Steelers did not make it to the play-offs
-
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.
-
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.
No, you are wrong. There were two champions.
Gipper, it doesn't matter what you prove to him because he edits out what ain't convenient. His franchise gets the same astericks - they're giving Mark McGwire today. How much did those counterfeit rings really mean when Mike Webster sold every damn one of them to a pawn shop? It sounded like Steve Courson had the same guilty conscience because he stopped wearing his rings.
Bottom line: The Browns were in 10 consecutive Pro Football Championships:
1946 (won)
1947 (won)
1948 (won)
1949 (won)
1950 (won)
1951 (lost)
1952 (lost)
1953 (lost)
1954 (won)
1955 (won)
How many Pro teams in ANY sport made the Championship 10 consecuitive years? Cleveland won 70% of those suckers in that 10 year period. That's easily the BEST dynasty pro football has ever seen.
1964 (won)
Is it any wonder WHY Pittsburgh wanted to emulate Cleveland by going after Paul Brown's pupil Chuck Noll? And when it was time to replace Noll - didn't they grab yet another former Cleveland Brown player by the name of Bill Cowher? And what about the BEST team in the 70s that went PERFECT without steroids + a backup QB starting most of their games? Along came another former Cleveland Brown by the name of Don Shula to lead his Miami Dolphins team into 3 consecutive Superbowls (after he had Baltimore in a Superbowl or two). Imagine that!
If you go by the most Championship victories - the best QB of all time is Otto Graham. Any historian will tell you the best RB to ever suit up in the pros is Jim Brown. It is what it is.
The inconvenient truth remains: without the Cleveland Browns there still would be no such thing as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
- Tom F.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
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.
LOL ...Delusional No Other response necessary.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
3-9 , 3-9 , The Colts and 49ers records in 1st year after the Teams entered the NFL from the AAFC. The Browns stacked squad clearly the Class of this Awesome "League".
And the Browns were a free spending team using the Fame of Paul Brown to Stack that team .
Quite an advantage , especially in an age where Football players were looking to Maximize salaries.
Black players were excluded from the NFL from 1934 to 1945.. the AACF started in 1946 .. The NFL had already started to sign and Play black players. The AAFC was NOT the NFL. They had ONE Team that was NFL Caliber. Be Proud that was you team. But thats all there is to it.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
3-9 , 3-9 , The Colts and 49ers records in 1st year after the Teams entered the NFL from the AAFC. The Browns stacked squad clearly the Class of this Awesome "League".
And the Browns were a free spending team using the Fame of Paul Brown to Stack that team .
Quite an advantage , especially in an age where Football players were looking to Maximize salaries.
Black players were excluded from the NFL from 1934 to 1945.. the AACF started in 1946 .. The NFL had already started to sign and Play black players. The AAFC was NOT the NFL. They had ONE Team that was NFL Caliber. Be Proud that was you team. But thats all there is to it.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
3-9 , 3-9 , The Colts and 49ers records in 1st year after the Teams entered the NFL from the AAFC. The Browns stacked squad clearly the Class of this Awesome "League".And the Browns were a free spending team using the Fame of Paul Brown to Stack that team .
Quite an advantage , especially in an age where Football players were looking to Maximize salaries.
So your argument is that we were the best team in both the NFL and AAFC, and that we were only good because we had a great coach? Yeah, I'd buy that.
And I didn't realize players today weren't trying to maximize their salaries. I was always under the assumption that they wanted to make the most money possible, how foolish of me to assume.
Try again.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
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.
LOL ...Delusional No Other response necessary.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
LOL ...Delusional No Other response necessary.Your lack of a response was evidence enough that you have no valid response. My seven year old cousin employs this same tactic when she realizes that she's wrong. She simply says "You're crazy", and then huffs and puffs her way to her room, where she then slams the door.
You guys would probably be great friends.
-
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
3-9 , 3-9 , The Colts and 49ers records in 1st year after the Teams entered the NFL from the AAFC. The Browns stacked squad clearly the Class of this Awesome "League".And the Browns were a free spending team using the Fame of Paul Brown to Stack that team .
Quite an advantage , especially in an age where Football players were looking to Maximize salaries.
So your argument is that we were the best team in both the NFL and AAFC, and that we were only good because we had a great coach? Yeah, I'd buy that.
And I didn't realize players today weren't trying to maximize their salaries. I was always under the assumption that they wanted to make the most money possible, how foolish of me to assume.
Try again.
So your argument is that we were the best team in both the NFL and AAFC, and that we were only good because we had a great coach? Yeah, I'd buy that.
And I didn't realize players today weren't trying to maximize their salaries. I was always under the assumption that they wanted to make the most money possible, how foolish of me to assume.
Try again.
No You had ALL the elements lining up to be a Magnet to players. And Damn... You guys were the Class of Football... at least by year 3 you were. You all should be proud of that Team. But the NFL doesn't recognize the Titles. And its been rehashed over and over. Its delusional to count them as NFL Titles. And if they are NOT NFL titles . who cares ? You guys thats it. The rest of us dont recognize them as anything but Titles in a secondary League. Same as it ever was....
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
Formerly Stone said:
Now there is a disillusion, bitter, post!Bottom line: The Browns were in 10 consecutive Pro Football Championships:
1950 (won)
1951 (lost)
1952 (lost)
1953 (lost)
1954 (won)
1955 (won)
3 wins ...3 losses in the NFL. Impressive but Not DOMINANT !! 4 of 6 would have been wow , and 5 of 6 WOW !! Quit sniffing your own Azz.
-
No, you are wrong. There were two champions.
Gipper, it doesn't matter what you prove to him because he edits out what ain't convenient. His franchise gets the same astericks - they're giving Mark McGwire today. How much did those counterfeit rings really mean when Mike Webster sold every damn one of them to a pawn shop? It sounded like Steve Courson had the same guilty conscience because he stopped wearing his rings.
Bottom line: The Browns were in 10 consecutive Pro Football Championships:
1946 (won)
1947 (won)
1948 (won)
1949 (won)
1950 (won)
1951 (lost)
1952 (lost)
1953 (lost)
1954 (won)
1955 (won)
How many Pro teams in ANY sport made the Championship 10 consecuitive years? Cleveland won 70% of those suckers in that 10 year period. That's easily the BEST dynasty pro football has ever seen.
1964 (won)
Is it any wonder WHY Pittsburgh wanted to emulate Cleveland by going after Paul Brown's pupil Chuck Noll? And when it was time to replace Noll - didn't they grab yet another former Cleveland Brown player by the name of Bill Cowher? And what about the BEST team in the 70s that went PERFECT without steroids + a backup QB starting most of their games? Along came another former Cleveland Brown by the name of Don Shula to lead his Miami Dolphins team into 3 consecutive Superbowls (after he had Baltimore in a Superbowl or two). Imagine that!
If you go by the most Championship victories - the best QB of all time is Otto Graham. Any historian will tell you the best RB to ever suit up in the pros is Jim Brown. It is what it is.
The inconvenient truth remains: without the Cleveland Browns there still would be no such thing as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
- Tom F.
Gipper, it doesn't matter what you prove to him because he edits out what ain't convenient. His franchise gets the same astericks - they're giving Mark McGwire today. How much did those counterfeit rings really mean when Mike Webster sold every damn one of them to a pawn shop? It sounded like Steve Courson had the same guilty conscience because he stopped wearing his rings.
Bottom line: The Browns were in 10 consecutive Pro Football Championships:
1946 (won)
1947 (won)
1948 (won)
1949 (won)
1950 (won)
1951 (lost)
1952 (lost)
1953 (lost)
1954 (won)
1955 (won)
How many Pro teams in ANY sport made the Championship 10 consecuitive years? Cleveland won 70% of those suckers in that 10 year period. That's easily the BEST dynasty pro football has ever seen.
1964 (won)
Is it any wonder WHY Pittsburgh wanted to emulate Cleveland by going after Paul Brown's pupil Chuck Noll? And when it was time to replace Noll - didn't they grab yet another former Cleveland Brown player by the name of Bill Cowher? And what about the BEST team in the 70s that went PERFECT without steroids + a backup QB starting most of their games? Along came another former Cleveland Brown by the name of Don Shula to lead his Miami Dolphins team into 3 consecutive Superbowls (after he had Baltimore in a Superbowl or two). Imagine that!
If you go by the most Championship victories - the best QB of all time is Otto Graham. Any historian will tell you the best RB to ever suit up in the pros is Jim Brown. It is what it is.
The inconvenient truth remains: without the Cleveland Browns there still would be no such thing as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
- Tom F.
damn good post man! i said it a few weeks ago when i chose a pic of jim brown holding up the 1964 championship trophy for my sig, the browns were one of the original football dynasties and no one can deny that.
-
Zombo said:
So now you are saying that the Browns championships don't count because they were better than everybody else?Zombo
-
So your argument is that we were the best team in both the NFL and AAFC, and that we were only good because we had a great coach? Yeah, I'd buy that.
And I didn't realize players today weren't trying to maximize their salaries. I was always under the assumption that they wanted to make the most money possible, how foolish of me to assume.
Try again.
No You had ALL the elements lining up to be a Magnet to players. And Damn... You guys were the Class of Football... at least by year 3 you were. You all should be proud of that Team. But the NFL doesn't recognize the Titles. And its been rehashed over and over. Its delusional to count them as NFL Titles. And if they are NOT NFL titles . who cares ? You guys thats it. The rest of us dont recognize them as anything but Titles in a secondary League. Same as it ever was....
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
No You had ALL the elements lining up to be a Magnet to players. And Damn... You guys were the Class of Football... at least by year 3 you were. You all should be proud of that Team. But the NFL doesn't recognize the Titles. And its been rehashed over and over. Its delusional to count them as NFL Titles. And if they are NOT NFL titles . who cares ? You guys thats it. The rest of us dont recognize them as anything but Titles in a secondary League. Same as it ever was....So, we have to be at fault because we knew how to run a franchise? I'm failing to see your argument. It just sounds like you're agreeing with me over and over again.
The NFL doesn't have to recognize the titles, they weren't won in the NFL. Instead they were won in a league where any NFL team would have been second-best, as proved by the Browns sheer dominance upon their admittance into the NFL. The Pro Football Hall of Fame does recognize the titles, however, and I'll stick with that.
The fact of the matter is that the Browns have won more league championship than the Steelers. You can't argue with it, it's the truth. It's backed by facts. It happened.
-
Is it any wonder WHY Pittsburgh wanted to emulate Cleveland by going after Paul Brown's pupil Chuck Noll? And when it was time to replace Noll - didn't they grab yet another former Cleveland Brown player by the name of Bill Cowher? And what about the BEST team in the 70s that went PERFECT without steroids + a backup QB starting most of their games? Along came another former Cleveland Brown by the name of Don Shula to lead his Miami Dolphins team into 3 consecutive Superbowls (after he had Baltimore in a Superbowl or two). Imagine that!
If you go by the most Championship victories - the best QB of all time is Otto Graham. Any historian will tell you the best RB to ever suit up in the pros is Jim Brown. It is what it is.
The inconvenient truth remains: without the Cleveland Browns there still would be no such thing as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
LOL..Ok , I agree Chuck Noll came from Winning and Rooney had to think "Hey this guy is worth a Shot". But Cowher played for a Browns team that was know for Close but NO Cigar. Add to that bill Cowher was Pittsburgh Born and Bred.
Otto Graham hilarious... Couldn't start for Half the NFL Teams Today. Jim Brown was truly a one of a kind player. The Browns do indeed play a part in the Steelers legacy , especially with Noll.
Thanks for being our Coaching "University". Too bad your front office had NO IDEA what they had in Chuck Noll. Of course with out Bradshaw , Swann , Stallworth , Greene , Greenwood , Hamm , Lambert , Blount , Harris .... On and On. Chuck Noll would have never been either.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
Formerly Stone said:
Isn't it funny that Browns fans imagine so many things.....they can invent all kinds of things to make the Browns look good and even more things to make the Steelers look bad.Only on a forum dedicated to disillusion Steeler haters!
This forum is dedicated to the Browns. It's just overrun by dimwitted nobheads such as yourself. It would be helpful if you at least knew a smidgen about the things you argue about, but just like any Steeler fan, you're completely ignorant.
Have a nice day.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
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.
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.
it sure looks like the nfl recongnized the browns championship in this pic that was taken in 2004. paul taglibue (nfl commish at the time) presented this trophy to the members of the 64 championship team.
-
Is it any wonder WHY Pittsburgh wanted to emulate Cleveland by going after Paul Brown's pupil Chuck Noll? And when it was time to replace Noll - didn't they grab yet another former Cleveland Brown player by the name of Bill Cowher? And what about the BEST team in the 70s that went PERFECT without steroids + a backup QB starting most of their games? Along came another former Cleveland Brown by the name of Don Shula to lead his Miami Dolphins team into 3 consecutive Superbowls (after he had Baltimore in a Superbowl or two). Imagine that!
If you go by the most Championship victories - the best QB of all time is Otto Graham. Any historian will tell you the best RB to ever suit up in the pros is Jim Brown. It is what it is.
The inconvenient truth remains: without the Cleveland Browns there still would be no such thing as the Pittsburgh Steelers.
LOL..Ok , I agree Chuck Noll came from Winning and Rooney had to think "Hey this guy is worth a Shot". But Cowher played for a Browns team that was know for Close but NO Cigar. Add to that bill Cowher was Pittsburgh Born and Bred.
Otto Graham hilarious... Couldn't start for Half the NFL Teams Today. Jim Brown was truly a one of a kind player. The Browns do indeed play a part in the Steelers legacy , especially with Noll.
Thanks for being our Coaching "University". Too bad your front office had NO IDEA what they had in Chuck Noll. Of course with out Bradshaw , Swann , Stallworth , Greene , Greenwood , Hamm , Lambert , Blount , Harris .... On and On. Chuck Noll would have never been either.
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Otto Graham hilarious... Couldn't start for Half the NFL Teams Today. Jim Brown was truly a one of a kind player. The Browns do indeed play a part in theOf course he couldn't. He'd 89 years old. I'd like to see any 89 year old try and play professional football.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Formerly Stone said:
Isn't it funny that Browns fans imagine so many things.....they can invent all kinds of things to make the Browns look good and even more things to make the Steelers look bad.Only on a forum dedicated to disillusion Steeler haters!
This forum is dedicated to the Browns. It's just overrun by dimwitted nobheads such as yourself. It would be helpful if you at least knew a smidgen about the things you argue about, but just like any Steeler fan, you're completely ignorant.
Have a nice day.
This forum is dedicated to the Browns. It's just overrun by dimwitted nobheads such as yourself. It would be helpful if you at least knew a smidgen about the things you argue about, but just like any Steeler fan, you're completely ignorant.
Have a nice day.
Just another dumb-ass comment from you. Lets lump "ALL" in the same boat. Thats as dumb as a Steeler fans saying ALL the Browns players suck. You sound like the Bitter prejudice imbecile that you make yourself out to be.
Climbing the Stairway...To SEVEN !! -
FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Otto Graham hilarious... Couldn't start for Half the NFL Teams Today. Jim Brown was truly a one of a kind player. The Browns do indeed play a part in theOf course he couldn't. He'd 89 years old. I'd like to see any 89 year old try and play professional football.
Of course he couldn't. He'd 89 years old. I'd like to see any 89 year old try and play professional football.
More Brain Surgery from a man needing a Brain Surgeon aka TCPO !!! I think you know I meant in his Prime . 6`1`` what a Buck ninety five. With a 5.1 40 yrd dash. Lucky he played against DB and LBs running the same speed.
.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