full blown SBs? No.
Here's the most essential fact... before there were SB's the teams in the NFL represented the very best players in the country. Regardless if there was only one championship game doesn't matter. The NFL champion was the very best in football, and just because they weren't in the Superbowl era with 32 teams and the best 8 or 10 making the playoffs, only the 2 best played for the championship and those championships were just as relevent to the times as they are now.
The AFL represented inferior quality and depth for many years... when the SB started they were finallt deserving, evn if they lost the first 2.. But by '67, with 6 years under their belt, Professional football saw a more even distribution of talent than in their early years. BUT, you must remember that now the depth on teams wasn't nearly as good as in the earlier years when there were fewer teams.

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 10:49 PM
Here's the most essential fact... before there were SB's the teams in the NFL represented the very best players in the country. Regardless if there was only one championship game doesn't matter. The NFL champion was the very best in football, and just because they weren't in the Superbowl era with 32 teams and the best 8 or 10 making the playoffs, only the 2 best played for the championship and those championships were just as relevent to the times as they are now.
The AFL represented inferior quality and depth for many years... when the SB started they were finallt deserving, evn if they lost the first 2.. But by '67, with 6 years under their belt, Professional football saw a more even distribution of talent than in their early years. BUT, you must remember that now the depth on teams wasn't nearly as good as in the earlier years when there were fewer teams. That's arguable. That's like how the jets(AFL) beat the colts. The colts(NFL) were supposedly the best team in the world too. Not to mention most teams back then don't even exist anymore. How far can we go back? Teams that don't exist anymore won rings. Why do they count but the pack does? Hell for the lot of the time, teams weren't actually playing football. It's was rugby with pads. Passing was considered a trick play.

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 10:56 PM
Oh, so you're one of "those." The NFL has been around since 1920. The 8 team AFL merged with it in 1970. The first AFL-NFL Championship (Super Bowl) was in 1966.

Where were the Steelers in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s? Certainly not in the playoffs. But guess what, they were in the league and they were playing. The Steelers were one of the league's worst franchises for their first 40 years.

Since the ABA merged with the NBA, please tell me which NBA titles no longer count. I guess all those Celtics championships get thrown out by your logic.

As for the Bears -- playoff appearences in 60s/70s/90s: 1963, 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1977-78),197 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1979-80)9, 1990,1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1991-92), 1994
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_playoffs,_1994-95)As for the Packers -- playoff appearences in 70s/80s: 1972, 1982
As for the Giants -- playoff appearences in 60/s/70s/90s: Three straight championship games (1961, 1962, 1963), 1990 (Super Bowl win), 1993, 1997 (and Super Bowl loss in 2000)

The Pack does have 13 championships even if you stomp your feet and deny it.
http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/history/champions_top_2011.jpg

Even the NFL itself acknowledges it on its site -- I'll dig up a link.



I'll just leave it by saying you are ignorant, as in the dictionary definition, meaning uneducated. Did you ever stop to think why the trophy is named after Vince Lombardi? His Packers won 5 championships in 7 seasons, including the first two Super Bowls. 61-62-65-66-67. That's the very definition of a dynasty, and no other since has reached those heights. Not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the 49ers, not the Patriots. They're also the only team to 3-peat as champions, and they've done it twice. 29-30-31 and 65-66-67.



More ignorance. From 1920-1932 the team with the best standing won the championship. The Giants won in 1927 this way. From 1933-1965 there were two divisions and the two teams that won the divisions played in the championship game, which is a playoff system. No ambiguity, no CFB ranking system.

Further, there was no AFL until 1960. So how is the NFL supposed to compete with a league that doesn't exist? How can the Giants' 1956 Championship be discounted as an "NFC Championship" when the other league wouldn't even exist for 4 more years? And in fact, the other league would be created because of the 1958 Championship between the Giants and Colts. Do you need a history lesson on that too? (Crib notes version: That game put pro football on the map and people wanted new NFL teams to spread across the country. When the NFL said "no", they started their own league -- the AFL).

By the way, baseball operated the same way until 1969 -- the team with the best standing of each league played the other league's champion in the World Series. So do those old World Series no longer count either?



Several reasons. The AFL merged into the NFL. The AFL only awarded 6 stand-alone AFL championship titles (1960-1965). The NFL had awarded 46 (1920-1965).



I disagree. The teams played. They tried to make the postseason and win championships. If the team won a championship in its system of the day, how can it be invalid? I'm not for erasing/ignoring 45 years of NFL history. We don't do that in any other sport.



The Giants don't agree with you.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3306/img3779cropped.jpg



More ignorance... The AL and NL were two rival leagues operating under the MLB umbrella, but until very recently they kept their business operations quite separate (including league offices and umpiring crews).



Really? Because the exact opposite could be argued. Up until 1965 the two best teams played in the championship game. In 1965, that meant a 2-in-14 chance of making the playoffs (14%). Today it's a 12-in-32 chance (38%). How does having 1/3 of the league making the playoffs, and having a 3x greater chance of making the playoffs, ensure that the two teams left are actually the best?Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

ny giants
chicago bears
brooklyn dodgers
providence steam roller
staten island stapeltons
chicago cardinals
portsmith spartans
frankford yellow jackets
minneapolis red jackets
newark tornados!

yup, lets tout that accomplishment!!!

bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

its nice to have the history, but come on...

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 10:57 PM
Here's the most essential fact... before there were SB's the teams in the NFL represented the very best players in the country. Regardless if there was only one championship game doesn't matter. The NFL champion was the very best in football, and just because they weren't in the Superbowl era with 32 teams and the best 8 or 10 making the playoffs, only the 2 best played for the championship and those championships were just as relevent to the times as they are now.
The AFL represented inferior quality and depth for many years... when the SB started they were finallt deserving, evn if they lost the first 2.. But by '67, with 6 years under their belt, Professional football saw a more even distribution of talent than in their early years. BUT, you must remember that now the depth on teams wasn't nearly as good as in the earlier years when there were fewer teams.Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

ny giants
chicago bears
brooklyn dodgers
providence steam roller
staten island stapeltons
chicago cardinals
portsmith spartans
frankford yellow jackets
minneapolis red jackets
newark tornados!

yup, lets tout that accomplishment!!!

bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

its nice to have the history, but come on...

zimonami
04-17-2013, 11:03 PM
Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

ny giants
chicago bears
brooklyn dodgers
providence steam roller
staten island stapeltons
chicago cardinals
portsmith spartans
frankford yellow jackets
minneapolis red jackets
newark tornados!

yup, lets tout that accomplishment!!!

bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

its nice to have the history, but come on...
You just don't get it. The old players and teams were the very best football players in the game at that time, and they won a championship. How does that lose significance just because it is 60 or 70 years later? They weren't as good as today's athlete, but it doesn't matter... they were the best and their championships have relevance... just like our SB 42 and 46 are relevent today... do they lose their relevence 50 years from now because the athletes will be much better then than they are now?
The Mara's, owners of the Giants, are just as proud of out early NFL championships, and so am I. If your grandfather is a football fan, ask him if he remembers the NFL champion of 1956, and if they were any less relebent than today's Giants.

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 11:11 PM
You just don't get it. The old players and teams were the very best football players in the game at that time, and they won a championship. How does that lose significance just because it is 60 or 70 years later? They weren't as good as today's athlete, but it doesn't matter... they were the best and their championships have relevance... just like our SB 42 and 46 are relevent today... do they lose their relevence 50 years from now because the athletes will be much better then than they are now?The Mara's, owners of the Giants, are just as proud of out early NFL championships, and so am I. If your grandfather is a football fan, ask him if he remembers the NFL champion of 1956, and if they were any less relebent than today's Giants.No You just don't get it. I don't care how proud or rah-rah anyone is. How cool a game or player was is totally irrelevant. The NFL obviously weren't the best players cause there was a whole nother conference going on that would eventually beat them in SB 3. I never said that anything an individual player or coach did didn't matter. We're comparing pre championships to SBs. Not pre SB players to post ones.

Lombardi is the greatest coach ever. We're not talking about that. Stop acting like we are.

zimonami
04-17-2013, 11:20 PM
No You just don't get it. I don't care how proud or rah-rah anyone is. How cool a game or player was is totally irrelevant. The NFL obviously weren't the best players cause there was a whole nother conference going on that would eventually beat them in SB 3. I never said that anything an individual player or coach did didn't matter. We're comparing pre championships to SBs. Not pre SB players to post ones.

Lombardi is the greatest coach ever. We're not talking about that. Stop acting like we are.
I still don't understand your point. The AFL didn't even exist until 1961. It took them 6 years of growth before the NFL merged with them. So, SB's start in '67.
So, are the NFL championships that the Giants won before the SB era not relevent? Only starting with our 1986 SB XXI win means anything?
They were the very best team in Professional Football in those years. How does that not matter?

GentleGiant
04-17-2013, 11:24 PM
I still don't understand your point. The AFL didn't even exist until 1961. It took them 6 years of growth before the NFL merged with them. So, SB's start in '67. So, are the NFL championships that the Giants won before the SB era not relevent? Only starting with our 1986 SB XXI win means anything?They were the very best team in Professional Football in those years. How does that not matter? Of course they're relevant but in their own way. The NFL isn't like the MLB and NBA. You can't just say you have 13 championships. You say you have 9 old championships and 4 SBs. I tell people that the giants have 4 old championships and 4 SBs and I let the interpret that as they might. Not 8 championships because its arguable that 1 old championship stand on its feet as much as 1 SB just due to how much changed in the game itself when SBs came out.

Also it doesn't matter how long the AFL existed, the jets still beat the colts. You can put them on a banner and they would be a credible reason for why your franchise is great. But don't tell me the pack has 13 SBs.

They are all championships but different types. The pack shouldn't be able to combine the old with new just to hide the fact that they only have 4 SBs to the steelers 6. That doesn't make them a better franchise. In the here and now, the pack should put the pre SBs in the back of theirheads. They're still there of course but here and now is SBs.

zimonami
04-17-2013, 11:58 PM
Of course they're relevant but in their own way. The NFL isn't like the MLB and NBA. You can't just say you have 13 championships. You say you have 9 old championships and 4 SBs. I tell people that the giants have 4 old championships and 4 SBs and I let the interpret that as they might. Not 8 championships because its arguable that 1 old championship stand on its feet as much as 1 SB just due to how much changed in the game itself when SBs came out.

Also it doesn't matter how long the AFL existed, the jets still beat the colts. You can put them on a banner and they would be a credible reason for why your franchise is great. But don't tell me the pack has 13 SBs.

They are all championships but different types. The pack shouldn't be able to combine the old with new just to hide the fact that they only have 4 SBs to the steelers 6. That doesn't make them a better franchise. In the here and now, the pack should put the pre SBs in the back of their heads. They're still there of course but here and now is SBs.
OK... I'm not here to argue.
When you are 65 and your grandson tells you that the 4 SB's that the Steelers won in he 70's, over 75 years ago, are not as relevent as the Mega Superbowl victory in 2053 when there are 48 teams and the top 16 reach the playoffs. Of course, everyone knows Mean Joe Green and Bradshaw and Swan and Franco were better than Otto Graham and the All Stars of the 40's and 50's... but, of course, those old steeler players are nothing compared to our athletes of 2053, so that makes it all the more important than back then

GentleGiant
04-18-2013, 12:05 AM
OK... I'm not here to argue.When you are 65 and your grandson tells you that the 4 SB's that the Steelers won in he 70's, over 75 years ago, are not as relevent as the Mega Superbowl victory in 2053 when there are 48 teams and the top 16 reach the playoffs. Of course, everyone knows Mean Joe Green and Bradshaw and Swan and Franco were better than Otto Graham and the All Stars of the 40's and 50's... but, of course, those old steeler players are nothing compared to our athletes of 2053, so that makes it all the more important than back then There you go again, talking about the players. Your basing this on the idea that things will actually change. The SB is football. The old championships were signs of what was to come. Is a sketch of a rocket ship an actual rocket ship?

zimonami
04-18-2013, 12:35 AM
There you go again, talking about the players. Your basing this on the idea that things will actually change. The SB is football. The old championships were signs of what was to come. Is a sketch of a rocket ship an actual rocket ship?
A sketch isn't real... The players of pre Superbowl days were real. The league was real and the Champion was revered in its time.
You make less sense every time you post. I still don't get your point. The thread is about the worst fan base in the NFL, which certainly depends upon the history of a team's fan behavior over decades... and, you found a way to break the NFL into 2 era's... pre SB, and post SB. That is fine... most people see it that way. I do, too. But, no one but you thinks "pre-SB, ergo not releevent... and post SB, which is way more relevent". I wonder why those delusional fools even bothered to have a league back then, and foolishly called their ultimate victor a mere Champion, as opposed to today's Superbowl Champion.

GentleGiant
04-18-2013, 08:00 AM
A sketch isn't real... The players of pre Superbowl days were real. The league was real and the Champion was revered in its time. You make less sense every time you post. I still don't get your point. The thread is about the worst fan base in the NFL, which certainly depends upon the history of a team's fan behavior over decades... and, you found a way to break the NFL into 2 era's... pre SB, and post SB. That is fine... most people see it that way. I do, too. But, no one but you thinks "pre-SB, ergo not releevent... and post SB, which is way more relevent". I wonder why those delusional fools even bothered to have a league back then, and foolishly called their ultimate victor a mere Champion, as opposed to today's Superbowl Champion.HELLO ANYBODY IN THERE! Good lord have the old gone blind. I literally just said that the old championships are relevant as do the SB. The old ones just aren't SBs. How pathetic that you actually think the only thing that changed with the merger was the games name, I really pity you. And I literally just said that everything a player or coach does matter. We're not comparing. We're comparing the championships themselves. It was a whole different era and they should be organized as such. You don't think I know that's what the thread was? I made the damn thread. It's not my fault SweetZombieJesus decided to troll and change the subject. Your probably not gonna read this cause based off all your last posts you haven't been reading them. Fne how bout this. The old championships have as much merit as SBs. There's just not the same as SBs. The Bills have won AFL championships. But of course you don't count those cause you still like to think that the Jets beating the colts never happened.

SweetZombieJesus
04-18-2013, 08:10 AM
Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Who compared music and football? Would you share what you're smoking?


Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

I don't care about the Colts, and they only came along in the 1950s anyway.


So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

The Yankees always brag about having 27 World Championships. The first one came in 1923. Their first dynasty came in the 1920s with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. So I guess that shouldn't be part of their history anymore, since it was so long ago and the team with the best standing won the pennant.

Attention Yankee fans: GentleGiant thinks those old World Series shouldn't count. The Yankees now have 7 world championships (the ones from the institution of a playoff system in 1969 onward) -- 77, 78, 96, 98, 99, 2000, 09. Not 27. Those old ones and all that history and legacy are now erased. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Bera, Mickey Mantle, just forget they existed because GentleGiant said so.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7865/yankeechampions26.jpg


are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

Already answered. The AFL only existed starting in 1960. They merged into the NFL. They only awarded 6 stand-alone championships, not 46 like the NFL.


so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

ny giants
chicago bears
brooklyn dodgers
providence steam roller
staten island stapeltons
chicago cardinals
portsmith spartans
frankford yellow jackets
minneapolis red jackets
newark tornados!

yup, lets tout that accomplishment!!!

And your vaunted Steelers came around in 1933, as did the Eagles, and quite a few of the other teams that are still around today.

And in 1923, the American League included the Washington Senators, St. Louis Browns, and Philadelphia Athletics. Are championships subject to being voided because the league looked different?

The same thing happened in the early NBA and NHL. Tell me which of those championships don't count.


bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

I feel pretty far removed from 1974 and 1975. Whoops, the Steelers just lost two championships! I can't relate to 1971, sorry Tom Landry, you just lost one tool. 1968, come on man, man hadn't even walked on the moon, I can't relate to it. The Jets no longer beat the Colts and their championship doesn't count. Wheee! Come to think of it, we no longer walked on the moon because I can't relate to 1969. This is fun.

We don't do it in any other sport. Why football?

Or, please tell me where this mysterious line is that championships count or don't count. As a Yankee fan I'd like to know how many of the 27 championships starting in 1923 count, according to you.

Might as well tell us for Hockey and Basketball too. I'd like to know this magic line where things count and where they don't.

In fact in the 1970s there was only a 14 game season and no wildcard round in the playoffs. The Seahawks, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Panthers, Texans, and New Browns didn't exist. The Ravens were still the Old Browns, the Cardinals were in St. Louis, the Colts were still in Baltimore, the Titans were still the Houston Oilers... I so can't relate to that! So I say let's eliminate all those championships too. The Steelers now have 2, not 6. The Cowboys now have 3, not 5. The Dolphins now have 0 and they are no longer the only perfect team. Somebody let Don Shula know, poor guy.


its nice to have the history, but come on...

Then where do you draw the line? Wherever you feel like it? History counts, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't count, then it's arbitrary. A 20 year old kid today never saw Phil Simms, Lawrence Taylor, or Bill Parcells. To him, they are ancient history. Does that mean Super Bowls XXI and XXV don't count? Most people would tell you to shove it. Is there an expiration date on a championship? History is not relative, it is fact.

SweetZombieJesus
04-18-2013, 08:15 AM
No You just don't get it. I don't care how proud or rah-rah anyone is. How cool a game or player was is totally irrelevant. The NFL obviously weren't the best players cause there was a whole nother conference going on that would eventually beat them in SB 3.

Just knock it off, and get this through your head -- the AFL wasn't even started until 1960. So what does your twisted logic have to do with championships won in 1959 and earlier?

If there is even any room for your argument, it would be for the years when both leagues operated and didn't play each other -- which is an extremely small window, 1960-1965.


Lombardi is the greatest coach ever. We're not talking about that. Stop acting like we are.

You scoffed at the idea of a Packers Dynasty, when Lombardi's 5-in-7-years is the definition of one.

SweetZombieJesus
04-18-2013, 08:41 AM
There you go again, talking about the players. Your basing this on the idea that things will actually change. The SB is football. The old championships were signs of what was to come. Is a sketch of a rocket ship an actual rocket ship?

I say the early SBs won in a 14-game season and fewer rounds of playoffs shouldn't count. Championships that were won before there were 32 teams shouldn't count. Championships won before free agency shouldn't count. This is fun just making up arbitrary rules! New rule, championships only last 10 years and then they expire! Ooh oooh, wait, they have a radioactive halflife, a rate of decay. The only one that counts is the most recent, and then they start decaying to a fractional value until they disappear completely in 10 years.

Before 1960, the NFL Championship was football. The AFL DID. NOT. EXIST.


It's not my fault SweetZombieJesus decided to troll and change the subject.

Sorry, you trolled and changed the subject.


They're (Pittsburgh) the most consistently successful franchise in NFL history.

GentleGiant
04-18-2013, 03:47 PM
I say the early SBs won in a 14-game season and fewer rounds of playoffs shouldn't count. Championships that were won before there were 32 teams shouldn't count. Championships won before free agency shouldn't count. This is fun just making up arbitrary rules! New rule, championships only last 10 years and then they expire! Ooh oooh, wait, they have a radioactive halflife, a rate of decay. The only one that counts is the most recent, and then they start decaying to a fractional value until they disappear completely in 10 years. Before 1960, the NFL Championship was football. The AFL DID. NOT. EXIST.Sorry, you trolled and changed the subject. It's fun watching some idiot write a novel in response to one sentence that was totally taken out of context. I was talking about the fans. You turned it into a fight over championships. You could have ignored it and actually read what I was talking about. But like the obsessive compulsive fool you are, you whine like I insulted your momma.

Your nitpicking. Doesn't matter if there was no wildcard. 14 games. Still has a playoff system so your argument is invalid. It was still a playoff system. The limit is SB 1. That's pretty obvious. Doesn't matter if there was less teams than now. It was still way more than the old league. There you go again, leaving out the AFL. I know it started in 1960. So? The SBs began in 1966 not 1960 genius. Lol. You don't care about the colts? I guess we leave out their championships. It's different from baseball you brat. Baseballs change was nothing to footballs. Same with basketball.
Baseball and Basketball were always the same sport. Football back then was rugby with pads. Very different with football in SB 1. Passing was considered a trick play for most of it.

Take off the cheesehead kid. You can't call 9 championships SBs just cause your a packer fan who wants to hide the fact that you were irrelevant for 30 yr.

Hey football fans! Sweet zombie jesus thinks the browns and lions are better franchises than the niners, cowboys, and steelers. Forget the 0-16 season. All that matters is old championships.

By the way, the only thing the NFL of then and now have in common is the name. They can change the name to AFL if they want cause its not the same.

It's funny how you don't count the AFL or AAFC championships when it began. I guess we take out the first NFL championships by your logic. The AFL existed. Whether it hurts your argument or not.


One game kid. A bowl game system. Completely different championship. The MLB was still the MLB. The NFL was very different.

An NFL championship is a totally different NFL. The NFL of then is now known as the NFC. That's why it's called a merge.

Hell. The NFL then were just champions. The SB is world champions cause all pro leagues are now combined. The NFL then was just another league.


No deflection. Baseball shouldn't be the standard for football to follow. Not to mention that I just said that what players and coaches did is still relevant so the babe Ruth talk is BS.Were not comparing that for the 100th time. Baseball is not football in case you didn't realize.

Not all World Series are the same as the eras have changed, but the Yankees have dominated either way so when used to compare the greatest teams it's going to be the same conclusion.

It's different in the NFL because you have teams like the Packers, Bears and Browns from one era and then the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Patriots from another era.

You can call them all NFL Championships but is that what you're using to compare the best teams from one era to the best of another? How many playoff appearances and conference championship games and Super Bowl losses equal an old NFL Championship? It's really tough to determine. I personally think it's tougher to take the field and play more games. Regardless of whether or not less teams means more quality teams or not, each game requires a certain level of preparation and execution and luck to get through. A team you beat in the regular season but then must face again in the playoffs has that revenge factor.

You're right, not all Super Bowls are equal. That's obvious with the addition of playoff rounds and the free agency era. I think it's become increasingly more difficult. As I stated above, particularly the media and the pressure that comes with the playoffs and Super Bowl. And going through the 16-game season, staying healthy and surviving the playoff gauntlet. And let's face it, the officials are also playing to the audience more and have a tendency to influence games. When you have to win three in a row, it's tougher for even the best team in the regular season to avoid the pitfalls.

1967
is about the best point to draw the line of distinction but it's still not the true measure because there isn't one.

As merely a title, yes they're all NFL Championships but in terms of value and comparisons, I think you have to understand the timing of them.

Notes on "championships" prior to the Super Bowl era:
The Packers' first three championships were decided by overall record after the regular season (and if you think that deserves a championship then the 2008 Patriots should also be considered a perfect team (and no one wants that)).
These championships come before people were really professional athletes, and games were played against teams like the Canton Bulldogs, Frankford Yellow Jackets, Providence Steamrollers, Oorang Indians, Dayton Triangles (need I list more? because I could). This was more on par with your company's softball team and its league, rather than real football that we know (and love) today.
Enjoy your Ed Thorp Memorial Trophies (Example here, probably crafted at Stan's Trophy Shop down the street), I'll keep my eye on the six Vince Lombardy trophies the Steelers won and the giants 4.

http://pikimal.com/nfl-franchise

This website seems fine with calling them conference championships.

They were 2 totally different eras. The pack dominated the old(pre SB) era. The steelers dominated the modern(SB) era. However we now live in the modern era so the modern era means more than the old one since we can't win more old championships. You can't combine them.

SweetZombieJesus
04-19-2013, 07:39 AM
It's fun watching some idiot write a novel in response to one sentence that was totally taken out of context.

Not as much fun as schooling someone who thinks he knows NFL history when he has absolutely no clue because he ignores half of it. Also note the irony that you wrote a novel in response ;)


Your nitpicking. Doesn't matter if there was no wildcard. 14 games. Still has a playoff system so your argument is invalid. It was still a playoff system.

As was the NFL Championship between 1933-1965.


It's different from baseball you brat. Baseballs change was nothing to footballs. Same with basketball. Baseball and Basketball were always the same sport. Football back then was rugby with pads.

Oh really? So the Dead Ball era, American League adding the Designated Hitter and MLB adding the LDS round, and then a wildcard round in the 90s, didn't change anything? The Icing Rule in Hockey didn't change anything? The 24-second shot clock in Basketball and the ABA merger didn't change anything? LOL, more ignorance from the fountain head.


Passing was considered a trick play for most of it.

You claim to be a Giant fan but it's clear you're not -- or you are just a clueless bandwagon jumper.

Look up Y.A. Tittle some time.


Take off the cheesehead kid. You can't call 9 championships SBs just cause your a packer fan who wants to hide the fact that you were irrelevant for 30 yr.

I'm a Giant fan through and through. That's why I value their first championship in 1927. That's why I know who Bennie Friedman is. That's why I know who Mel Hein is. That's why I know who Tuffy Leemans is. That's why I know what the Sneaker Game is. That's why I value all eight of the team's championships and the fact that the team has been competitive in every of its 10 decades but one, the 1970s. It's as important to me as the legends of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Joe DiMaggio are to Yankee fans.

My team has a deep, rich history. I embrace it all.

That's also why I know the GIants bookended the 90s with Super Bowl appearances (winning one and losing the other) and had 2 more playoff appearances in between. You didn't, you thought the Giants did nothing in the 90s. Busted, fake Giants fan. Get off the bandwagon.

I count all of my team's glorious history. I don't pretend it started only when they had success.

You, on the other hand, are a bandwagon jumper who doesn't even know Giants history of the 90's. And obviously deluded by the fumes of Steeler fans who don't even know their team existed before 1974.

Obviously Steeler fans want to ignore everything before 1972 -- because they were absolutely terrible. And it shows they aren't as important to NFL history as they think they are.


By the way, the only thing the NFL of then and now have in common is the name. They can change the name to AFL if they want cause its not the same.

Oh really? They kept the NFL name. They kept the NFL logo. They moved into the NFL's offices in NYC. Three NFL teams moved into the AFC to balance it out -- Colts, Browns, and your vaunted Steelers.


Enjoy your Ed Thorp Memorial Trophies (Example here, probably crafted at Stan's Trophy Shop down the street), I'll keep my eye on the six Vince Lombardy trophies the Steelers won and the giants 4.

http://pikimal.com/nfl-franchise

This website seems fine with calling them conference championships.

They were 2 totally different eras. The pack dominated the old(pre SB) era. The steelers dominated the modern(SB) era. However we now live in the modern era so the modern era means more than the old one since we can't win more old championships. You can't combine them.

I'll enjoy every championship my team won, in every era. As I do with the Yankees in baseball.

Also note the Steelers failed to sniff the Ed Thorp trophy in 40 years of trying. They were there, failing miserably, being a terrible franchise, for all those years... Missing the playoffs every single year, every season ending in futility... Being the model of a garbage franchise... All while it was supposedly easier, the Steelers couldn't even get out of bed. Then suddenly, when they get thrown in with the weak-*** AFC teams, they have success all of a sudden.

I'll also trust NFL.com more than "pikimal.com", lol, what the hell is that, is that the Stan's Trophy Shop of web sites?

Read it and weep, straight from the horse's mouth. It was last updated in 2007, so add 1 more to the Packers and Giants totals.

http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships

(http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championships)Team Records: Championships
Most Seasons League Champion








13
Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996, 2010


9
Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 1985


8
N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007, 2011









You, sir, are a fake fan who will be gone when the times get tough. Man up or get off the bandwagon.

GentleGiant
04-19-2013, 04:11 PM
Not as much fun as schooling someone who thinks he knows NFL history when he has absolutely no clue because he ignores half of it. Also note the irony that you wrote a novel in response ;) As was the NFL Championship between 1933-1965.Oh really? So the Dead Ball era, American League adding the Designated Hitter and MLB adding the LDS round, and then a wildcard round in the 90s, didn't change anything? The Icing Rule in Hockey didn't change anything? The 24-second shot clock in Basketball and the ABA merger didn't change anything? LOL, more ignorance from the fountain head.You claim to be a Giant fan but it's clear you're not -- or you are just a clueless bandwagon jumper.Look up Y.A. Tittle some time.I'm a Giant fan through and through. That's why I value their first championship in 1927. That's why I know who Bennie Friedman is. That's why I know who Mel Hein is. That's why I know who Tuffy Leemans is. That's why I know what the Sneaker Game is. That's why I value all eight of the team's championships and the fact that the team has been competitive in every of its 10 decades but one, the 1970s. It's as important to me as the legends of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and Joe DiMaggio are to Yankee fans. My team has a deep, rich history. I embrace it all.That's also why I know the GIants bookended the 90s with Super Bowl appearances (winning one and losing the other) and had 2 more playoff appearances in between. You didn't, you thought the Giants did nothing in the 90s. Busted, fake Giants fan. Get off the bandwagon.I count all of my team's glorious history. I don't pretend it started only when they had success.You, on the other hand, are a bandwagon jumper who doesn't even know Giants history of the 90's. And obviously deluded by the fumes of Steeler fans who don't even know their team existed before 1974. Obviously Steeler fans want to ignore everything before 1972 -- because they were absolutely terrible. And it shows they aren't as important to NFL history as they think they are.Oh really? They kept the NFL name. They kept the NFL logo. They moved into the NFL's offices in NYC. Three NFL teams moved into the AFC to balance it out -- Colts, Browns, and your vaunted Steelers.I'll enjoy every championship my team won, in every era. As I do with the Yankees in baseball. Also note the Steelers failed to sniff the Ed Thorp trophy in 40 years of trying. They were there, failing miserably, being a terrible franchise, for all those years... Missing the playoffs every single year, every season ending in futility... Being the model of a garbage franchise... All while it was supposedly easier, the Steelers couldn't even get out of bed. Then suddenly, when they get thrown in with the weak-*** AFC teams, they have success all of a sudden.I'll also trust NFL.com more than "pikimal.com", lol, what the hell is that, is that the Stan's Trophy Shop of web sites? Read it and weep, straight from the horse's mouth. It was last updated in 2007, so add 1 more to the Packers and Giants totals.http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/championshipsTeam Records: ChampionshipsMost Seasons League Champion13Green Bay, 1929-1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996, 20109Chi. Bears, 1921, 1932-33, 1940-41, 1943, 1946, 1963, 19858N.Y. Giants, 1927, 1934, 1938, 1956, 1986, 1990, 2007, 2011You, sir, are a fake fan who will be gone when the times get tough. Man up or get off the bandwagon. Ah yes. I am a bandwagon fan cause I route for a team that went 9-7 last year. The World Series was invented in 1903. But it was not the first championship. But of course you don't count that cause it hurts your precious Yankees. AFL had bad teams? Is that why the chiefs and jets beat the colts and Vikings?

I'm glad to see how much of an idiot you made yourself look by saying that the 72 dolphins were somehow a bad team. Of how you think I'm only talking about the steelers. The niners and cowboys were there too and guess what dumbass? They were in the NFL. Not AFL. Obviously I wrote a novel in response to your 10 novels so there's no irony. Ah NFL.com. The same group that said **** Butkus was a better tackler than LT. It's hilarious how you seem to think that a few playoff appearances means that the giants ruled the 90s. They had 1 SB in 1990 and they did it with a 80s team. It's also hilarious how you somehow think that adding an extra round or new rules is somehow the equivalent of changing the entire landscape of a league and a sport. As if saying what the steelers did in pre merger means anything. You know who else was good then? The browns.But of course you don't count AAFC and AFL cause you know it kills your point. You just want to keep being a giants homer. Oh the old championships count but only the old ones that benefit your team? Give me the 40 years the steelers were bad and Ill give you the the 40 years the pack was bad. Like the 50s, 70s, 80s, and almost all the 90s before Favre got there near the end. Or the giants in the 60s 70s and 90s.

I am a giants fan. But I'm not blinded by blue shades like you. Like how you seem to support a league that for half it's time didn't even allow blacks.


In 1960 the eagles won the NFL championship. In 1960 the oilers won the AFL championship. There was no way of knowing who the real champion was until they would eventually the NFC and AFC face each in this little thing called the Super Bowl. There was no real champion in pro football cause the NFL was just another league with the AFL and AAFC. The only "proof" you have is because you like the giants.


You say the AFL and AAFC were bad teams? By your logic Paul Brown was a bad coach and Otto Graham was a bad player( Of course your probably not old enough to know those guys based off your attitude). not great players.Interestly enough how you think that SB makes it easier despite the fact that the bears and browns(who dominated their pre merger leagues) suddenly are meh in the SB era. Otto Graham has 3 NFL championships, AAFC championships and 0 SBs. Not 8 full blown championships. Of course you don't count the AAFC cause your a crybaby homer. You think a championship is one cause its called a championship( NFC championship ring a bell)? You only care about the NFL cause the giants are in it. If you were a browns you'd say the opposite. Of course neither the AFL, NFL, and AAFC counts on the same merit as SBs cause none of the old championships was universal. Even sports illustrated recognizes them all as just sub championships. That's why the merge happened. To make a universal championship game and not just one of many. They competed with each other over popularity. Look it up. You only think the NFL counts cause of the giants.



It's hilarious how you think the 1933 to 1965 seasons were playoffs. One game is a playoff?You literally said this yourself a few posts ago that they played one game(championship). Way to contradict yourself dumbass. They had divisions and the winner of each division went straight to the championship. The division winner was found out in the regular season. Nothing between championship and regular season. Once again you have described a CFB bowl system and not an actual playoff system.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1965+nfl+season&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#itp=open0

Try to find a non championship playoff game in this link. It doesn't matter if the NFL didn't change the logos. Who cares? So the NFL has the prettier building?The merger still happened whether your blue shaded head wanted it to or not. The old championships were sub championships( NFL, AFL, AAFC)There was never a real full blown champion until the merge. You can even be look it up. It's says " the NFL is equally divided between the NFL(NFC) and the AFL(AFC). That's what a merge is kid.
Seeing as their are HOFers on the pre merger steelers team, I don't really care.

Also nice sig. Even though you contradict yourself with all the trophies being Vince Lombardi ones.


Grow up kid.

SweetZombieJesus
04-20-2013, 08:12 AM
Ah yes. I am a bandwagon fan cause I route for a team that went 9-7 last year.

Hmm, were you on the bandwagon before or after they won the Super Bowl in 2011? Sounds like after. Your profile says you are a "Saints/Giants fan" in Steeler country -- which says you jump on any bandwagon that comes along and had to ditch the Steelers when they lost to the Packers in 2010. No wonder you get so upset about the Packers. Hey, shouldn't you be on the Ravens board right about now?


The World Series was invented in 1903. But it was not the first championship. But of course you don't count that cause it hurts your precious Yankees.

Since the Yankees didn't even exist until 1903 (when they were founded as the Highlanders) I fail to see how it's relevant. It neither helps nor harms them.


It's hilarious how you seem to think that a few playoff appearances means that the giants ruled the 90s. They had 1 SB in 1990 and they did it with a 80s team.

Proof (again) you're no Giants fan. Nobody ever said they ruled, you said they did nothing. 4 playoff appearances, 2 of them Super Bowls, is hardly doing nothing. Any Giants fan knows the 90s were up and down.


I am a giants fan. But I'm not blinded by blue shades like you. Like how you seem to support a league that for half it's time didn't even allow blacks.

If you're looking for some racism boogie man, you picked the wrong sport. Look up Jim Thorpe some time. Fact is there were minority players from the beginning, and they were banned in the 30s because of George Preston Marshall.

You're a "Giants fan" who doesn't even know the team's history from the 90s, let alone all the team's history from its founding in 1925. Go back to the Saints and Steelers, bandwagon jumper.


In 1960 the eagles won the NFL championship. In 1960 the oilers won the AFL championship. There was no way of knowing who the real champion was until they would eventually the NFC and AFC face each in this little thing called the Super Bowl. There was no real champion in pro football cause the NFL was just another league with the AFL and AAFC. The only "proof" you have is because you like the giants.

(a) what does that have to do with pre-1960?
(b) your logic is ******ed because right now the UFL (United Football League) is playing, the AFL (Arena Football League) is playing, etc. So the Super Bowl Champion is not really the champion of pro football. I guess we have no way of knowing who the real champion is because the NFL is just another league with the AFL and UFL.


You say the AFL and AAFC were bad teams? By your logic Paul Brown was a bad coach and Otto Graham was a bad player( Of course your probably not old enough to know those guys based off your attitude). not great players.Interestly enough how you think that SB makes it easier despite the fact that the bears and browns(who dominated their pre merger leagues) suddenly are meh in the SB era. Otto Graham has 3 NFL championships, AAFC championships and 0 SBs. Not 8 full blown championships. Of course you don't count the AAFC cause your a crybaby homer.

The AAFC was fine but it was a small league that died. Only two teams came over from it, the Browns and 49ers. The NFL Championships the Browns won testify to their dominance at the time.


You only care about the NFL cause the giants are in it.

and because it's the league they all play in today.


It's hilarious how you think the 1933 to 1965 seasons were playoffs. One game is a playoff?

Do you need the definition of a playoff? Sounds like you do.
It was the same system in baseball until 1969.
You, on the other hand, thought it was magically awarded like the BCS. Ooops, busted.

Fact is, the division title was won by standing. As it is today. There is no magic. Best record wins. No wonky formula like the BCS.

It was the same way in baseball until 1969. The team with the best record won the pennant, and that team from each league played in the World Series.


You literally said this yourself a few posts ago that they played one game(championship). Way to contradict yourself dumbass. They had divisions and the winner of each division went straight to the championship. The division winner was found out in the regular season. Nothing between championship and regular season. Once again you have described a CFB bowl system and not an actual playoff system.

Playing for the title is a playoff. Being awarded a title is a CFB/BCS system. You just said it yourself. Kindly ask the voices in your head to coordinate with each other.


You can even be look it up. It's says " the NFL is equally divided between the NFL(NFC) and the AFL(AFC). That's what a merge is kid.


So is that why three NFL teams moved to the AFC to balance it out?


Also nice sig. Even though you contradict yourself with all the trophies being Vince Lombardi ones.

The Thorp Trophy doesn't apply to the 1927 championship, and the trophy was passed around from team to team each year like the Stanley Cup is. There is a reproduction of it in the Hall of Fame in Canton if you want to see it. But teams didn't stack multiple Thorp Trophies in a trophy case because it was one single trophy.

Go back to the Saints/Steelers/whoever won last bandwagon, kid.

GentleGiant
04-20-2013, 01:05 PM
Hmm, were you on the bandwagon before or after they won the Super Bowl in 2011? Sounds like after. Your profile says you are a "Saints/Giants fan" in Steeler country -- which says you jump on any bandwagon that comes along and had to ditch the Steelers when they lost to the Packers in 2010. No wonder you get so upset about the Packers. Hey, shouldn't you be on the Ravens board right about now? Since the Yankees didn't even exist until 1903 (when they were founded as the Highlanders) I fail to see how it's relevant. It neither helps nor harms them.Proof (again) you're no Giants fan. Nobody ever said they ruled, you said they did nothing. 4 playoff appearances, 2 of them Super Bowls, is hardly doing nothing. Any Giants fan knows the 90s were up and down.If you're looking for some racism boogie man, you picked the wrong sport. Look up Jim Thorpe some time. Fact is there were minority players from the beginning, and they were banned in the 30s because of George Preston Marshall.You're a "Giants fan" who doesn't even know the team's history from the 90s, let alone all the team's history from its founding in 1925. Go back to the Saints and Steelers, bandwagon jumper.(a) what does that have to do with pre-1960?(b) your logic is ******ed because right now the UFL (United Football League) is playing, the AFL (Arena Football League) is playing, etc. So the Super Bowl Champion is not really the champion of pro football. I guess we have no way of knowing who the real champion is because the NFL is just another league with the AFL and UFL. The AAFC was fine but it was a small league that died. Only two teams came over from it, the Browns and 49ers. The NFL Championships the Browns won testify to their dominance at the time. and because it's the league they all play in today.Do you need the definition of a playoff? Sounds like you do.It was the same system in baseball until 1969.You, on the other hand, thought it was magically awarded like the BCS. Ooops, busted.Fact is, the division title was won by standing. As it is today. There is no magic. Best record wins. No wonky formula like the BCS.It was the same way in baseball until 1969. The team with the best record won the pennant, and that team from each league played in the World Series.Playing for the title is a playoff. Being awarded a title is a CFB/BCS system. You just said it yourself. Kindly ask the voices in your head to coordinate with each other.So is that why three NFL teams moved to the AFC to balance it out?The Thorp Trophy doesn't apply to the 1927 championship, and the trophy was passed around from team to team each year like the Stanley Cup is. There is a reproduction of it in the Hall of Fame in Canton if you want to see it. But teams didn't stack multiple Thorp Trophies in a trophy case because it was one single trophy.Go back to the Saints/Steelers/whoever won last bandwagon, kid.

'Sigh'

More of the same. Do you get out at all? I can just imagine some guy on the web to do a pic of a bunch of crossed out Yankee signs just to make a point( an irrelevant point by the way).
If the NFL was so big the niners and browns (AAFC teams) wouldn't have moved there. The ABA doesn't count. Why should the sub championships count? The steelers were bad their first decade cause they were new, just like every new team( including GB).Then they 1 bad decade then they actually got good in the 60s years, so this talk about them being bottom feeders for 40 yr is BS. More like
25 which is less than the packers bad years. The NFL recognizes the AFL championships along with NFL championships so obviously the league realizes they're sub championships. The browns even have banners to the AAFC.

Knows his argument has fallen apart. Reduces to insults. Nice job responding to my paragraphs with 2 sentence answer. Really shows that you can't even read. Go home packers fan. Your drunk. You still seem to think that the AAFC being small somehow means something. It doesn't. It was still a league. If there wasnt a merge it wouldn't mean anything but there was. So what if the AFL needed 3 teams? How about all the expansion team the NFL eventually Got? The entire NFC south is expansion teams. There's like 2 expansion teams in the AFC today. They even in 1960 actually added other games for 2nd and 3rd place teams. Ring a bell? It's a bowl game system. The teams not the best would play in lesser games. They even called them " playoff bowls" look it up. It's a CFB system. No playoff game between regular season and championship. No playoff. Having the best doesn't mean your the best team. That's why playoffs exist. They had the merger cause they knew something was wrong with the old system.

The only reason the steelers struggled in the old days was they went through constant overhauls, from going from the steagles to card Pitts so the reason that they struggled was entirely out of their control. Every NFl team including GB and NYG that would have overhauls like that would struggle.

In 1967 the packers faced the cowboys in the NFL championships. They went on to SB 1. See?

NFL championship equals NFC championship. Look it up. NFL championship equals sub championship. THAT'S a playoff system.

Actually you did say that the giants were big in the 90s. Now youve resorted to lying to get your way. Who the hell was talking about the Thorp trophy? Who cares?One game dumbass. Quit sugar coating it. The division title was made in the regular season. The fact that you can't come up with a game actually being played that was a non championship playoff game is proof of your ignorance.The orioles won rings before 1903. I'm sure they think those count.But No only the rings that benefit the Yankees. Typical. Good job completely showing that your too ignorant to talk to and just isn't worth it.Yeah I'm looking for racism and trying to be offensive. Coming from the troll named " Sweet Zombie Jesus".

Yeah sure kid call me a bandwagon fan cause I respect the saints. A team that won the SB after Katrina. Yeah there's nothing special about that.Unlike you who thinks the giants are the only team in the world. Pathetic. Your not even worth it. You still think Im a steeler fan despite bringing up the browns, niners, and cowboys.You heard from zombie jesus hear. He thinks arena league is the same sport. Forget the smaller field and zero respect for defense. I guess we should merge with the soccer leagues too since to most foreigners it's called "football".Rugby too. That logic only applies in the event of us actually merging with the arena leagues( which is impossible cause its not even the same sport). The NFL today compared to arena league is much bigger than what the NFL was to the AFL and AAFC. Not to mention the AAFC, AFL, and NFL actually played the same sport with the same field unlike the arena league and UFL. Also the Arena league aren't actually "competing" with the NFL like the AFL did.

Why do you think it was only 3 teams? So realizing the reality that giants pre SBs wins were sub championships doesn't make me a giants fan? If you were a brown you'd be telling me to take the opposite. Sports illustrated recognizes them as sub championship. I don't see why you can't. Who cares what Canton says. Strahan isn't in the HOF and Sapp is. I don't recall the old championships having lombardis as the trophy?

Would you shut up kid. Everything you've said was about how you FEEL, how you think, how you hope whereas I'm showing cold hard facts. Your giants homerism is disrespectful to every single NFL team except the pack, bears, and giants. If the giants won in the AFL you would be saying the opposite and you know it. Nobody cares how you feel about the AFL because every idiot knows that if the giants were in the AFL you'd do a full 180 against the NFL. They were all sub championships. I don't care what you think about my love for the giants and if you have to go stalking my profile to find dirt then that's when I know that any dignity inside you is gone. Everytime I give a point, you respond with "hehe go back to 'insert non giants team here'. If you think that making the playoffs a few times in the 90s means the giants were relevant then that's sad. But I guess someone that celebrates sub championships would naturally only be able to live up to the playoffs. I guess the bengals are relevant today when they went to the playoffs and got killed instantly.
Your comments reek of bias of ignorance of a sport you know nothing about.


Even if I wasn't a giants fan I'd still think your an idiot. Hell I bet there's packers fans embarrassed that your the one attempting to defend them.



I'm sure the giants are so proud that fans like you represent them. I know of YA Tittle. Do you? Cause you seem to have the attitude of a child whose only knowledge of football history is up to post 2000. Your an angry fool on a rant who needs to to get out more. How childish. You also seem to forget that Tittle was also a niner( a team that was originally AAFC).OOPS busted!You claim to know the old days yet have zero knowledge of it and your only knowledge is whatever the giants did. Sad. You claim to love a respectable team like the giants but then go off and act like an eagles fan. Ranting and showing no evidence of an IQ. Keep whining kid. I'm laughing at your ignorance. Keep spewing that white noise while I continously knock it down one by one. Your a pathetic disgrace to this franchise and don't deserve the ground you walk on.

Bing Crosby
04-20-2013, 01:49 PM
*Looks up*

.....
....


....

Eagles?

GentleGiant
04-20-2013, 02:10 PM
*Looks up*.............Eagles? Sorry kid apparently when you type one irrelevant sentence that gets some people riled up. It's my thread so I'm not exactly happy about it either.

SweetZombieJesus
04-22-2013, 12:43 PM
'If the NFL was so big the niners and browns (AAFC teams) wouldn't have moved there.

What???



Why should the sub championships count?

If there was no game left afterwards, by definition it is no "sub-championship". Pretty simple even for you. Who were the Giants supposed to play after their 1956 "sub-championship", genius? Ghosts? Robots? Aliens? Were they supposed to build a time machine to play a league that wouldn't exist for another 4 years? Sounds like if the other league doesn't show up (because it doesn't even exist) the NFL team wins by default.

So again, I've already asked, but what about championships from before 1960, WHEN THE AFC DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. You have no answer.


The steelers were bad their first decade cause they were new, just like every new team( including GB).

The Steelers were bad for 40 years. They didn't make the playoffs once. NOT. ONE. SINGLE. TIME. They had freaking 27 losing seasons. 27!!!! In that very same time span the Giants were in the playoffs 16 times (1933, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1950, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963).

The Packers were founded in 1920 and won their first championship in 1929. The Steelers were founded in 1933 and won their first championship in 1974. FACT.



The NFL recognizes the AFL championships along with NFL championships

Oh really? Where?


Your drunk.

My drunk what?


You still seem to think that the AAFC being small somehow means something. It doesn't. It was still a league.

1946-1949, and it gave the NFL two teams, the Browns and 49ers.


They even in 1960 actually added other games for 2nd and 3rd place teams. Ring a bell? It's a bowl game system. The teams not the best would play in lesser games. They even called them " playoff bowls" look it up. It's a CFB system. No playoff game between regular season and championship. No playoff. Having the best doesn't mean your the best team. That's why playoffs exist. They had the merger cause they knew something was wrong with the old system.

There was indeed a consolation bowl played between the losers of the championship games. That doesn't make it a bowl system. You can't seem to get this simple idea through your head. Winning the division (pennant in baseball) is in no way, absolutely none, some kind of bowl system. There is no magic formula or weighting system. Win the division, you move on. Just like baseball until 1969.

Either you don't understand this simple concept, or you don't understand what the college football BCS is, or both.


Yeah sure kid call me a bandwagon fan cause I respect the saints. A team that won the SB after Katrina.

No, you're a bandwagon fan because you jumped off their bandwagon and you're here and obviously you are so into the Steelers. Go to the Taints board and continue and be a Saints fan and suffer through bad times instead of jumping ship to the next shiny object. Think about their fans suffering since 1966 with bags over their heads, but you weren't around for that, you just hopped on board when they won and jumped back off when it got stale.

I picked the Giants decades ago, and I stick with them through good and bad. I'll be here long after you're gone.


know of YA Tittle. Do you? Cause you seem to have the attitude of a child whose only knowledge of football history is up to post 2000. Your an angry fool on a rant who needs to to get out more. How childish.

Says the "Giants fan" who doesn't even know the team's history in the 1990s. In psychology they call this "projection".


The only reason the steelers struggled in the old days was they went through constant overhauls, from going from the steagles to card Pitts so the reason that they struggled was entirely out of their control. Every NFl team including GB and NYG that would have overhauls like that would struggle.

Does it matter why? They didn't make the playoffs for 40 years. I'm not making excuses why the Giants had a 30 year championship drought and why they were terrible 1964-1980.

Anyway, you've proven you're no real Giants fan, go back to the Taints. I'll save my words for real Giants fans.

zimonami
04-22-2013, 02:45 PM
What???

If there was no game left afterwards, by definition it is no "sub-championship". Pretty simple even for you. Who were the Giants supposed to play after their 1956 "sub-championship", genius? Ghosts? Robots? Aliens? Were they supposed to build a time machine to play a league that wouldn't exist for another 4 years? Sounds like if the other league doesn't show up (because it doesn't even exist) the NFL team wins by default.

So again, I've already asked, but what about championships from before 1960, WHEN THE AFC DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. You have no answer.



The Steelers were bad for 40 years. They didn't make the playoffs once. NOT. ONE. SINGLE. TIME. They had freaking 27 losing seasons. 27!!!! In that very same time span the Giants were in the playoffs 16 times (1933, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1950, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963).

The Packers were founded in 1920 and won their first championship in 1929. The Steelers were founded in 1933 and won their first championship in 1974. FACT.




Oh really? Where?



My drunk what?



1946-1949, and it gave the NFL two teams, the Browns and 49ers.



There was indeed a consolation bowl played between the losers of the championship games. That doesn't make it a bowl system. You can't seem to get this simple idea through your head. Winning the division (pennant in baseball) is in no way, absolutely none, some kind of bowl system. There is no magic formula or weighting system. Win the division, you move on. Just like baseball until 1969.

Either you don't understand this simple concept, or you don't understand what the college football BCS is, or both.



No, you're a bandwagon fan because you jumped off their bandwagon and you're here and obviously you are so into the Steelers. Go to the Taints board and continue and be a Saints fan and suffer through bad times instead of jumping ship to the next shiny object. Think about their fans suffering since 1966 with bags over their heads, but you weren't around for that, you just hopped on board when they won and jumped back off when it got stale.

I picked the Giants decades ago, and I stick with them through good and bad. I'll be here long after you're gone.



Says the "Giants fan" who doesn't even know the team's history in the 1990s. In psychology they call this "projection".



Does it matter why? They didn't make the playoffs for 40 years. I'm not making excuses why the Giants had a 30 year championship drought and why they were terrible 1964-1980.

Anyway, you've proven you're no real Giants fan, go back to the Taints. I'll save my words for real Giants fans.
I think you are spitting in the wind, SZJ. He cannot absorb anything beyond his own warped rationale.
At one time there were 8 Nat'l league and 8 American League teams in baseball, and no playoff system. The "Pennant" winner of each league for the World Series.
Now, because there were only 16 teams then, and no playoff system, does that make those World Series Champs inferior to today's Champs. Or, does the fact that it has always carried the name World Series, instead of merely "Champion", like the NFL did, validate it.

If the name "Superbowl" existed in 1956, would that have changed the significance/validation of that Giant Champion? Oh, wait... never mind, the AFL didn't exist. I think GG wants to specify that a real champion didn't exist until the Pack won the first SB in '67/'68 because then the AFL existed. Of course expanding the league like that diluted every team, compared to before there was no AFL. But, I guess it doesn't matter that the existing NFL teams had the best football talent in the world... unti the AFL started, and naturally there were just hundreds of more Pros to validate a team chamionship.
What about the WFL years? Shall we take the significance of a SB victory away from the NFL teams during those years. Is the SB less important because the WFL did not merge with the NFL?

GentleGiant
04-22-2013, 04:30 PM
Sorry kid apparently when you type one irrelevant sentence that gets some people riled up. It's my thread so I'm not exactly happy about it either.
I think you are spitting in the wind, SZJ. He cannot absorb anything beyond his own warped rationale.At one time there were 8 Nat'l league and 8 American League teams in baseball, and no playoff system. The "Pennant" winner of each league for the World Series.Now, because there were only 16 teams then, and no playoff system, does that make those World Series Champs inferior to today's Champs. Or, does the fact that it has always carried the name World Series, instead of merely "Champion", like the NFL did, validate it. If the name "Superbowl" existed in 1956, would that have changed the significance/validation of that Giant Champion? Oh, wait... never mind, the AFL didn't exist. I think GG wants to specify that a real champion didn't exist until the Pack won the first SB in '67/'68 because then the AFL existed. Of course expanding the league like that diluted every team, compared to before there was no AFL. But, I guess it doesn't matter that the existing NFL teams had the best football talent in the world... unti the AFL started, and naturally there were just hundreds of more Pros to validate a team chamionship.What about the WFL years? Shall we take the significance of a SB victory away from the NFL teams during those years. Is the SB less important because the WFL did not merge with the NFL?

How ignorant you are kid.1. The AFL wasn't the only league competing with the NFL( the AAFC ring a bell?).
2. Who cares when the AFL showed up? It still existed and we still merged with them.
3. Because they weren't champions like the SB is.They were sub champions. But of course your too ignorant to recognize the AFL and AAFC championships.
4. The NFC and AFC championships are championships. Does that mean they're the real champions? No.

You literally just proved my point with the World Series talk. If those 16 baseball leagues were to merge then their own individual championships from before wouldn't matter. That's what happened with the NFL. Therefore those 16 leagues wouldn't matter. Another pathetic homer assuming that the NFL had the most talent. Otto Graham and Paul Brown ring a bell? Of course not cause the only you care about is your team. If the giants were in the AFL and AAFC you'd say the opposite and you know it. Oh the NFL had more talent? Is that why the NFL got raped in SB 3 and 4? If the WFL merged with the NFL it would count. But it hasn't so shut up.

Your using hypotheticals which have no base. I don't need to because the AFL DID merge with the NFL. Come on kid take off the homer glasses. I'm defending every team expansion team and AFL , AAFC team. Your defending the giants and only the giants.And how bout you actually read what I said before this cause everything you said I've already disputed.Your only defense for this is how you feel, you think, you believe.

You HOPE the NFL was stronger because the giants were in it. Forget about the oilers, chiefs, dolphins, browns, and niners. The giants are the only one that matters. The size of a league doesn't matter. If the NFL were as big as you think they were, they wouldn't have merged.If your so mad about this then go tell the NFC to unmerge. Until then don't come out of your cave to argue with me after a week just to "back up" SZJ.

I'm sure browns and niners fans will tell me the AFL had better talent.

GentleGiant
04-22-2013, 04:41 PM
Sorry kid apparently when you type one irrelevant sentence that gets some people riled up. It's my thread so I'm not exactly happy about it either.
What??? If there was no game left afterwards, by definition it is no "sub-championship". Pretty simple even for you. Who were the Giants supposed to play after their 1956 "sub-championship", genius? Ghosts? Robots? Aliens? Were they supposed to build a time machine to play a league that wouldn't exist for another 4 years? Sounds like if the other league doesn't show up (because it doesn't even exist) the NFL team wins by default.So again, I've already asked, but what about championships from before 1960, WHEN THE AFC DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. You have no answer.The Steelers were bad for 40 years. They didn't make the playoffs once. NOT. ONE. SINGLE. TIME. They had freaking 27 losing seasons. 27!!!! In that very same time span the Giants were in the playoffs 16 times (1933, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1950, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963).The Packers were founded in 1920 and won their first championship in 1929. The Steelers were founded in 1933 and won their first championship in 1974. FACT. Oh really? Where? My drunk what? 1946-1949, and it gave the NFL two teams, the Browns and 49ers. There was indeed a consolation bowl played between the losers of the championship games. That doesn't make it a bowl system. You can't seem to get this simple idea through your head. Winning the division (pennant in baseball) is in no way, absolutely none, some kind of bowl system. There is no magic formula or weighting system. Win the division, you move on. Just like baseball until 1969. Either you don't understand this simple concept, or you don't understand what the college football BCS is, or both. No, you're a bandwagon fan because you jumped off their bandwagon and you're here and obviously you are so into the Steelers. Go to the Taints board and continue and be a Saints fan and suffer through bad times instead of jumping ship to the next shiny object. Think about their fans suffering since 1966 with bags over their heads, but you weren't around for that, you just hopped on board when they won and jumped back off when it got stale. I picked the Giants decades ago, and I stick with them through good and bad. I'll be here long after you're gone.Says the "Giants fan" who doesn't even know the team's history in the 1990s. In psychology they call this "projection".Does it matter why? They didn't make the playoffs for 40 years. I'm not making excuses why the Giants had a 30 year championship drought and why they were terrible 1964-1980.Anyway, you've proven you're no real Giants fan, go back to the Taints. I'll save my words for real Giants fans. The giants didn't play anyone.Like I said the system was flawed. They were championships of the NFL but were not talking about that. We're talking about comparing it to SBs. If we're talking about that one league alone then yes they were champions. But when compared to SBs they're sub champions. Go look at any browns and oilers banner. AFL AND AAFC CHAMPIONS. Still more childish insults. That's cute.

It doesn't matter what happened before. The fact that the NFL merged means everything before was a championship was exclusive only to that one league. But the NFL now isn't 1 league. This NFL isn't the same league as the NFL of then.

Tell me. A team that won the division went to the championship. Was that 1 division a league? No. But the NFL now is made up of leagues. Not divisions. That's what make the SBs greater. The championships are only exclusive to that one league. But the NFL now is made up of many leagues so the old NFL has become the NFC. And since there's one more game after the NFC and AFC championships then that makes the old ones sub championships. The old leagues are now conferences

If your mad then go complain to the NFL and tell them to unmerge, ending the SB and make the NFC championship the old championship for the NFL. There you go again. Belittle the other leagues all you want.

Obviously the NFL disagrees with you on your opinion that it was stronger than the AFL otherwise it wouldn't have merged with it. The NFL( if it was as strong as you claim it be)would have done nothing and just waited for the AFL to collapse. But of course your opinion can't change the past.

By decades ago I imagine when LT showed up? Yeah your a bandwagon. Just a longtime one.

See you think insulting me hurts. It doesn't. It's just a defense mechanism. Like when an extremist is told the earth isn't flat. He's gonna insult you.

You don't make excuses cause you didn't have a 40 yr overhaul like PIT.

GiantX
04-23-2013, 02:59 AM
Eagles!

SweetZombieJesus
04-23-2013, 09:19 AM
How ignorant you are kid.1. The AFL wasn't the only league competing with the NFL( the AAFC ring a bell?).

Oh, that league that only existed 1946-1949?

Every one of the Giants' championships came when there was no AFL or AAFC. 1927 1934 1938 1956. No AAFC or AFL. So now what?


Go look at any browns and oilers banner. AFL AND AAFC CHAMPIONS.

Good for them, interesting historical footnotes, artifacts of a time when they played in leagues that no longer exist. Too bad they don't count in the NFL, the league in which they currently play. And they don't show up on the NFL's website of most league championships.


2. Who cares when the AFL showed up? It still existed and we still merged with them.

It matters if they didn't exist at the time so there is no possible way the NFL Champion could have played the AFL Champion since the AFL did not exist.


You don't make excuses cause you didn't have a 40 yr overhaul like PIT.

27 losing seasons in 40 years is not an overhaul. It's arrested development and a tradition of failure.


3. Because they weren't champions like the SB is.They were sub champions. But of course your too ignorant to recognize the AFL and AAFC championships.

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of the prefix "sub". If there is nothing further, by definition it cannot be a "sub"-championship. Again who were the 1956 Giants supposed to play after their so-called "sub-championship"? Ghosts? Should they have invented a time machine to play the 1960 Oilers?

Meh, I forgot my promise. You are wasted energy.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 12:33 PM
Oh, that league that only existed 1946-1949?

Every one of the Giants' championships came when there was no AFL or AAFC. 1927 1934 1938 1956. No AAFC or AFL. So now what?



Good for them, interesting historical footnotes, artifacts of a time when they played in leagues that no longer exist. Too bad they don't count in the NFL, the league in which they currently play. And they don't show up on the NFL's website of most league championships.



It matters if they didn't exist at the time so there is no possible way the NFL Champion could have played the AFL Champion since the AFL did not exist.



27 losing seasons in 40 years is not an overhaul. It's arrested development and a tradition of failure.



Perhaps you don't understand the definition of the prefix "sub". If there is nothing further, by definition it cannot be a "sub"-championship. Again who were the 1956 Giants supposed to play after their so-called "sub-championship"? Ghosts? Should they have invented a time machine to play the 1960 Oilers?

Meh, I forgot my promise. You are wasted energy.

Ahhh yes. I guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself for the hundredth time.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS WERE PLAYED BEFORE THE AFL.

The AFL still was gonna exist and it was still gonna merge with the NFL. It has nothing to do with what would they have done then. There wasn't a universal championship before the SB.

The fact that the NFL merged with the AFL made every championship before lesser. Has nothing to do with what they did before that. If they were eventually gonna merge with another league(AFL or not) then they should have done it earlier if they wanted championships to mean as much.

Like I said if your so mad about it go tell the NFL to unmerge.

Really? The NFL then is the same as the NFL now? Why's the AFL here? Why are their real playoff systems? No it's not. Only in name.They could have called it the AFL if they wanted to. They probably didn't want to since nearly every major sports league has "national" in its name(NBA, NHL, etc).


Tradition of failure. Is that why they have 6 rings? Why is that a tradition of losing but the giants and packers being irrelevant for 30 isn't? Admit you have a bias already. It's already sad enough. They spent 40 yr just trying to find a name and constantly relocate and combine with teams(pirates to steagles to card pitts).

Lesser champions. That work with you? Or are you gonna try to change the subject again(like the def of "sub") to hide the fact you have nothing left? They aren't lesser championships if we're talking about them alone. But we're not we're comparing them to SBs.

Paul Brown is one of the greatest coaches ever( sports illustrated says he's 2nd only to Lombardi) and yet he's only got 3 NFL championships. So why's he so praised? Cause he won 4 AAFC championships. Sports illustrated acknowledges this.

The NFL.com is NFL network.com. A media site.Go to any old AFL team and they'll tell you different. The browns saying they have AAFC championships means more cause the NFL answers to the teams owners.

I expected ignorant aggression from some a guy who thinks threatening Steve Smiths family is justified.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 04:35 PM
Ahhh yes. I guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself for the hundredth time.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS WERE PLAYED BEFORE THE AFL.

The AFL still was gonna exist and it was still gonna merge with the NFL. It has nothing to do with what would they have done then. There wasn't a universal championship before the SB.

The fact that the NFL merged with the AFL made every championship before lesser. Has nothing to do with what they did before that. If they were eventually gonna merge with another league(AFL or not) then they should have done it earlier if they wanted championships to mean as much.

Like I said if your so mad about it go tell the NFL to unmerge.

Really? The NFL then is the same as the NFL now? Why's the AFL here? Why are their real playoff systems? No it's not. Only in name.They could have called it the AFL if they wanted to. They probably didn't want to since nearly every major sports league has "national" in its name(NBA, NHL, etc).


Tradition of failure. Is that why they have 6 rings? Why is that a tradition of losing but the giants and packers being irrelevant for 30 isn't? Admit you have a bias already. It's already sad enough. They spent 40 yr just trying to find a name and constantly relocate and combine with teams(pirates to steagles to card pitts).

Lesser champions. That work with you? Or are you gonna try to change the subject again(like the def of "sub") to hide the fact you have nothing left? They aren't lesser championships if we're talking about them alone. But we're not we're comparing them to SBs.

Paul Brown is one of the greatest coaches ever( sports illustrated says he's 2nd only to Lombardi) and yet he's only got 3 NFL championships. So why's he so praised? Cause he won 4 AAFC championships. Sports illustrated acknowledges this.

The NFL.com is NFL network.com. A media site.Go to any old AFL team and they'll tell you different. The browns saying they have AAFC championships means more cause the NFL answers to the teams owners.

I expected ignorant aggression from some a guy who thinks threatening Steve Smiths family is justified.

Haven't read most of the posts. Are you saying the NFL championships before the SB era were less significant?

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 04:44 PM
Haven't read most of the posts. Are you saying the NFL championships before the SB era were less significant? Im saying that because the NFL now is only similar to the old in name. To give a more accurate name for the NFL would the NFL plus AFL. The league then was just the NFL. So yes I do feel the NFL then is lesser than now cause the NFL then was one league. The NFL now is multiple leagues( NFL, AFL , and a few from the AAFC). If we're talking about one league then yes they were championships. But we're not, we're comparing them to a Championships that's made up of more than one league.

It doesn't matter what happened before. They merged and so that belittles the old championships to their own league( it doesnt move over to the AFL). The SB is not that. The SB is more significant cause its a championship for all the leagues rather than one.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 04:52 PM
Im saying that because the NFL now is only similar to the old in name. To give a more accurate name for the NFL would the NFL plus AFL. The league then was just the NFL. So yes I do feel the NFL then is lesser than now cause the NFL then was one league. The NFL now is multiple leagues( NFL, AFL , and a few from the AAFC). If we're talking about one league then yes they were championships. But we're not, we're comparing them to a Championships that's made up of more than one league.
Well that's not really true. Its not like the AFL just showed up with all their great players in 1960. All the best players were in the NFL before 1960. Slowly, the AFL either syphoned players from the NFL and drafted would-be NFL players. It really didn't start until Joe Namath in 1965 though.
really the NFL suffered talent-wise as a product for several years starting around 1964.
But it was restored with the merger. But the NFL for most of its existance (pre SB and post SB) had all the greatest players. Only those few years was it compromised.
You make it sound like half the talent didn't exist before 1960 and it magically appeared in 1960 in the form of the AFL.

Yeah there wa the AAC with the Browns and Niners, but that was a sub standard league. THE league was the NFL. THE football championship was the NFL chamionship.
It was NEVER a "sub championship".

dezzzR
04-23-2013, 04:57 PM
Im saying that because the NFL now is only similar to the old in name. To give a more accurate name for the NFL would the NFL plus AFL. The league then was just the NFL. So yes I do feel the NFL then is lesser than now cause the NFL then was one league. The NFL now is multiple leagues( NFL, AFL , and a few from the AAFC). If we're talking about one league then yes they were championships. But we're not, we're comparing them to a Championships that's made up of more than one league.So since the AFL and NFL merged in 1966 (1970 they integrated schedules), the Eagles championship doesnt count, right?

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 05:00 PM
So since the AFL and NFL merged in 1966 (1970 they integrated schedules), the Eagles championship doesnt count, right?
They merged in 1970. NOT 1966. They just decided to play a game with each league's champions, which turned into the SB.
The "merger" happened when the AFL and NFL became the "NFL" with Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh moving to the new "AFC".

keyofgmen
04-23-2013, 05:02 PM
And here I thought this thread was about the worst fans in the league?

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:15 PM
Well that's not really true. Its not like the AFL just showed up with all their great players in 1960. All the best players were in the NFL before 1960. Slowly, the AFL either syphoned players from the NFL and drafted would-be NFL players. It really didn't start until Joe Namath in 1965 though.really the NFL suffered talent-wise as a product for several years starting around 1964. But it was restored with the merger. But the NFL for most of its existance (pre SB and post SB) had all the greatest players. Only those few years was it compromised.You make it sound like half the talent didn't exist before 1960 and it magically appeared in 1960 in the form of the AFL.Yeah there wa the AAC with the Browns and Niners, but that was a sub standard league. THE league was the NFL. THE football championship was the NFL chamionship.It was NEVER a "sub championship".Apparently the league disagrees with you that they had all the talent seeing as they merged.Why merge with the AFL then? Why is the current league now equally organized between the AFL(AFC) and NFL(NFC). If the NFL needed teams then it could create expansion teams. What kind of THE league needs help from another? And saying the NFL was greater cause of talent is kind of lazy. You can't actually prove that. Like you said, the jets in SB 3 were supposed to be the talentless team. Not to mention the AFL owned the 70s. Like I said Paul Brown is considered one of the greatest ( with SI having him 2nd to Lombardi) but Paul Brown only had 3 NFL championships. So why does he get the praise? Cause he had 4 AAFC championships. Not to mention Otto Graham spend most of his career in the AFL.

We'd never know how good the AFL teams were compared to the NFL cause they never played. No matter good the NFLs was. The NFLs player were good against OTHER NFL players.

And Paul Brown and Graham played before the SB era,

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:18 PM
So since the AFL and NFL merged in 1966 (1970 they integrated schedules), the Eagles championship doesnt count, right? When compared to SBs? Yes.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:20 PM
And here I thought this thread was about the worst fans in the league? Blame SZJ.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 05:23 PM
Apparently the league disagrees with you that they had all the talent seeing as they merged.Why merge with the AFL then? Why is the current league now equally organized between the AFL(AFC) and NFL(NFC). If the NFL needed teams then it could create expansion teams. What kind of THE league needs help from another? And saying the NFL was greater cause of talent is kind of lazy. You can't actually prove that. Like you said, the jets in SB 3 were supposed to be the talentless team. Not to mention the AFL owned the 70s. Like I said Paul Brown is considered one of the greatest ( with SI having him 2nd to Lombardi) but Paul Brown only had 3 NFL championships. So why does he get the praise? Cause he had 4 AAFC championships. Not to mention Otto Graham spend most of his career in the AFL.

We'd never know how good the AFL teams were compared to the NFL cause they never played. No matter good the NFLs was. The NFLs player were good against OTHER NFL players.

And Paul Brown and Graham before the SB era,

Here's the reason:




$$$$$$$$$$$$

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:25 PM
Here's the reason:$$$$$$$$$$$$ That shouldnt put them ahead of the AFL. I'm sure the AFL had similar reasons.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 05:30 PM
That shouldnt put them ahead of the AFL. I'm sure the AFL had similar reasons.
They merged because it was in the interests of all teams, NFL and AFL.
They were in a position to maximize profits with the merger.
Its as simple as that.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:36 PM
They merged because it was in the interests of all teams, NFL and AFL.They were in a position to maximize profits with the merger.Its as simple as that. I don't see how that belittles the AFL. Like you said. The AFL and NFL combined to create the NFL we know now. It's not the same NFL so that's why I feel the SBs shouldn't be combined with old championships cause the SBs involve more and more is at stake. Your not just playing for one league. Your playing for all the relevant leagues.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 05:41 PM
I don't see how that belittles the AFL. Like you said. The AFL and NFL combined to create the NFL we know now. It's not the same NFL so that's why I feel the SBs shouldn't be combined with old championships cause the SBs involve more and more is at stake. Your not just playing for one league. Your playing for all the relevant leagues.
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.
The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.
Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.
My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.
In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 05:55 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football. And that's where we disagree. I feel the AFL was equal. It just didn't get as much coverage( probably cause the NFL came first). Point is Otto Graham and Paul Brown were in the AAFC and Paul Brown isn't praised just for 3 NFL championships. Paul Brown and the Browns( an AAFC team) come to the NFL and suddenly the browns( an AAFC team) comes to the NFL and starts killing all the supposedly superior NFL teams.

The browns won almost as many as they did in the AAFC so whose to say the AAFC was less talented then the NFL if most both did pretty much equal to the browns. The AFL didn't get good until SB 3 but that was only 2 years. Whose to say that had the merge come sooner that the AFL wouldn't have won then. The only proof that the NFL was more talented than the AFL was the first 2 SBs. But what happened after that? The AFL starts killing the NFL. Whose to say that had the SB come earlier the AFL wouldn't have dominated then? We only know how good the NFL talent based on how good they were against OTHER NFL players. Not AFL.

Also the browns themselves acknowledges the AAFC rings and the NFL answers to the owners. That sounds like the NFL acknowledging the AFL as equal.

Wikipedia and the history books disagree. They point out that the AFL was a real true competitor.
And personally I feel the NFL could have made different business decisions than merging if all it was was a business decisions.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

SweetZombieJesus
04-23-2013, 06:20 PM
The AFL didn't get good until SB 3 but that was only 2 years. Whose to say that had the merge come sooner that the AFL wouldn't have won then. The only proof that the NFL was more talented than the AFL was the first 2 SBs. But what happened after that? The AFL starts killing the NFL. Whose to say that had the SB come earlier the AFL wouldn't have dominated then? We only know how good the NFL talent based on how good they were against OTHER NFL players. Not AFL.

The only true AFC/AFL teams that would be dominant were the Dolphins for 2 years, and the Raiders later in the 1970s. 5 of those AFC/AFL Super Bowls were won by former NFL teams that moved to the AFC (Colts & Steelers).

SB 5 - Won by Colts as an AFC team when they were the NFL representative in SB 3 who lost to the Jets.
SB 9, 10, 13, 14 -- Won by Steelers as an AFC team when they were an NFL team moved to the AFC.


In the first 20 Super Bowls, only 6 were won by actual AFL teams that originated in the junior league (Jets, Chiefs, Dolphins x2, Raiders x2). 5 were won by former NFL teams that moved to the AFC.

That speaks to which was the stronger league.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 06:28 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
SB 3 - Jets were a flukeSB 5 - Won by Colts as an AFC team when they were the NFL representative in SB 3SB 9, 10, 13, 14 -- Won by Steelers as an AFC team when they were an NFL team moved to the AFC.The only true AFC/AFL teams that would be dominant were the Dolphins for 2 years, and the Raiders later in the 1970s. 5 of those AFC/AFL Super Bowls were won by former NFL teams that moved to the AFC.In the first 20 Super Bowls, only 6 were won by actual AFL teams (Jets, Chiefs, Dolphins x2, Raiders x2). The steelers and jets and colts still had to go through the raiders and dolphins. Not to mention that they still faced the NFLs best. More ignorance. Every team you dont like wins the SB is a fluke

SweetZombieJesus
04-23-2013, 06:34 PM
The steelers and jets and colts still had to go through the raiders and dolphins. Not to mention that they still faced the NFLs best. More ignorance. Every team you dont like wins the SB is a fluke

You want to argue the Jets were not a fluke?

They returned to the playoffs the following year, 1969, and then fell off the face of the Earth. They wouldn't have another winning season until 1981. Their "window" was 3 years and then it slammed shut. In fact those 3 years were the only time they'd be better than .500 for their first 20 years 1960-1980.

Nope, no evidence they were a fluke at all.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 06:49 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
You want to argue the Jets were not a fluke?They returned to the playoffs the following year, 1969, and then fell off the face of the Earth. They wouldn't have another winning season until 1981. Their "window" was 3 years and then it slammed shut. In fact those 3 years were the only time they'd be better than .500 for their first 20 years 1960-1980.Nope, no evidence they were a fluke at all. There's no such thing as a fluke. They won it all . What they did after is irrelevant. They beat the supposedly better NFL team. The steelers beat the supposedly better NFL 4 times( despite you saying theyre bad).MS even said that he felt the AFL didn't get good until the 70s so he likely disagrees with you( although I feel the AFL was always as good). You can't find a point so you just try to dumb down every AFL team. Quit it. Don't accuse me of making excuses then go off and make an excuse for every AFC SB win. The niners have 5 but they were AAFC first. I guess all five of those were flukes too?

Just 1 AFL SB win proves my point.

Just admit that you're NFC bias. Tell me that Im wrong for saying the old championships don't compare but then tell me which AFL SBs were legit based off your own stupid biased opinion? Pathetic.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 07:28 PM
And that's where we disagree. I feel the AFL was equal. It just didn't get as much coverage( probably cause the NFL came first). Point is Otto Graham and Paul Brown were in the AAFC and Paul Brown isn't praised just for 3 NFL championships. Paul Brown and the Browns( an AAFC team) come to the NFL and suddenly the browns( an AAFC team) comes to the NFL and starts killing all the supposedly superior NFL teams.

The browns won almost as many as they did in the AAFC so whose to say the AAFC was less talented then the NFL if most both did pretty much equal to the browns. The AFL didn't get good until SB 3 but that was only 2 years. Whose to say that had the merge come sooner that the AFL wouldn't have won then. The only proof that the NFL was more talented than the AFL was the first 2 SBs. But what happened after that? The AFL starts killing the NFL. Whose to say that had the SB come earlier the AFL wouldn't have dominated then? We only know how good the NFL talent based on how good they were against OTHER NFL players. Not AFL.

Also the browns themselves acknowledges the AAFC rings and the NFL answers to the owners. That sounds like the NFL acknowledging the AFL as equal.

Wikipedia and the history books disagree. They point out that the AFL was a real true competitor.
And personally I feel the NFL could have made different business decisions than merging if all it was was a business decisions.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Well I agree that the AFL was equal at the top. Just not throughout the league. But they didn't come even close to that equality until the SB's had already started. Before the SB, the AFL was a far inferior league.
So before the SB, the NFL championship went to the best team in pro football.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 07:31 PM
There's no such thing as a fluke. They won it all . What they did after is irrelevant. They beat the supposedly better NFL team. The steelers beat the supposedly better NFL 4 times( despite you saying theyre bad).MS even said that he felt the AFL didn't get good until the 70s so he likely disagrees with you( although I feel the AFL was always as good). You can't find a point so you just try to dumb down every AFL team. Quit it. Don't accuse me of making excuses then go off and make an excuse for every AFC SB win. The niners have 5 but they were AAFC first. I guess all five of those were flukes too?

Just 1 AFL SB win proves my point.

Just admit that you're NFC bias. Tell me that Im wrong for saying the old championships don't compare but then tell me which AFL SBs were legit based off your own stupid biased opinion? Pathetic.

The Steelers were an old NFL team. they were never an AFL team.

AND to suggest that the Niners, 30 years after being in the NFL, by winning 5 SB's is somehow an indicator that the old AAC was a valid league is nonsense on steroids.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 07:43 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Well I agree that the AFL was equal at the top. Just not throughout the league. But they didn't come even close to that equality until the SB's had already started. Before the SB, the AFL was a far inferior league.So before the SB, the NFL championship went to the best team in pro football. Wrong again. The browns( an AAFC team) goes to the NFL and instantly starts winning NFL champions. Obviously it wasn't the SB era when the other leagues were talented.Otto Graham and Paul Brown would disagree. Once again, you have no proof of this. This far inferior league just suddenly starts getting good around the time it starts facing NFL teams? You and I know that's BS. Obviously it was always like this. People just never noticed cause the NFL never faced them. Then when they do everyone assumes " oh they must have JUST gotten better at this exact moment".

Before the merge you could say whatever championship was real(afl or nfl). But in the event of the merge when compared to the SB, the old ones fall apart.
Just to hide their NFL bias.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 07:46 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
The Steelers were an old NFL team. they were never an AFL team.AND to suggest that the Niners, 30 years after being in the NFL, by winning 5 SB's is somehow an indicator that the old AAC was a valid league is nonsense on steroids. Jets, chiefs, raiders, and others still got rings.Your nitpicking. One AFL SB is all I need. Not to mention the browns old rings

zimonami
04-23-2013, 08:19 PM
There's no such thing as a fluke. They won it all . What they did after is irrelevant. They beat the supposedly better NFL team. The steelers beat the supposedly better NFL 4 times( despite you saying theyre bad).MS even said that he felt the AFL didn't get good until the 70s so he likely disagrees with you( although I feel the AFL was always as good). You can't find a point so you just try to dumb down every AFL team. Quit it. Don't accuse me of making excuses then go off and make an excuse for every AFC SB win. The niners have 5 but they were AAFC first. I guess all five of those were flukes too?

Just 1 AFL SB win proves my point.

Just admit that you're NFC bias. Tell me that Im wrong for saying the old championships don't compare but then tell me which AFL SBs were legit based off your own stupid biased opinion? Pathetic.
If I follow your way of thinking, an NFL Champion was not quite legitimate until it had absorbed the best teams of the AAFC and then merged with the AFL... so legitimate champions debuted with the SB era.
Well, you never answered my question posed many posts back...
What about the years that the WFL existed? They had legitimate NFL talent, Herschel Walker, Jim Kelly, and many others... so by your own standards, a truw NFL Superbowl champion was tarnished in those years.
Now, how about this... The Canadian Football league existed well before the SB era. It has had some excellent players, such as Hall of Famer Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie, and many other NFL worthy athletes have been playing in the CFL every year that there has been an NFL SB Champion. So, even NOW we do not have a legit champ and we'll have to merge with the CFL for a legit Champ.
I think I'm totally disillusioned and have finally figured it out. The NFL has always been, and will always be a sham.
Thank you for opening all of our eyes with your logic.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 08:32 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
If I follow your way of thinking, an NFL Champion was not quite legitimate until it had absorbed the best teams of the AAFC and then merged with the AFL... so legitimate champions debuted with the SB era.Well, you never answered my question posed many posts back...What about the years that the WFL existed? They had legitimate NFL talent, Herschel Walker, Jim Kelly, and many others... so by your own standards, a truw NFL Superbowl champion was tarnished in those years.Now, how about this... The Canadian Football league existed well before the SB era. It has had some excellent players, such as Hall of Famer Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie, and many other NFL worthy athletes have been playing in the CFL every year that there has been an NFL SB Champion. So, even NOW we do not have a legit champ and we'll have to merge with the CFL for a legit Champ.I think I'm totally disillusioned and have finally figured it out. The NFK has always been, and will always be a sham>Thank you for opening all of our eyes with your logic. You do know what the word " National " means right? Good lord kid don't ask me stupid questions before you actually find the right freaking country. Wrong again. The NFL championships winners were champions. NFL champions. Wrong NFL kid. In the event that we do merge, the old ones become belittled. The NFL championships are championships but they are championships of THAT league. The SB is multiple leagues so therefore it means more.

Clearly my logic does work then since your logic says Canadians are Americans and America is the whole world.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 08:44 PM
You do know what the word " National " means right? Good lord kid don't ask me stupid questions before you actually find the right freaking country. Wrong again. The NFL championships winners were champions. NFL champions. Wrong NFL kid. In the event that we do merge the old ones become belittled.

Clearly my logic does work then since your logic says Canadians are Americans and America is the whole world.
Last time I looked, Canada and the United States comprise North America.
You still haven't answered my question about the WFL...
The WFL had legitimate talent during the SB era. So, it was as legitimate as the AAFC and the AFL. So, during those years a SB Champion was tarnished. You CANNOT deny that the WFL fits as perfectly as the AAFC. The AFC?NFC, ergo NFL, did not have all the best players... so we have to exclude the SB Champs from those years as being legitimate.

And, quit calling me kid, like I don't know what I'm talking about, you moronic twerp. I'm 66 years old and was a Giant fan before you were born

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 08:52 PM
Jets, chiefs, raiders, and others still got rings.Your nitpicking. One AFL SB is all I need. Not to mention the browns old rings
There were two by the way.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 08:54 PM
Jets, chiefs, raiders, and others still got rings.Your nitpicking. One AFL SB is all I need. Not to mention the browns old rings
The Browns were in the NFL when they won the NFL championship. It seems obvious to me.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 08:56 PM
GG... you set the definitions... there was no REAL champion before the SB era because there was an AAFC and an AFL.
You never did admit that a legitimate NFL Champion existed in the years that the AAFC and AFL did not exist.
But, thats another road.
Now that you set the rule... that real champions exist since the merger, you have failed to even acknowledge the issue of the years of the WFL.
They had legitimate NFL talent.
The NFL teams could not claim that they were as strong as they could be, so their Champion HAD TO BE inferior.
Rght?
And, United States of America citizens who are football players have played and still do play in the Canadian Football League.> Many NFL alumni played in the CFL.
Why does their existence NOT tarnish the strength and legitimmacy of our NFL, and its SB Champion? Because they are not a USA league?
Your rules are so ridiculous, and you change them to suit yourself

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 08:57 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
The Browns were in the NFL when they won the NFL championship. It seems obvious to me. The browns were an AAFC team coming to the NFL.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:01 PM
The browns were an AAFC team coming to the NFL.
No....They were an NFL team who just came from the AAFC.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:04 PM
GG... you set the definitions... there was no REAL champion before the SB era because there was an AAFC and an AFL.
You never did admit that a legitimate NFL Champion existed in the years that the AAFC and AFL did not exist.
But, thats another road.
Now that you set the rule... that real champions exist since the merger, you have failed to even acknowledge the issue of the years of the WFL.
They had legitimate NFL talent.
The NFL teams could not claim that they were as strong as they could be, so their Champion HAD TO BE inferior.
Rght?
And, United States of America citizens who are football players have played and still do play in the Canadian Football League.> Many NFL alumni played in the CFL.
Why does their existence NOT tarnish the strength and legitimmacy of our NFL, and its SB Champion? Because they are not a USA league?
Your rules are so ridiculous, and you change them to suit yourself
Well the USFL existed during some of the 80's so the teams that won the SB during that time are clearly iligitimate.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:06 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
GG... you set the definitions... there was no REAL champion before the SB era because there was an AAFC and an AFL. You never did admit that a legitimate NFL Champion existed in the years that the AAFC and AFL did not exist.But, thats another road.Now that you set the rule... that real champions exist since the merger, you have failed to even acknowledge the issue of the years of the WFL. They had legitimate NFL talent.The NFL teams could not claim that they were as strong as they could be, so their Champion HAD TO BE inferior.Rght?And, United States of America citizens who are football players have played and still do play in the Canadian Football League.> Many NFL alumni played in the CFL.Why does their existence NOT tarnish the strength and legitimmacy of our NFL, and its SB Champion? Because they are not a USA league?Your rules are so ridiculous, and you change them to suit yourselfEver heard of a map? Is South America the same as the United States of America cause it has America in its name?Repeated ignorance. How much more should I repeat myself? The NFL of old wasn't the strongest of the leagues because no matter what it was still one league. The NFL of now is the strongest because it has multiple leagues( doesn't matter what leagues they are or what talent they had). Unless the WFL at one point merged with another league, the NFL now is the one that matters when compared to the old leagues.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:08 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
No....They were an NFL team who just came from the AAFC. More bias ignorance.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:09 PM
Ever heard of a map? Is South America the same as the United States of America cause it has America in its name?Repeated ignorance. How much more should I repeat myself? The NFL of old wasn't the strongest of the leagues because no matter what it was still one league. The NFL of now is the strongest because it has multiple leagues( doesn't matter what leagues they are or what talent they had). Unless the WFL at one point merged with another league, the NFL now is the one that matters when compared to the old leagues.
Were the Stanley Cups of the late 70's and 80's illegitimate since they did merge with the NHL?
I think the Islanders might be disappointed.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:09 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Well the USFL existed during some of the 80's so the teams that won the SB during that time are clearly iligitimate. Was the USFL composed of multiple relevant leagues that merged. No. Therefore it doesn't compare.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:10 PM
More bias ignorance.
You know the old adage about........."first stop digging"?

zimonami
04-23-2013, 09:11 PM
Thank you, Morehead, I mean the USFL and mis-named it the WFL.
Of course I should have known the WFL didn't count, because it was in Europe.
He still hasn't answered whether or not the SB champs were truly champs during those USFL days.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:14 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Were the Stanley Cups of the late 70's and 80's illegitimate since they did merge with the NHL?I think the Islanders might be disappointed. The Stanley cup was always the Stanley cup. The championship for pro football has always changed.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 09:14 PM
Was the USFL composed of multiple relevant leagues that merged. No. Therefore it doesn't compare.
Neither did the AFL teams compare for their first 7 years, but you discount that. You CANNOT discount the USFL simply because they didn't merge. They had doazens of legitimate NFL quality players. Merging or not merging is often a function of the money involved and the strength of fan following to confirm legitimacy.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:15 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Thank you, Morehead, I mean the USFL and mis-named it the WFL. Of course I should have known the WFL didn't count, because it was in Europe.He still hasn't answered whether or not the SB champs were truly champs during those USFL days. Hey dumbass. Way to show me you can't read. I don't recall the USFL ever merging with other relevant leagues?

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:15 PM
Was the USFL composed of multiple relevant leagues that merged. No. Therefore it doesn't compare.
Lets review your position.

A championship is only relevant when......

There is not a competing league being played at the same time........ with the following conditions......

1. It exists
2. It ultimately was merged into league in question
3. That league was...(give me a moment).....formed from multiple other leagues that were legitimate.

I think you are going down a road that leads to a very dark place. A dark place for dark souls......and I'm afraid for you.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:16 PM
Hey dumbass. Way to show me you can't read. I don't recall the USFL ever merging with other relevant leagues?

What about my question regarding the NHL?

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:18 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Neither did the AFL teams compare for their first 7 years, but you discount that. You CANNOT discount the USFL simply because they didn't merge. They had doazens of legitimate NFL quality players. Merging or not merging is often a function of the money involved and the strength of fan following to confirm legitimacy.That's why the AFL champions don't compare to SBs either. Your not very bright are you? I can hate on the USFL for not merging cause guess where most of the players from those leagues go? The NFL.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:19 PM
Neither did the AFL teams compare for their first 7 years, but you discount that. You CANNOT discount the USFL simply because they didn't merge. They had doazens of legitimate NFL quality players. Merging or not merging is often a function of the money involved and the strength of fan following to confirm legitimacy.
Doug Flutie, Mourice Carthon, Hershel Walker and Bart Oates. And that was just the Generals. Lets not forget Steve Young and Jim Kelly.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:20 PM
That's why the AFL champions don't compare to SBs either. Your not very bright are you? I can hate on the USFL for not merging cause guess where most of the players from those leagues go? The NFL.
My head is spinning from all your knowledge.
But may I say that you aren't especially Gentle. I'm guessing your not a Giant either.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:22 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Lets review your position.A championship is only relevant when...... There is not a competing league being played at the same time........ with the following conditions......1. It exists2. It ultimately was merged into league in question3. That league was...(give me a moment).....formed from multiple other leagues that were legitimate.I think you are going down a road that leads to a very dark place. A dark place for dark souls......and I'm afraid for you. Wrong again. Every champion in every league matters if its to that league alone. But when compared to others( like old ones to SBs) then the clearly greater league means more. The NFL was not greater than the AFL just cause you think it had better talent.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:23 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
My head is spinning from all your knowledge.But may I say that you aren't especially Gentle. I'm guessing your not a Giant either. Well from most of the people I hear on here, your not much of a giant either.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:24 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Doug Flutie, Mourice Carthon, Hershel Walker and Bart Oates. And that was just the Generals. Lets not forget Steve Young and Jim Kelly. And where did they eventually go? The NFL.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:24 PM
Wrong again. Every champion in every league matters if its to that league alone. But when compared to others( like old ones to SBs) then the clearly greater league means more. The NFL was not greater than the AFL just cause you think it had better talent.
Time to come back as Dark Saint or ElidaMANing.

We're just making fun of you. Its OK. Consider yourself hugged.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 09:28 PM
And where did they eventually go? The NFL.
Yes, they eventally went to the NFL, and many are HOFers. So, during the years that they were in the USFL they were legitimate NFL talent, which weakened the NFL during those years. Just because they didn't merge doesn't mean a thing.... what about a legitimate SB champion in those years?

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:31 PM
Yes, they eventally went to the NFL, and many are HOFers. So, during the years that they were in the USFL they were legitimate NFL talent, which weakened the NFL during those years. Just because they didn't merge doesn't mean a thing.... what about a legitimate SB champion in those years?
Zim...I realized a few minutes ago that this guy is that poster with all the different screen names.
He's basically a Morehead stalker named Dark Saint and ElidaManing,
I forgot that this was his other handle.
We've been duped by a moron. I'm man enough to admit it.

In other words, we are wasting our time.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:33 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Yes, they eventally went to the NFL, and many are HOFers. So, during the years that they were in the USFL they were legitimate NFL talent, which weakened the NFL during those years. Just because they didn't merge doesn't mean a thing.... what about a legitimate SB champion in those years? Your not talking about. You're talking about them permanently being in the USFL. The AFL wasn't like that. People didn't move onto the NFL after being in the AFL like they do with the USFL. They stayed in the AFL. The AFL was bigger than any of the minor leagues now. There wasn't 1 universal pro football league. If anything there was 2. Both of which were bigger than the USFL.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 09:34 PM
I can't continue this ridiculous dialogue. I'm with Morehead... Consider yourself hugged.
I do feel, now that you have so eloquently expalined why there are so many sham years where the NFL has deluded itself regarding a Champion, that you inform the Giants and all other NFL Champps before 1967, and advise them that their Championships are no longer recognized.
Has Goodell contacted you yet regarding his replacement candidates?

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:37 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
Zim...I realized a few minutes ago that this guy is that poster with all the different screen names.He's basically a Morehead stalker named Dark Saint and ElidaManing,I forgot that this was his other handle.We've been duped by a moron. I'm man enough to admit it.In other words, we are wasting our time. Wait what? This is my thread. How am I stalking you if you came on my thread? You started talking to me. I have no quarrel against you. I have my own thread introducing myself. Are you talking about the 4th and 1 guy?

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:40 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
I can't continue this ridiculous dialogue. I'm with Morehead... Consider yourself hugged.I do feel, now that you have so eloquently expalined why there are so many sham years where the NFL has deluded itself regarding a Champion, that you inform the Giants and all other NFL Champps before 1967, and advise them that their Championships are no longer recognized.Has Goodell contacted you yet regarding his replacement candidates? Can you please read what Im writing? i never said that they dont matter. i said theyre lesser compared to SBs. Of course they're recognized but so are the AFL rings( look it up) but this NFL is both of those leagues combined so it only makes sense that THIS NFLs championship would mean more since its literally the NFL and AFL championships combined.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:40 PM
Wait what? This is my thread. How am I stalking you if you came on my thread? You started talking to me. I have no quarrel against you. I have my own thread introducing myself. Are you talking about the 4th and 1 guy?
I'm sorry when I heard the name calling I just assumed..............

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:42 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football. Sorry lost my cool.
I'm sorry when I heard the name calling I just assumed..............

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:44 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
I'm sorry when I heard the name calling I just assumed.............. Listen can we just say agree to disagree? I have a baby doll I have to care for school and I've been typing this whole thing on an IPOD.

zimonami
04-23-2013, 09:45 PM
Zim...I realized a few minutes ago that this guy is that poster with all the different screen names.
He's basically a Morehead stalker named Dark Saint and ElidaManing,
I forgot that this was his other handle.
We've been duped by a moron. I'm man enough to admit it.

In other words, we are wasting our time.
OMG... I can't stop smiling. I feel so stupid. hahaha. TY, MH, I would have argued forever if I hadn't taken your cue to just disengage peacefully.
But, now that I realeize what a duped dunce I've been, I take my hug away.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:46 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
OMG... I can't stop smiling. I feel so stupid. hahaha. TY, MH, I would have argued forever if I hadn't taken your cue to just disengage peacefully.But, now that I realeize what a duped dunce I've been, I take my hug away. Read my last comment to MH.

Morehead State
04-23-2013, 09:51 PM
Read my last comment to MH.
"Dumbasses" and "you are not very bright".
Now you have been called out so your tone is more civil. Interesting.
So 4th and 1 is another one of your handles. I forgot that one.

GentleGiant
04-23-2013, 09:54 PM
I'm not belittling the NFL. I'm just saying the merger was a business decision.The AFL really never existed as a real football competitor of the NFL before the first SB. They were really not as good as the NFL until the actual merger in 1970.Top to bottom, they were inferior to the NFL.My point is that the NFL championship before the suberbowl was the championship of the best teams and players in the world. The Superbowl started before the AFL was really anywhere near as good as the NFL.In other words, there was never any "sub championship" or anything close to it before the SB era. The NFL chamionship was the true championship of pro football.
"Dumbasses" and "you are not very bright".Now you have been called out so your tone is more civil. Interesting.So 4th and 1 is another one of your handles. I forgot that one. I told you I lost my cool. Ok? I have friends on here. I didn't know someone was stalking you.

SweetZombieJesus
04-24-2013, 07:30 AM
Neither did the AFL teams compare for their first 7 years, but you discount that. You CANNOT discount the USFL simply because they didn't merge. They had doazens of legitimate NFL quality players. Merging or not merging is often a function of the money involved and the strength of fan following to confirm legitimacy.

Exactly, lots of top quality players came from the USFL -- among them Steve Young, Jim Kelley, and Reggie White.

Therefore the 83 Redskins, 84 49ers, and 85 Bears Super Bowls are now reduced to "sub-championships" because they didn't play the USFL champion in the Ultra Bowl.

SweetZombieJesus
04-24-2013, 07:35 AM
The steelers beat the supposedly better NFL 4 times( despite you saying theyre bad).

The Steelers were an NFL team that got moved to the AFC in 1970. So one NFL team beat another NFL team.


The niners have 5 but they were AAFC first. I guess all five of those were flukes too?

The 49ers' first championship in 1981 is 32 years removed from their last year in the AAFC. The Steelers' first championship is 4 years removed from being an NFL/NFC team. Catching the drift yet?


Just admit that you're NFC bias. Tell me that Im wrong for saying the old championships don't compare but then tell me which AFL SBs were legit based off your own stupid biased opinion? Pathetic.

They're all legit. I'm just saying 5 of them were won by former NFL teams immediately after the merger, and only 6 SBs were won by legitimate AFL teams in the first 20 years.

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 07:39 AM
The Steelers were an NFL team that got moved to the AFC in 1970. So one NFL team beat another NFL team.The 49ers' first championship in 1981 is 32 years removed from their last year in the AAFC. The Steelers' first championship is 4 years removed from being an NFL/NFC team. Catching the drift yet?They're all legit. I'm just saying 5 of them were won by former NFL teams immediately after the merger, and only 6 SBs were won by legitimate AFL teams in the first 20 years. 1 AFL team is all I need. The USFL wasn't as big as the AFL. Players played in the USFL with the intention of eventually going to the NFL. Not the case with the AFL, to AFL players, the AFL WAS the top.

The USFL was a minor league. The AFL and NFL were major leagues. Catching the drift yet?

SweetZombieJesus
04-24-2013, 07:41 AM
What about my question regarding the NHL?

And the NBA-ABA merger?


Hey dumbass. Way to show me you can't read. I don't recall the USFL ever merging with other relevant leagues?

And until 1970 the NFL didn't merge with other relevant leagues either. Yet those championships are "sub-championships".

SweetZombieJesus
04-24-2013, 07:46 AM
1 AFL team is all I need.

So one Super Bowl win in 20 is proof of the "AFL killing the NFL". Gotcha.


The USFL wasn't as big as the AFL.

You're right, the USFL wasn't as big as the AFL. It was bigger. The AFL had 8 teams when it merged. The USFL had 18 teams.


Players played in the USFL with the intention of eventually going to the NFL. Not the case with the AFL, to AFL players, the AFL WAS the top.

No they didn't, players in the USFL were drafted in college with the intention of being stars in a competing league -- exactly like what happened with the AFL-NFL rivalry in the 1960s. Players only moved to the NFL when the league folded after the 1985 season. Many great players like Jim Kelley, Reggie White, Steve Young, etc, which clearly invalidates the 1983-1985 Super Bowls as "sub-championships" because the USFL had great players.


The USFL was a minor league. The AFL and NFL were major leagues. Catching the drift yet?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between minor and major leagues, among other things. You could call the World League of American Football minor leagues because it was run by the NFL. You could call Arena Football League minor leagues because the NFL has a stake in it. But not the CFL, not the USFL, not the UFL.

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 07:46 AM
And the NBA-ABA merger?And until 1970 the NFL didn't merge with other relevant leagues either. Yet those championships are "sub-championships".Yeah. That's my point. We're comparing an NFL that wasn't merged to one that is. You don't have to merge but the current NFL already raised the standard by basically saying that merging with other leagues is the only way to be bigger than them.

SweetZombieJesus
04-24-2013, 07:52 AM
Wrong again. Every champion in every league matters if its to that league alone. But when compared to others( like old ones to SBs) then the clearly greater league means more. The NFL was not greater than the AFL just cause you think it had better talent.

The NFL had more history (1920 vs 1960). The NFL had more teams (16 vs 10). The NFL made more money. Pretty clear that this was not a merger of equals. The NFL absorbed the AFL. Kept the NFL headquarters, name, and logo. And moved 3 teams into the AFC to balance out their superiority.


I just caught up with Moorehead's posts a few pages back, let me remove the hook from my mouth and move on...

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 08:06 AM
So one Super Bowl win in 20 is proof of the "AFL killing the NFL". Gotcha. You're right, the USFL wasn't as big as the AFL. It was bigger. The AFL had 8 teams when it merged. The USFL had 18 teams.No they didn't, players in the USFL were drafted in college with the intention of being stars in a competing league -- exactly like what happened with the AFL-NFL rivalry in the 1960s. Players only moved to the NFL when the league folded after the 1985 season. Many great players like Jim Kelley, Reggie White, Steve Young, etc, which clearly invalidates the 1983-1985 Super Bowls as "sub-championships" because the USFL had great players.Apparently you don't understand the difference between minor and major leagues, among other things. You could call the World League of American Football minor leagues because it was run by the NFL. You could call Arena Football League minor leagues because the NFL has a stake in it. But not the CFL, not the USFL, not the UFL.Yeah sure kid. Who ever said that the most teams means bigger? How about a league that's actually stable, doesn't have financial problems as soon as it starts, then collapses after 4 years. Yeah those players CLEARLY wanted to stay there. The CFL and WFL aren't even American leagues. AAh the superior NFL. The superior NFL that needed the AFL. The superior NFL that despite your ignorance, is not undefeated against the AFL. The superior NFL despite the fact that the NFC has the most expansion teams.Clearly your too ignorant to see this. Who cares about history? The cardinals are the oldest franchise. That doesn't make them relevant. Screw the talent. It's all about the money? You literally just argued against the others points. You don't get it. You don't to merge but if you want to be bigger than the current NFL you do? The NFL then was the biggest but the now NFL( different NFL)raised the standard.

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 08:14 AM
So one Super Bowl win in 20 is proof of the "AFL killing the NFL". Gotcha. You're right, the USFL wasn't as big as the AFL. It was bigger. The AFL had 8 teams when it merged. The USFL had 18 teams.No they didn't, players in the USFL were drafted in college with the intention of being stars in a competing league -- exactly like what happened with the AFL-NFL rivalry in the 1960s. Players only moved to the NFL when the league folded after the 1985 season. Many great players like Jim Kelley, Reggie White, Steve Young, etc, which clearly invalidates the 1983-1985 Super Bowls as "sub-championships" because the USFL had great players.Apparently you don't understand the difference between minor and major leagues, among other things. You could call the World League of American Football minor leagues because it was run by the NFL. You could call Arena Football League minor leagues because the NFL has a stake in it. But not the CFL, not the USFL, not the UFL. Yet you said I should count the minor leagues. Can you please next time actually offer stable leagues that ARE AMERICAN?

The ABA and NBA don't play each other for the championship. The AFL and NFL do.

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 08:18 AM
Wow. So everyone that questions your guys opinions are trolls?

dezzzR
04-24-2013, 12:56 PM
They merged in 1970. NOT 1966. They just decided to play a game with each league's champions, which turned into the SB.
The "merger" happened when the AFL and NFL became the "NFL" with Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh moving to the new "AFC".They signed the deal in 66, thats why I put they completely merged in 70 in parenthesis.

Morehead State
04-24-2013, 01:55 PM
They signed the deal in 66, thats why I put they completely merged in 70 in parenthesis.
I was there Dez.... I know what happened.

dezzzR
04-24-2013, 02:13 PM
I was there Dez.... I know what happened.I bet you were you old bastad.

Morehead State
04-24-2013, 02:17 PM
I bet you were you old bastad.
They shared the draft earlier but the official merger did not happen until the 1970 season.
In other words, the changeover of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cleveland didn't happen until 1970. And the AFL was disbanded and its teams joined the NFL in 1970.


And I AM old....but I'm well perserved.

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 04:58 PM
They shared the draft earlier but the official merger did not happen until the 1970 season.In other words, the changeover of Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cleveland didn't happen until 1970. And the AFL was disbanded and its teams joined the NFL in 1970.And I AM old....but I'm well perserved. You mean AFL and NFL formed to make a new league called the current NFL?

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 06:28 PM
The NFL had more history (1920 vs 1960). The NFL had more teams (16 vs 10). The NFL made more money. Pretty clear that this was not a merger of equals. The NFL absorbed the AFL. Kept the NFL headquarters, name, and logo. And moved 3 teams into the AFC to balance out their superiority.I just caught up with Moorehead's posts a few pages back, let me remove the hook from my mouth and move on... Would you not want to have your HQ in the biggest city in the US and media center of the US?

Doesn't matter what the NFL was to the AFL. The NFL considers the AFL legit. Else the titans wouldn't have banners to the AFL.


And yet most of the expansion teams are in the NFC.

Yes cause 3 teams means the NFL was SOOOOO far ahead. And you still haven't acknowledge the fact that the browns came from the AAFC and dominated the NFL( proving that the NFL wasn't so dominate.

And if you think the niners winning 30 yr later means something( like that playing in the NFL league somehow made them better after coming from the AAFC) then that's sad. The packers were bad for 15 yr and they played in the great NFL league. So were the steelers. The NFL was not high and above everyone else. The niners, colors, and people still descended from the AAFC. So your wrong. There weren't just 6 SB. The steelers people didn't change cause they went to the AFC central to the AFC north.

And while the AAFC was not as stable as the NFL or AFL( you need to have been a stable, American, major league to compete which is why the USFL, UFL, and CFL dont qualify) the AAFC proved that talent isn't just in the NFL.

No kid. The AFL helped make this league therefore the AFL is equal to the NFL in the sense of the SB.

"......merger discussions to unify the older NFL teams and the AFL......."


Doesn't sound like an absorption to me.

The merger paved the way for the combined league, which retained the "National Football League" name and logo, to become one of the most popular sports leagues in the United States. Source Wikipedia.

Obviously it was a diff league. Look up any story of the merger. You'll never hear about one league absorbing into another.

The NFL took players from the AFL DUMBASS! The giants were actually the first to do it. A superior league doesn't ASK for other leagues players. If its a lesser league the players come to them. You don't need to be from the NFL to have the NFL praise you. Ever heard of Walter Camp?

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 06:36 PM
So one Super Bowl win in 20 is proof of the "AFL killing the NFL". Gotcha. You're right, the USFL wasn't as big as the AFL. It was bigger. The AFL had 8 teams when it merged. The USFL had 18 teams.No they didn't, players in the USFL were drafted in college with the intention of being stars in a competing league -- exactly like what happened with the AFL-NFL rivalry in the 1960s. Players only moved to the NFL when the league folded after the 1985 season. Many great players like Jim Kelley, Reggie White, Steve Young, etc, which clearly invalidates the 1983-1985 Super Bowls as "sub-championships" because the USFL had great players.Apparently you don't understand the difference between minor and major leagues, among other things. You could call the World League of American Football minor leagues because it was run by the NFL. You could call Arena Football League minor leagues because the NFL has a stake in it. But not the CFL, not the USFL, not the UFL. No 1 SB is proof that despite what you said the NFL wasn't far beyond the AFL.
Not to mention the franchises from the AFL have been consistent( titans/oilers, jets etc).

GentleGiant
04-24-2013, 07:02 PM
My head is spinning from all your knowledge.But may I say that you aren't especially Gentle. I'm guessing your not a Giant either.
No matter what you say, you can't tell me why the current NFL acknowledges the AFL. The titans have AFL banners. The browns have AAFC banners. Obviously they were legit( even if the AAFC was unstable and couldn't live long).

The niners that won the 5 SB are still the same as the AAFC niners. They didn't just improve cause they were in the NFL. Who cares if it was 30 yr? The packers had a lot of bad old years and they played in the great NFL. So your wrong. It wasn't just 6 SB.

No kid. The AFL helped make this league so the old NFL is equal to the AFL in the sense of championships.

The merger paved the way for the combined league, which retained the "National Football League" name and logo, to become one of the most popular sports leagues in the United States.

Source Wikipedia. Obviously it was a diff league. Look up any story of the merge. It never talks about one league absorbing into another.

RugDaniels
04-27-2013, 09:17 AM
Redskins fans a creeping up there for me. Their team's won one playoff game since the internet started and are tripping over each other to post 'HTTR' related posts wherever the can. As obnoxious as Redskins fans have been since they rediscovered their bravado halfway through last season the crown for worst fans in foot remains where it's been for years and years and years. With Eagles fans. They're the worst by a mile.