Steelers did not make it to the play-offs
-
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.
-
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.
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.
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
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.
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.I don't see how he's twisting it. He just presented the facts, plain and clear, which clearly show the AAFC had better teams. From top to bottom, the NFL was more solid in terms of competition. But the AAFC's best teams were clearly head and shoulders above even the competition of the NFL, as evidenced by the Browns' first game against an NFL opponent. I believe 487 yards of total offense and a 25 point margin of victory against one of the NFL's premier defenses speak loud enough for all to hear. Don't forget the Browns' won the NFL[\b] Championship that year, with their AAFC[\b] team. If that doesn't prove anything, then you are truly thick.
The reason the NFL is around to this day is because of it's ability to recognize great teams, and realize when they were in danger. The NFL was threatened by the AAFC as well as the AFL, and recognized it. There's a reason they absolved three teams from the AAFC. They realized their potential. The Browns and 49ers had tremendous upside, talent-wise and business-wise. The Colts were a lesser team in both aspects, seeing as how Buffalo had better attendance and a better record, but Buffalo just got screwed over because of their location. The NFL realized it could benefit from taking in these teams, and it was a fantastic decision, wouldn't you say? Other than the fact that the Browns' embarassed essentially every NFL team from the get-go, the merger worked out swimmingly.
And, don't forget, we're about one year away from going back to the "No rules" era. If this CBA thing doesn't work out, it's going to be just like it was in the AAFC- money buys talent, and talent wins championships.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
and the dodecahedron is any polyhedron with twelve flat faces
-
Formerly Stone said:
I have always known I would be wrong some day.....this isn't it! Gip, you are becoming the ultimate spin master....you should work for Obama!I am not trying to downplay what the Browns did back in the 50's and 60's.....they were simply the best, as the Steelers have proven to be in modern football. Many here who really have no clue about the reality of what it takes to be great have convinced themselves that since the Browns suck and the Steelers own them then the Steelers must cheat, pay the refs, bribe the NFL.........it's really just an indication of how desperate the bitter losers are......and this forum feeds off them!
I have no problem giving the Browns the props they deserve for their accomplishments in a different era of football, just don't try to minimize what the Steelers have accomplished by spinning the truth about what football was back then. We could truthfully say that the Steelers have won far more than 6 championships because they won the AFC championship 7 times and AFC North/Central championship numerous times but that would be spinning the truth to fit the argument ........kinda like you're doing.
You are wrong this day, as you have been in the past, and probably certainly will be in the future.
Again, you want to be like the holocaust denier and try to change history by saying "it simply didn't happen". Well, it did happen. There were two champions in those various years. That is just a pure undeniable fact. Yes, it would have been nice if those teams all played off and boiled it down to a single champion. But that wasn't the case. They did eventually get around to doing that, but the FACTS are that on certain occasions America just had to live with shared titles in Professional Football, just like we have had to live with co-National Champions in College Football in numerous years. Nothing you can say or do can change those facts.
-
1965 NFL AFL Green Bay Packers (NFL,10-3-1), Buffalo Bills (AFL,10-3-1)
1964 NFL AFL Cleveland Browns (NFL,10-3-1), Buffalo Bills (AFL,12-2)
1963 NFL AFL Chicago Bears (NFL,11-1-2), San Diego Chargers (AFL,11-3)
1962 NFL AFL Green Bay Packers (NFL,13-1), Dallas Texans (AFL,11-3)
1961 NFL AFL Green Bay Packers (NFL,11-3), Houston Oilers (AFL,10-3-1)
1960 NFL AFL Philadelphia Eagles (NFL,10-2), Houston Oilers (AFL,10-4)
1949 NFL AAFC Philadelphia Eagles (NFL,11-1), Cleveland Browns (AAFC,9-1-2)
1948 NFL AAFC Philadelphia Eagles (NFL,9-2-1), Cleveland Browns (AAFC,14-0)
1947 NFL AAFC Chicago Cardinals (NFL,9-3), Cleveland Browns (AAFC,12-1-1)
1946 NFL AAFC Chicago Bears (NFL,8-2-1), Cleveland Browns (AAFC,12-2)
Here they are, here are the facts. Direct from the source.
You want to be a fu**ing ostrich and stick your head up your ass to smell your own sh** about that, fine. Just remember, no one else is interested in your sh**.
-
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.
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.OK, so, how is that any different really from today's major league baseball, or even free agency we have now in football?
Should we delegitimize all the Yankees World Series victories....or the American League merely because they could afford, or were astute enough to identify and sign the best players? (and remember, it wasn't just that the NFL teams couldn't sign many of those best players....they WOULDN'T sign them because they were black)
And by certain objective measures the AAFC was indeed initially superior: attendance, revenue, average pay given to players (though having more black players isn't an objective measure of superiority...it is a subjective measurement).
Later, yes, the competitive imbalance did create instability which led to the merger.
-
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Point taken , and I had read some of that . But come on dont twist it that the AAFC was Superior to the NFL. No one is buying that Gip. The balance issue was because No Draft and No rules...just the Best Organization went out and signed WHATEVER They wanted. That was Cleveland.I don't see how he's twisting it. He just presented the facts, plain and clear, which clearly show the AAFC had better teams. From top to bottom, the NFL was more solid in terms of competition. But the AAFC's best teams were clearly head and shoulders above even the competition of the NFL, as evidenced by the Browns' first game against an NFL opponent. I believe 487 yards of total offense and a 25 point margin of victory against one of the NFL's premier defenses speak loud enough for all to hear. Don't forget the Browns' won the NFL[\b] Championship that year, with their AAFC[\b] team. If that doesn't prove anything, then you are truly thick.
The reason the NFL is around to this day is because of it's ability to recognize great teams, and realize when they were in danger. The NFL was threatened by the AAFC as well as the AFL, and recognized it. There's a reason they absolved three teams from the AAFC. They realized their potential. The Browns and 49ers had tremendous upside, talent-wise and business-wise. The Colts were a lesser team in both aspects, seeing as how Buffalo had better attendance and a better record, but Buffalo just got screwed over because of their location. The NFL realized it could benefit from taking in these teams, and it was a fantastic decision, wouldn't you say? Other than the fact that the Browns' embarassed essentially every NFL team from the get-go, the merger worked out swimmingly.
And, don't forget, we're about one year away from going back to the "No rules" era. If this CBA thing doesn't work out, it's going to be just like it was in the AAFC- money buys talent, and talent wins championships.
I don't see how he's twisting it. He just presented the facts, plain and clear, which clearly show the AAFC had better teams. From top to bottom, the NFL was more solid in terms of competition. But the AAFC's best teams were clearly head and shoulders above even the competition of the NFL, as evidenced by the Browns' first game against an NFL opponent. I believe 487 yards of total offense and a 25 point margin of victory against one of the NFL's premier defenses speak loud enough for all to hear. Don't forget the Browns' won the NFL[\b] Championship that year, with their AAFC[\b] team. If that doesn't prove anything, then you are truly thick.
The reason the NFL is around to this day is because of it's ability to recognize great teams, and realize when they were in danger. The NFL was threatened by the AAFC as well as the AFL, and recognized it. There's a reason they absolved three teams from the AAFC. They realized their potential. The Browns and 49ers had tremendous upside, talent-wise and business-wise. The Colts were a lesser team in both aspects, seeing as how Buffalo had better attendance and a better record, but Buffalo just got screwed over because of their location. The NFL realized it could benefit from taking in these teams, and it was a fantastic decision, wouldn't you say? Other than the fact that the Browns' embarassed essentially every NFL team from the get-go, the merger worked out swimmingly.
And, don't forget, we're about one year away from going back to the "No rules" era. If this CBA thing doesn't work out, it's going to be just like it was in the AAFC- money buys talent, and talent wins championships.
Question on this CBA thing: I understand that next year may be an "uncapped" year. I assume that means that there will be no salary cap? Does that mean that one wealthy team could, if it wanted, buy up all the best free agents? I mean, could the rich as Cresus Randy Lerner buy up Julius Peppers and Brandon Marshall and DeMeco Ryans and Darren Sproles and anyone else they want? Also, just because it is an uncapped year doesn't mean that the "Draft" is going to go away.
In theory, if the Players Association wanted, I guess they could make a demand to abolish the draft and make every college player a free agent....and go to the highest bidder. Doubt that would happen.
In fact, aren't the owners looking for an additional cap on rookie salaries....a scale....so they can put more money into the hands of the proven veterans rather than the unproven rookies?
Can you answer any of these questions?
-
Zombo said:
Paul Brown, Otto Graham, Lou Groza, Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch, Len Ford, Dante Lavelli, Ace Parker, Marion Motley, Joe Perry, Y.A. Tittle and Bill Willis are just SOME of the Hall of Famers that came out of the AAFC.These are ALL-TIME NFL greats that stand above the crowd even today.
And then there is the fact that the AAFC Champions blew out the defending NFL Champion Philadelphia Eagles 35-10 in their first NFL game, and went on to win the NFL championship their very first year.
It was not a minor league, it had as good as, or better talent than the NFL as evidenced by the Browns dominance in the NFL and the number of great AAFC players that went on to star in the NFL.
Give it up, Steeler fans, the Browns were true champions eight times, and are recognized as such by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. There is nothing left to argue. They were the best.
Zombo
Great post Z Man and spot on.
The Browns own the Steelers in Championships and they didn't have to cheat to get theirs either.
-
I don't see how he's twisting it. He just presented the facts, plain and clear, which clearly show the AAFC had better teams. From top to bottom, the NFL was more solid in terms of competition. But the AAFC's best teams were clearly head and shoulders above even the competition of the NFL, as evidenced by the Browns' first game against an NFL opponent. I believe 487 yards of total offense and a 25 point margin of victory against one of the NFL's premier defenses speak loud enough for all to hear. Don't forget the Browns' won the NFL[\b] Championship that year, with their AAFC[\b] team. If that doesn't prove anything, then you are truly thick.
The reason the NFL is around to this day is because of it's ability to recognize great teams, and realize when they were in danger. The NFL was threatened by the AAFC as well as the AFL, and recognized it. There's a reason they absolved three teams from the AAFC. They realized their potential. The Browns and 49ers had tremendous upside, talent-wise and business-wise. The Colts were a lesser team in both aspects, seeing as how Buffalo had better attendance and a better record, but Buffalo just got screwed over because of their location. The NFL realized it could benefit from taking in these teams, and it was a fantastic decision, wouldn't you say? Other than the fact that the Browns' embarassed essentially every NFL team from the get-go, the merger worked out swimmingly.
And, don't forget, we're about one year away from going back to the "No rules" era. If this CBA thing doesn't work out, it's going to be just like it was in the AAFC- money buys talent, and talent wins championships.
Question on this CBA thing: I understand that next year may be an "uncapped" year. I assume that means that there will be no salary cap? Does that mean that one wealthy team could, if it wanted, buy up all the best free agents? I mean, could the rich as Cresus Randy Lerner buy up Julius Peppers and Brandon Marshall and DeMeco Ryans and Darren Sproles and anyone else they want? Also, just because it is an uncapped year doesn't mean that the "Draft" is going to go away.
In theory, if the Players Association wanted, I guess they could make a demand to abolish the draft and make every college player a free agent....and go to the highest bidder. Doubt that would happen.
In fact, aren't the owners looking for an additional cap on rookie salaries....a scale....so they can put more money into the hands of the proven veterans rather than the unproven rookies?
Can you answer any of these questions?
Question on this CBA thing: I understand that next year may be an "uncapped" year. I assume that means that there will be no salary cap? Does that mean that one wealthy team could, if it wanted, buy up all the best free agents? I mean, could the rich as Cresus Randy Lerner buy up Julius Peppers and Brandon Marshall and DeMeco Ryans and Darren Sproles and anyone else they want? Also, just because it is an uncapped year doesn't mean that the "Draft" is going to go away.
In theory, if the Players Association wanted, I guess they could make a demand to abolish the draft and make every college player a free agent....and go to the highest bidder. Doubt that would happen.
In fact, aren't the owners looking for an additional cap on rookie salaries....a scale....so they can put more money into the hands of the proven veterans rather than the unproven rookies?
Can you answer any of these questions
?The way I understand it, teams will have unlimited spending power. But, there's provisions included that will cut down on the number of FA's available. For instance, the number of seasons required to become a UFA goes up to six. Another provision states that each club will be able to use a Transition Tag on any of their unrestricted free agents. The Transition Tag is essentially just a second Franchise tag, and can be used to tie down a UFA that a team doesn't want to part with unless they get some serious reimbursement. So, while it is theoretically possible that the richest team could nab as many players as they wanted, the actual list of available and affordable FA's will be severly cut down.
And I heard they wanted a cap on rookie salaries, which I agree with, but I don't know if that's part of this whole problem or just another problem in and of itself.
I don't really have a firm grasp on this situation, it kind of all goes over my head.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
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