+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 22 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 219

Thread: Who are the worst fans in the NFL?

  1. #151
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    43,947
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

  2. #152
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013 at 05:22 PM.

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SweetZombieJesus; 04-23-2013 at 05:31 PM.

  4. #154
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    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

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SweetZombieJesus; 04-23-2013 at 05:38 PM.

  6. #156
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013 at 06:06 PM.

  7. #157
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    43,947
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

  8. #158
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    43,947
    Quote Originally Posted by GentleGiant View Post
    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.
    "Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi

  9. #159
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013 at 07:39 PM.

  10. #160
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Philipsburg, PA
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    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
    Last edited by GentleGiant; 04-23-2013 at 06:51 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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