+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 219
  1. #111
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    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, 1977,1979, 1990,1991, 1994
    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.


    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.





    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...

  2. #112
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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...

  3. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

  4. #114
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-17-2013 at 10:15 PM.

  5. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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?

  6. #116
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-17-2013 at 10:55 PM.

  7. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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

  8. #118
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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?
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-17-2013 at 11:07 PM.

  9. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

  10. #120
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts