Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who are the worst fans in the NFL?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SweetZombieJesus; 04-23-2013, 08:28 AM.
    8-Time NFL Champions - 1927 1934 1938 1956 1986 1990 2007 2011

    "You win close games because you're prepared to do it. It doesn't just come down to luck." -- Bill Parcells

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
      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.
      Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013, 03:32 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
        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?
        Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
          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.
          Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013, 03:47 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
            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".
            Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                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".
                Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                Comment


                • And here I thought this thread was about the worst fans in the league?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                    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,
                    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013, 04:25 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                      So since the AFL and NFL merged in 1966 (1970 they integrated schedules), the Eagles championship doesnt count, right?
                      When compared to SBs? Yes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by keyofgmen View Post
                        And here I thought this thread was about the worst fans in the league?
                        Blame SZJ.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
                          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:




                          $$$$$$$$$$$$
                          Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                            Here's the reason:$$$$$$$$$$$$
                            That shouldnt put them ahead of the AFL. I'm sure the AFL had similar reasons.
                            Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013, 04:28 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GentleGiant View Post
                              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.
                              Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X