Steelers did not make it to the play-offs
-
Formerly Stone said:
See what I mean? Most of the members here seem to spend more time hating some aspect of the Steelers organization or it's fans than they do understanding the Browns ......although Kathy seldom dwells on it like most others.
Kathy, if you think it's tough to handle the fans of a great organization you should try putting up with the disillusion fans of a terrible organization who used to be a great organization ......... eons ago!
Well, I try to avoid the fans that irritate me by staying home. Sadly, the source of my annoyance keeps arriving uninvited, creating a nuisance. Perhaps if you stayed home, your problem and mine would be resolved.
Woof Woof, Kathy http://cognitivemanifesto.com/ http://www.skadden.com/index.cfm?contentID=49&officeID=9 Bendix ESP -
Sorry freakish, no bitterness here.
Just a keen disdain for a whole bunch of johnnycomelately squeeler fans that decided the steelers were going to the super bowl
for the first time, and looney rooney. But, I don't miss Cowher's spittle splashing up on the tv camera's during the superbowls.
I won't miss the worst of steeler trolls when they decide to talk about their own football team somewhere else.
After all, it not our Browns' fault, nor our fault, that the steriodals and their bandwagoner "fans" are so boring they come here
and troll.
Sorry freakish, no bitterness here.
Just a keen disdain for a whole bunch of johnnycomelately squeeler fans that decided the steelers were going to the super bowl
for the first time, and looney rooney. But, I don't miss Cowher's spittle splashing up on the tv camera's during the superbowls.
I won't miss the worst of steeler trolls when they decide to talk about their own football team somewhere else.
After all, it not our Browns' fault, nor our fault, that the steriodals and their bandwagoner "fans" are so boring they come here
and troll.
LOL...BITTER Fan is the Phrase that comes to mind. But you go ahead and live in denial. Its what you do best. This is the only place in America where Obsession on Pittsburgh is Daily and never ending. You embarrass yourselves. DAILY and Never ending so it seems...
-
Formerly Stone said:
You're making a big leap in assuming he is a man! That much whining could only come from a spoiled brat.You got me there Stoney... A Kid a wench or a Cross dressing Homo... Much larger possibilities of being accurate.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Funny how you would count AAFC titles but when it is pointed out that the Browns weren't the undisputed champions in 1964 because the Buffalo Bills won the AFL title in 1964 Browns fans will rush to tell you that the AFL didn't count.Things that make you go hmmm...
-
Formerly Stone said:
You're making a big leap in assuming he is a man! That much whining could only come from a spoiled brat.It's cute how you two converse. You're like soul mates. All you have is each other.
It's really just like a Lifetime movie.
-
The only championships that are counted are those in the NFL and the two leagues that merged with the NFL: the AFL and AAFC.
If I had wanted to do it the way you claim I have done it, I could have. I could have included some from defunct leagues and predecessor leagues. The fact of the matter is that the NFL is indeed the successor of the "Ohio League" and some compilations even include the Ohio League titles in their list of Professional Football League titles. And here is that list:
Game scores marked with a † (1921 and 1932) were not official championship games, but were the deciding games in determining a championship and also the last games played in a season.
1902 (NFL1902) - Pittsburgh Stars 11, Philadelphia Athletics 0
There was no NFL in 1902 it was formed in Canton in 1920.
There was no NFL in 1902 it was formed in Canton in 1920.
Right, which is why I don't count it. I only count the NFL and leagues that merged with it.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Funny how you would count AAFC titles but when it is pointed out that the Browns weren't the undisputed champions in 1964 because the Buffalo Bills won the AFL title in 1964 Browns fans will rush to tell you that the AFL didn't count.I don't know any Browns fans that say the AFL didn't count? Any more than they would think the Eagles title of 1948 wouldn't count. They say that they think if the Browns and Bills played that they believe the Browns would have won, but that is all speculation. The AFL, and the Bills 1964 title do count.
-
There was no NFL in 1902 it was formed in Canton in 1920.
Right, which is why I don't count it. I only count the NFL and leagues that merged with it.
Right, which is why I don't count it. I only count the NFL and leagues that merged with it.
Gip the AAFC didnt merge with it. Teams FROM the AAFC were granted entry , but not even Half of them... not a merger. I see what your saying though.
-
Right, which is why I don't count it. I only count the NFL and leagues that merged with it.
Gip the AAFC didnt merge with it. Teams FROM the AAFC were granted entry , but not even Half of them... not a merger. I see what your saying though.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Gip the AAFC didnt merge with it. Teams FROM the AAFC were granted entry , but not even Half of them... not a merger. I see what your saying though.Most sources call it a merger. You can call it an absorption. It was as much of one as when the ABA "merged"/was absorbed by the NBA, or when the WHA "merged/was absorbed by the NHL.
In the history of all major professional sports in this country, the only "new leagues" to maintain any sort of continuing identity if you will were the American League in Baseball, and the AFL in football which morphed into the AFC.
(If you think about it, I personally prefer the retention of those identities. I don't like the NBA and NHL deals where East must always meet West. It is more interesting to have the possibility say of a New York/New York or San Francisco/Oakland World Series or Super Bowl. In the NBA/NHL you always have to have one team from the East and one team from the West.)
-
Formerly Stone said:
So who won the championship in 1964, the Bills or the Browns?Easy: Both
That is just the way it was. We have had a few years at times when you had two champs: late 40s and early 60s.
Again, the same was true in Basketball. e.g. from 1968 through about 1976 you had two professional basketball champions: ABA and NBA. At that point several teams from the ABA joined the NBA (Spurs/Pacers/Nets/Nuggets) Same with hockey with the WHA which had champions from about 1972 though 1979. Then several of those teams merged into the NHL (Winnipeg Jets nka Phoenix Coyotes, Quebec Nordiques nka Colorado Avalanche, New England Whalers nka Carolina Hurricane, and the Edmonton Oilers)
-
Formerly Stone said:
So who won the championship in 1964, the Bills or the Browns?Easy: Both
That is just the way it was. We have had a few years at times when you had two champs: late 40s and early 60s.
Again, the same was true in Basketball. e.g. from 1968 through about 1976 you had two professional basketball champions: ABA and NBA. At that point several teams from the ABA joined the NBA (Spurs/Pacers/Nets/Nuggets) Same with hockey with the WHA which had champions from about 1972 though 1979. Then several of those teams merged into the NHL (Winnipeg Jets nka Phoenix Coyotes, Quebec Nordiques nka Colorado Avalanche, New England Whalers nka Carolina Hurricane, and the Edmonton Oilers)
Again, the same was true in Basketball. e.g. from 1968 through about 1976 you had two professional basketball champions: ABA and NBA.
Exactly! No one is denying the Celtics dynasty. Even when they had 12 teams in the league and had the ABA. Anyone, nope, thought so, bitches.
Luck is Tim Couch. Big, Dumb Goofy, slow thinking QB - Ghoolie, 2-28-12 -
Again, the same was true in Basketball. e.g. from 1968 through about 1976 you had two professional basketball champions: ABA and NBA.
Exactly! No one is denying the Celtics dynasty. Even when they had 12 teams in the league and had the ABA. Anyone, nope, thought so, bitches.
Exactly! No one is denying the Celtics dynasty. Even when they had 12 teams in the league and had the ABA. Anyone, nope, thought so, bitches.
If the ABA and the NBA had had some kind of "Basketball Super Bowl" in those years, I suspect the Celtics would probably have won....but you never really know. NO ONE thought the Jets would win SB III. Hey, maybe those Pittsburgh Pipers with Connie Hawkins, Charlie Williams, and Chico Vaughn could have taken out Russell/Havlicek et al.
Hawkins was a definite horse, no doubt. See this link:
-
You Pittsburghers could have yourself a sweet throwback uni if you could get a hold of one of these babies. A Connie Hawkins Pipers warmup jacket.
-
Just this past December the New Orleans Hornets donned the throwback jerseys of the New Orleans Buccaneers who lost that title series to those Peetown Pipers. Here is a photo of Chris Paul in one of those jerseys:
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont...?urn=nba,186133
Another view of those New Orleans Buccaneers....who, by the way, until the Saints this week, were the ONLY team from New Orleans to make the finals of a major American sports league.
-
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Gip the AAFC didnt merge with it. Teams FROM the AAFC were granted entry , but not even Half of them... not a merger. I see what your saying though.Most sources call it a merger. You can call it an absorption. It was as much of one as when the ABA "merged"/was absorbed by the NBA, or when the WHA "merged/was absorbed by the NHL.
In the history of all major professional sports in this country, the only "new leagues" to maintain any sort of continuing identity if you will were the American League in Baseball, and the AFL in football which morphed into the AFC.
(If you think about it, I personally prefer the retention of those identities. I don't like the NBA and NHL deals where East must always meet West. It is more interesting to have the possibility say of a New York/New York or San Francisco/Oakland World Series or Super Bowl. In the NBA/NHL you always have to have one team from the East and one team from the West.)
Most sources call it a merger. You can call it an absorption. It was as much of one as when the ABA "merged"/was absorbed by the NBA, or when the WHA "merged/was absorbed by the NHL.
In the history of all major professional sports in this country, the only "new leagues" to maintain any sort of continuing identity if you will were the American League in Baseball, and the AFL in football which morphed into the AFC.
(If you think about it, I personally prefer the retention of those identities. I don't like the NBA and NHL deals where East must always meet West. It is more interesting to have the possibility say of a New York/New York or San Francisco/Oakland World Series or Super Bowl. In the NBA/NHL you always have to have one team from the East and one team from the West.)
pota~to Potat~o I guess. Anyway , The AAFC had a few good Squads (Yes One Outstanding squad) ... But as a League. Left a little to be desired .
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
Again, the same was true in Basketball. e.g. from 1968 through about 1976 you had two professional basketball champions: ABA and NBA.
Exactly! No one is denying the Celtics dynasty. Even when they had 12 teams in the league and had the ABA. Anyone, nope, thought so, bitches.
Exactly! No one is denying the Celtics dynasty. Even when they had 12 teams in the league and had the ABA. Anyone, nope, thought so, bitches.
exactly! this is one example out of many to prove that the browns titles in the past are still as good as gold (or platinum lol) today. trolls want to get all technical when it comes to the browns championship titles though and be unfair.
if the teams were so weak back then and it was so easy to win a championship, how come the stoolers couldn't win one back then? how come they got ran over and abused by the browns so much and couldn't win a title back then if it was so easy? yeah, that's what i thought.
the cleveland browns are one of the original football dynasties, regardless of what anyone says.
-
That's an awesome joke dude. It sure took you a long time to write. Did you, like- kick back with a cold one and get all psyched to type that word for word? It sure was worth it- I laughed!
-
Most sources call it a merger. You can call it an absorption. It was as much of one as when the ABA "merged"/was absorbed by the NBA, or when the WHA "merged/was absorbed by the NHL.
In the history of all major professional sports in this country, the only "new leagues" to maintain any sort of continuing identity if you will were the American League in Baseball, and the AFL in football which morphed into the AFC.
(If you think about it, I personally prefer the retention of those identities. I don't like the NBA and NHL deals where East must always meet West. It is more interesting to have the possibility say of a New York/New York or San Francisco/Oakland World Series or Super Bowl. In the NBA/NHL you always have to have one team from the East and one team from the West.)
pota~to Potat~o I guess. Anyway , The AAFC had a few good Squads (Yes One Outstanding squad) ... But as a League. Left a little to be desired .
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
pota~to Potat~o I guess. Anyway , The AAFC had a few good Squads (Yes One Outstanding squad) ... But as a League. Left a little to be desired .Right, being probably the superior league, it did leave little to be desired. FYI, the AAFC in fact had better overall attendance than the NFL during the years they competed with each other. They paid their players better. The AAFC had numerous black players when the NFL had none. And FYI, the three teams (or successors) of the AAFC that survived have won 13 NFL titles since 1950, and may be in the verge of a 14th. that is nearly 24% of all the titles competed for since that "merger".
What it did leave to be desired was competitive balance. At the time, the Browns were just too good for everybody.
-
Formerly Stone said:
Wrong answer! There is only one champion! This is exactly the point I was driving at from the beginning.....back in the 40's, 50's and 60's when there was little or no structure, and people used different criteria to declare whatever champion they liked it simply doesn't equate to today's definition of "a champion".No, you are wrong. There were two champions. There was clear structure. Don't know what is unclear to you. There was the NFL and its champion. And there was the AAFC and its champion, then later the AFL and its champion.
The criteria wass that you won the championship game of these respective leagues. Any moron with a 25 IQ who can count to 2 can figure this out.
Yes, there were competing leagues, and competing champions. And it all eventually got ironed out through the mergers that occurred, first the AAFC, then the AFL mergers with the NFL so that ultimately a single champion could be named.
But certainly, for anyone with an above kindergarten education it was simple to figure out.
In 1964 the Browns were NFL Champions and the Buffalo Bills were AFL champions.
And in 1966, it was decided these ttwo leagues should move to decide which of the winner's of the two leagues should become the single champion.
I know you are not as stupid as you profess such that you can't count to two. And you are not that ignorant either.
You fully comprehend the facts, and the truth. Its just that you want to play your little Joseph Goebbels role and apply warped and twisted propaganda for your own ends.
Even Goebbels could count to 2.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login