+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 22 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 219
  1. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    'If the NFL was so big the niners and browns (AAFC teams) wouldn't have moved there.
    What???


    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    The NFL recognizes the AFL championships along with NFL championships
    Oh really? Where?

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    Your drunk.
    My drunk what?

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SweetZombieJesus; 04-22-2013 at 12:24 PM.

  2. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    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?
    Last edited by zimonami; 04-22-2013 at 01:53 PM.

  3. #133
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-22-2013 at 03:32 PM.

  4. #134
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-22-2013 at 07:59 PM.

  5. #135
    Starter
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Yonkers, NY
    Posts
    165
    Eagles!

  6. #136
    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 at 08:28 AM.

  7. #137
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote 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 at 03:32 PM.

  8. #138
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,013
    Quote 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?
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

  9. #139
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote 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 at 03:47 PM.

  10. #140
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,013
    Quote 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".
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

Posting Permissions

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