Green Bay closing in on Cleveland
-
Hey Gipper. Take a moment and think about what you're doing.
Sad, isn't it.
I'm sorry the Steelers reached the Super Bowl again. It is tough take. i agree. I don't like it at all.
But you pathetic attempts to grab any dignity and success and attribute it to the Browns, is heartbreaking to watch. I almost expect you to include Soap Box derby championships that happened in Akron.
Consider this an intervention.
The Soldier said:
Hey Gipper. Take a moment and think about what you're doing.Sad, isn't it.
I'm sorry the Steelers reached the Super Bowl again. It is tough take. i agree. I don't like it at all.
But you pathetic attempts to grab any dignity and success and attribute it to the Browns, is heartbreaking to watch. I almost expect you to include Soap Box derby championships that happened in Akron.
Consider this an intervention.
Steelers? This thread was mainly about the Green Bay Packers.
-
You keep referring to talking s***. The OP stated GB was one behind Cleveland in professional football titles. What's the problem again?
Isn't it time to troll the Bengals or Ravens board?
You keep referring to talking s***. The OP stated GB was one behind Cleveland in professional football titles. What's the problem again?
Isn't it time to troll the Bengals or Ravens board?
Check. All I did was count up the titles won in the various geographic regions as they were listed in on the pro-football-reference website, which was also reflected on the Pro Football HOF website and on Wikipedia, and numerous other places.
Maybe these trolls have a certain anathema to the act of counting. Latent fear of Kindergarten?
They also seemed to have a problem with the fact that I added Canton and Akron with Cleveland. Yet they didn't object to combining LA and Anaheim, or SanFran/Oakland/San Jose, or the New York Market, or Boston/Providence.
Perhaps I should go back and edit the original post to call it the Green Bay/Milwaukee market, because, yes, as someone pointed out, for many years the Packers played about a third of their games in Milwaukee. Would they have objected to that? At one time Milwaukee did have teams in the NFL, though they never won a title.
-
Mr. Gipper,
You never cited specific references other than vaguely referring to NFL rules for TV coverage. So I'll agree with you that we refer to NFL rules to decide your championships. First I can find no record of any team from Akron or Canton in the NFL (you may submit links in your replies to demonstrate otherwise). By NFL rules the Browns accomplishments prior to joining the NFL are not recognized. The Browns were considered an "expansion" team of the 1950 season. Since you played against the Philadephia in 1950 to decide the national champion of 1949, that will count as one championship for your franchise. The NFL also recognizes your championships from 1950, 1954, 1955 and 1964. Totalling that up equals a grand total of 5 championships, which is less than your hated rivals.
Prior to joining the NFL, your team played primarily against other Ohio based teams. There were roughly around 7 teams from Cleveland, Akron and Canton areas combined. These were seperate teams, each competing against one another. If one of these teams won, typically someone else with deeper pockets bought out all of their players. Cleveland did not win the championships, the seperate cities, or even the seperate regions of those particular cities did. Trying to claim them to boost your ego and falsely promote the football greatness of your city is sad and pathetic.
Endymion said:
Mr. Gipper,You never cited specific references other than vaguely referring to NFL rules for TV coverage.
This isn't a doctoral thesis, and I am not getting paid to do this, so I don't know that I had to cite reference. Furthermore, I did cite my source: pro-football-reference.
So I'll agree with you that we refer to NFL rules to decide your championships.
No, I dont' agree with that. The NFL has proven to be petty when it comes to the AAFC and NFL.com has refused to "recognize" the AAFC records. And the reason they did this was because Bert Bell who was the Commissioner of the NFL and the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles refused to allow the NFL to recognize the legitimacy of the AAFC equality or perhaps superiority over the NFL. Why? Because he was petty, jealous and bitter over the ass-kicking that the Browns gave his Eagles in that first ever meeting between them in 1950 after the leagues merged. Every other authority except the official NFL recognizes the Browns AAFC titles.
In this regard you simply have to ask two questions: are or are not the Cleveland Browns a franchise of the National Football League? Yes. Did or did not the Cleveland Browns win titles in the years 1946-1949? Yes. So, every authority counts those titles but that one.
First I can find no record of any team from Akron or Canton in the NFL (you may submit links in your replies to demonstrate otherwise).
Are you serious? Where did you look? Only in the vacuous space between your ears? I don't need to give you links to prove that the Akron and Canton teams won titles in the NFL. It is common knowledge even amongst the most uninformed of people.
By NFL rules the Browns accomplishments prior to joining the NFL are not recognized.
I explained above why the NFL rules are based on jealousy, pettiness, and bitterness. They seem a lot like you.
Do you squirm and whine this much on your job?
The Browns were considered an "expansion" team of the 1950 season. Since you played against the Philadephia in 1950 to decide the national champion of 1949, that will count as one championship for your franchise. The NFL also recognizes your championships from 1950, 1954, 1955 and 1964. Totalling that up equals a grand total of 5 championships, which is less than your hated rivals.
Count them up. Thirteen. No squirming by you will make them go away.
Prior to joining the NFL, your team played primarily against other Ohio based teams. There were roughly around 7 teams from Cleveland, Akron and Canton areas combined. These were seperate teams, each competing against one another. If one of these teams won, typically someone else with deeper pockets bought out all of their players. Cleveland did not win the championships, the seperate cities, or even the seperate regions of those particular cities did. Trying to claim them to boost your ego and falsely promote the football greatness of your city is sad and pathetic.
I didn't claim the Ohio League titles....only the NFL titles and leagues that merged into the NFL won by teams in NE Ohio.
What is pathetic is you attempt to boost your ego and falsely denigrate the titles won by those teams from Northeast Ohio.
Again, all I did was count the ones on the list. I guess the real question is: Why do you Pittsburghers have such an inferiority complex about this?
Do you also object to the inclusion of the Dallas Texans title in the count that I made for Dallas?
Do you object to the Frankford Yellow Jackets in the count I made for Philadelphia? Frankford was a suburb of Philly.
Do you object to the inclusion of the Providence Steam Roller title under the Boston/Providence count? FYI, the New England Patriots today play their games closer to the center of Providence than to the center of Boston.
Maybe we should carry your pettiness to the ultimate. Maybe we should only award Pittsburgh with titles won in Heinz Field. How can you possibly claim anything other than that when those old games were played in a different location!!!
Maybe we should count only the titles won by the Irving Cowboys, and if that team wins any more titles in their new location we must count them separate as the Arlington Cowboys.
Sad and pathetic is right....on your part.
-
One conclusion that may be drawn from these lists: That football has been the most "democratic" of the 4 sports.
Baseball has obviously been dominated by New York and the Yankees and their money. For a long time hockey had been dominated by Montreal. I am not sure if "big money" was a factor then. It is less so now. Basketball has, except for a brief interim here or there been dominated by two teams. The Lakers and Celtics.
Football on the other had has been much more spread around and even in the cities that have earned titles.
For a long time hockey had been dominated by Montreal. I am not sure if "big money" was a factor then. It is less so now.
Prior to 1963 The Montreal Canadiens had exclusive rights to all French Canadian players and all players born in Quebec. That advantage help them all the way into the mid-70's because the young players they signed before the proprietary rule was changed.
-
For a long time hockey had been dominated by Montreal. I am not sure if "big money" was a factor then. It is less so now.
Prior to 1963 The Montreal Canadiens had exclusive rights to all French Canadian players and all players born in Quebec. That advantage help them all the way into the mid-70's because the young players they signed before the proprietary rule was changed.
Prior to 1963 The Montreal Canadiens had exclusive rights to all French Canadian players and all players born in Quebec. That advantage help them all the way into the mid-70's because the young players they signed before the proprietary rule was changed.
Thanks. I did not know that. That certainly would have given them an advantage in that sport.
Could you imagine if something like that was done in football?
Actually, I think something like that was done in the USFL or WFL or some such league wasn't it?...
In fact, in looking it up I do see that the USFL had it. Here is a blurb from Wiki regarding rules of the USFL that differed from the NFL:
The two-point conversion (since adopted by the NFL, in 1994).
The college rule of stopping the clock after first downs was used only for the final two minutes of each half.
For the 1985 season, a method of challenging officials' rulings on the field via instant replay (using a system that is almost identical to that used by the NFL today).
A salary cap of $1.8 million to reduce inevitable losses and spread talent throughout the league. The NFL introduced a salary cap in 1994.
A territorial draft, in hopes of stocking teams with local stars to help the gate. (Similar to the proposed All-American Football League)
-
Some of you ask why I didn't include titles won in the likes of the USFL or the XFL in my championship tally: For one reason: those leagues were neither absorbed nor merged with the NFL, unlike both the AFL and the AAFC. None of the teams from those leagues still exist. The AFL is of course represented by the AFC, and the AAFC has continued membership in the NFL with the Browns, 49ers, and the presumptive Colts. Those 3 teams alone represent 13 NFL titles in the intervening years. So what they did in the AAFC counts.
That does not mean that I would not have like to have seen the USFL merge with the NFL. On the contrary. A lot of the problems and issues with franchise movement would have been solved in my opinion if several of the USFL franchises had been absorbed by the NFL. Example, if the NFL had taken on the Arizona Wrangler USFL franchise, then that market would not have been open for Bidwill to move the Cardinals there, thus leaving them in St. Louis, which then would not have been open for Georgia Frontiere to move the Rams there.
Had the Memphis Showboats been absorbed, the presence of that franchise might have kept Bud Adams from moving the Oilers to Tennessee from Houston. And of course if the Baltimore Stars franchise, which may have been the most successful of the USFL teams had been absorbed Baltimore would not have been open for Modell to have attempted his move there.
If the Oakland Invaders had been absorbed then Al Davis who had already moved to LA would not have been able to move back there.
Large markets like New York and LA could have had 2-3 teams. In my opinion the NYC area could have easily supported 3 teams: Jets, Giants, and New Jersey Generals. LA could have probably kept The Raiders and also have The Express. the San Antonio Gunslingers could have been part of the league. The expansion that occurred later with the Jags (Jacksonville Bulls), Panthers, Ravens, and Texans would not have been necessary. (though I realize that NFL owners wanted it because it meant big $$$ in their pockets for expansion fees, which they might not have gotten from the USFL teams.)
-
Now come on now BUNSofSTEEL08.. you're starting to melt. You're teams going to the Super Bowl for pete's sake. Why so mad?
I have an idea.. how bout you keep on "walking by". Getting melty on what's said on a 5-11 team's board is awfully pathetic.
DUDE... I am 90% Positive toward you guys. By why do I need to hear S*** and walk on by ? Why dont you guys just ignore the Pittsburgh Steelers ? Or at the very least be rational ?
DUDE... I am 90% Positive toward you guys. By why do I need to hear S*** and walk on by ? Why dont you guys just ignore the Pittsburgh Steelers ? Or at the very least be rational ?
This thread was designed as a question about the Green Bay--Cleveland connection. The Steelers WERE ignored in this thread, other than listing them along with the 20 or so other communities that won titles at some point in time. It was your ilk that turned into another psychotic steeler fan episode.
-
you are right - Super Bowls are B.S. who needs them? The Browns have proven that those types of championships are irrelevant when you look at the history of the game.
-
mikeyP72 said:
Besides the 70's and this decade, your franchise has been abysmal. When you were good you were really good though and if you win this one, 3 in a decade is a really fine accomplishment.Semantics aside, the Browns have won their fair share of championships.
Recognize them or don't, no one is asking you to and quite frankly I could care less. But realize that Gipper isn't making the stuff up. Under his parameters that he set and used from other sources, which he stated, this list is the outcome.
Come up with something different that proves him wrong and make your own list. Crying and moaning on a Cleveland Browns board while your team is heading into the super bowl (in a post not even directed at you) shows how much the Browns franchise success, although not recent, must still get under your skin.
Talk your s*** now and enjoy it. You and I both know better days are coming for the Browns and things here, in NE Ohio all the way down to that sewer city of yours will be a changin'.
See ya soon douche bags.
Mike
How can you say the Steelers were absymal in the 80's and 90's, I think that is far from it.
1999 6 10 0 4th
1998 7 9 0 3rd
1997 11 5 0 1st Playoffs
1996 10 6 0 1st Playoffs
1995 11 5 0 1st Playoffs
1994 12 4 0 1st Playoffs
1993 9 7 0 2nd Playoffs
1992 11 5 0 1st Playoffs
1991 7 9 0 2nd
1990 9 7 0 3rd
1989 9 7 0 2nd Playoffs
1988 5 11 0 4th
1987 8 8 0 3rd
1986 6 10 0 3rd
1985 7 9 0 2nd
1984 9 7 0 1st Playoffs
1983 10 6 0 1st Playoffs
1982 6 3 0 4th Playoffs
1981 8 8 0 2nd
1980 9 7 0 3rd
-
In terms of championships, the NFL’s official position is to promote championships beginning with the start of the Super Bowl era. The NFL has chosen to recognize the accomplishments of earlier eras, primarily through the Hall of Fame and by maintaining records of wins an loses of team match-ups from their inclusion into the NFL.
Further, the NFL only counts pre-Super Bowl championships (for Hall of Fame players) that occurred within the context of the NFL. Of all the cities affected by the NFL’s view of championships, the city of Cleveland appears to have the most trouble with how football history is handled. When the AAFC folded, the Browns were one of three teams that “merged” with the NFL. The term “merged” is used loosely, because the city of Cleveland did not have the leverage that the AFL would later have with the NFL.
While Browns fans may feel slighted as a result of the merger, the terms of the deal were clear to them at the time, in that the NFL would not recognize the “championships” obtained in their former league. So history as written by the NFL claims that the city of Cleveland has a total of 4 “NFL” championships (not 8). Had the tables been reversed and the AAFC were the more viable of the two leagues, football history would have been remembered differently. History in and of itself though is almost always told through the eyes of the victors.
Many have complained that other sports recognize past championships equally, so the NFL must as well. The NFL is a different sport and how they choose to address their past was similar to the way in which history has been handled with BC/AD. While fans of certain teams may disagree, the NFL is the authority in the sport of football and that is how they have chosen to handle their sport. However, most of what might be called “revisionist” history was brought upon by the negotiating power of the AFL and their merger into the NFL.
As time marches on and those who remember the football eras preceding the Super Bowl begin to disappear from the earth the minor controversy of excluding the pre-superbowl championships from discussion will essentially disappear. Further, even Super Bowls of different eras are considered to weigh differently. As the NFL adds more teams the chances of acquiring a trophy become harder. For example, the Browns won their first three (non-NFL) titles in an 8 team league, and the fourth in a seven team league. Those odds 12.5% (14.3%) are significantly better than the current odds of 3.1%.
Also of note is the fact that over the years the NFL has put rules in place to keep teams from gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Pre-Superbowl powerhouses could essentially stockpile the best players (as the Yankees do in modern baseball). The advent of the salary cap, revenue sharing and free agency have made acquiring a Super Bowl victory and subsequently creating a dynasty very difficult endeavors.
Further, there are no official NFL or non-NFL records that I can find which attribute championships of Akron and/or Canton directly to the city of Cleveland. From the official standpoint of the NFL, Cleveland has no Super Bowl appearances and therefore no world championships. As time marches on, footnotes of their previous 4 NFL championships will fade from mention.
-
you are right - Super Bowls are B.S. who needs them? The Browns have proven that those types of championships are irrelevant when you look at the history of the game.
you are right - Super Bowls are B.S. who needs them? The Browns have proven that those types of championships are irrelevant when you look at the history of the game.
Whoever said that? Super Bowls are NFL championships.
-
In terms of championships, the NFL’s official position is to promote championships beginning with the start of the Super Bowl era. The NFL has chosen to recognize the accomplishments of earlier eras, primarily through the Hall of Fame and by maintaining records of wins an loses of team match-ups from their inclusion into the NFL.
Further, the NFL only counts pre-Super Bowl championships (for Hall of Fame players) that occurred within the context of the NFL. Of all the cities affected by the NFL’s view of championships, the city of Cleveland appears to have the most trouble with how football history is handled. When the AAFC folded, the Browns were one of three teams that “merged” with the NFL. The term “merged” is used loosely, because the city of Cleveland did not have the leverage that the AFL would later have with the NFL.
While Browns fans may feel slighted as a result of the merger, the terms of the deal were clear to them at the time, in that the NFL would not recognize the “championships” obtained in their former league. So history as written by the NFL claims that the city of Cleveland has a total of 4 “NFL” championships (not 8). Had the tables been reversed and the AAFC were the more viable of the two leagues, football history would have been remembered differently. History in and of itself though is almost always told through the eyes of the victors.
Many have complained that other sports recognize past championships equally, so the NFL must as well. The NFL is a different sport and how they choose to address their past was similar to the way in which history has been handled with BC/AD. While fans of certain teams may disagree, the NFL is the authority in the sport of football and that is how they have chosen to handle their sport. However, most of what might be called “revisionist” history was brought upon by the negotiating power of the AFL and their merger into the NFL.
As time marches on and those who remember the football eras preceding the Super Bowl begin to disappear from the earth the minor controversy of excluding the pre-superbowl championships from discussion will essentially disappear. Further, even Super Bowls of different eras are considered to weigh differently. As the NFL adds more teams the chances of acquiring a trophy become harder. For example, the Browns won their first three (non-NFL) titles in an 8 team league, and the fourth in a seven team league. Those odds 12.5% (14.3%) are significantly better than the current odds of 3.1%.
Also of note is the fact that over the years the NFL has put rules in place to keep teams from gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Pre-Superbowl powerhouses could essentially stockpile the best players (as the Yankees do in modern baseball). The advent of the salary cap, revenue sharing and free agency have made acquiring a Super Bowl victory and subsequently creating a dynasty very difficult endeavors.
Further, there are no official NFL or non-NFL records that I can find which attribute championships of Akron and/or Canton directly to the city of Cleveland. From the official standpoint of the NFL, Cleveland has no Super Bowl appearances and therefore no world championships. As time marches on, footnotes of their previous 4 NFL championships will fade from mention.
Endymion said:
In terms of championships, the NFL’s official position is to promote championships beginning with the start of the Super Bowl era.No it isn't. You are full of shit. Telling stupid lies like that simply takes away any smidgen of credibility you may have had.
The NFL has chosen to recognize the accomplishments of earlier eras, primarily through the Hall of Fame and by maintaining records of wins an loses of team match-ups from their inclusion into the NFL.
Further, the NFL only counts pre-Super Bowl championships (for Hall of Fame players) that occurred within the context of the NFL.
Again, not true. They do also count AFL titles.
The NFL doesn't have the right to make any rules in this regard.
Of all the cities affected by the NFL’s view of championships, the city of Cleveland appears to have the most trouble with how football history is handled. When the AAFC folded, the Browns were one of three teams that “merged” with the NFL. The term “merged” is used loosely, because the city of Cleveland did not have the leverage that the AFL would later have with the NFL.
I don't think "The City of Cleveland", i.e. the governmental organization gives a crap or ever attempted to "handle" anything associated with this. I don't think the city....or even the Browns organization for that matter ever attempted to use any leverage to get the NFL to "recognize" their AAFC titles. I don't think they care. They won the titles. They have the trophies. What the NFL chooses or doesn't choose to recognize is no sweat off their backs. They leave it to the media and other entities like, say, the Hall of Fame to sort it out. All I have done is reproduce the title count that most of those media outlets and the Hall of Fame have provided. Sorry that it rocks your world.
While Browns fans may feel slighted as a result of the merger, the terms of the deal were clear to them at the time, in that the NFL would not recognize the “championships” obtained in their former league.
I don't think there was any "Deal" made by the Browns with the NFL over their AAFC titles. I don't think the Browns cared whether the NFL recognized them or not. They knew they were the best team in football in either league. They proved that on the field. They didn't need Bert Bell's recognition. I simply described why Bert Bell made the decision he did in his jealous and bitter mind. You must be a Bert Bell disciple.
So history as written by the NFL claims that the city of Cleveland has a total of 4 “NFL” championships (not 8).
First off, history is not written by the NFL....any more than it is written by Holocaust deniers like you. (Guys like you would deny, apparently, that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII). And no one said that the Browns won 8 NFL titles.
Had the tables been reversed and the AAFC were the more viable of the two leagues, football history would have been remembered differently. History in and of itself though is almost always told through the eyes of the victors.
History, in a free society, is written by the historians, the journalists, the commentators etc.
But facts are facts. It is a fact that the Cleveland Browns are a Professional football franchise. It is a fact that they won the 8 overall titles, 4 in the NFL, 4 in the AAFC. It is a fact that other teams from NEOpolitan (as the NorthEast Ohio Metorpolitan area is colloquially referred to) won 13 overall titles. It is a fact that the titles that I list in post #18 are all recognized by all authoritative media, including pro-football-reference, wikipedia, The Sporting News, the Elias Sports Bureau, etc. etc. etc.....and by that organization whose function it is to preserve the history of the pro football game...the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (Note, it is NOT the "National Football League Hall of Fame".Nothing you say, do, whine, moan, groan, complain, prevaricate, pontificate will change these facts.
Many have complained that other sports recognize past championships equally, so the NFL must as well. The NFL is a different sport and how they choose to address their past was similar to the way in which history has been handled with BC/AD. While fans of certain teams may disagree, the NFL is the authority in the sport of football and that is how they have chosen to handle their sport. However, most of what might be called “revisionist” history was brought upon by the negotiating power of the AFL and their merger into the NFL.
Except, of course, you are wrong. The NFL may handle their business however they choose. That doesn't mean that they are the be all and end all authority of how the history of football is dispensed in this country. I mentioned some of the other authorities...and there are likely hundreds more on the subject.
I do see, however, that you at least admit that you are attempting to engage in "revisionist" history in order to support your delusion.
As time marches on and those who remember the football eras preceding the Super Bowl begin to disappear from the earth the minor controversy of excluding the pre-superbowl championships from discussion will essentially disappear. Further, even Super Bowls of different eras are considered to weigh differently. As the NFL adds more teams the chances of acquiring a trophy become harder. For example, the Browns won their first three (non-NFL) titles in an 8 team league, and the fourth in a seven team league. Those odds 12.5% (14.3%) are significantly better than the current odds of 3.1%.
Also of note is the fact that over the years the NFL has put rules in place to keep teams from gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Pre-Superbowl powerhouses could essentially stockpile the best players (as the Yankees do in modern baseball). The advent of the salary cap, revenue sharing and free agency have made acquiring a Super Bowl victory and subsequently creating a dynasty very difficult endeavors.
Further, there are no official NFL or non-NFL records that I can find which attribute championships of Akron and/or Canton directly to the city of Cleveland. From the official standpoint of the NFL, Cleveland has no Super Bowl appearances and therefore no world championships. As time marches on, footnotes of their previous 4 NFL championships will fade from mention.
Aside from the ignorance displayed about what history will and won't recognize (we still have months in our calendar named after Roman Gods and Emperors. Do you think history will remember them)....all you have managed to point out is that the game of football has evolved, and will continue to evolve.
That doesnt mean that the history of the game will not be recognized. If the older titles are going to "fade from mention", then why hasn't it happened already. Why do the titles from the 20s etc. still get list in as I said, all the media outlets that I took the winners I had in post 18 in their records.
Somehow you seem to under the mistaken belief that I made all this up, that I fabricated it. Not at all, I merely reposted what I have found.
You may not like it. You may want to live in a Big Brother World where Eurasia is our friend and EastAsia our enemy one day, but the next day EastAsia is our friend and always has been and Eurasia is our enemy and always has been, but the rest of this country doesn't want to live in your world of propaganda. They want the simple facts, the simple truth.
And I have given the truth....but, apparently, you can't handle the truth.
-
Yes, see, I all made it up. I have such incredible power in my hands that I can effect anything, anywhere, anytime. See what I have done to these entities:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Na...ue_Championship
-
What's funny is that 50 years from now if they were to call the superbowl something else and add in about 12 more teams all these trolls would freak if you told them those lombardi trophies they won in the superbowl era didnt mean anything just like they are doing to us.
-
Formerly Sane said:
Gipper, do you work in think tank who's sole purpose in life is to find a way to say something positive about the Browns?Take this to think tank gurus and see what you can come up with, I'll even give you head start.
POOP
Poop, if you remove the smell, the toxins, and the smearyness, you have a fibrous rich healthy snack!
If you remove one of the "o" in poop, you have pop and we all love pop!
POOP, while having four letters, is made up of only two different letters which makes it a P-squared separated by an O-squared, which is drastically opposed to poop in it's natural form which is round and tapered so our buttholes don't slam shut!
Poop originates in the human body as a result of eating food...........we all love to eat!
So........."poop" is the greatest!
Whatever it is that I may thinking in my think tank, it is clearly on a higher plane of thought than what you are thinking.
Nevertheless, my original post took very little thought. I simply clicked on that website on pro-football-reference that I linked above and started counting. Pretty high level think tank stuff there.
I will say this though.... your are right: sometimes there ain't nothing like taking a good shit!
(as long as you are not constipated) -
Let's end this pathetic topic.
Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
-
Formerly Sane said:
Not at all, you're completely missing the point. It's not about the title of the championship it's about the image and the reality of the organization.For example, many of the other great teams from the era when the Browns were great have continued some level of greatness, the Browns have fallen to the basement and stayed there. The Bears, the Packers, the Giants, etc have all found periodic greatness, the Browns haven't (with the exception of the 4-5 year run in the 80's preceded and followed by futility).
The Steelers have extricated themselves from garbage to become the greatest sports franchise in the world and you bozos are the only people on the face of the earth who can't see it!
I am not sure what current success has to do with simply counting up the number of titles that have occurred in the past which is all this thread did (going from 1920-2009).
To say that the Browns have been crappy lately is so obvious its silly. Its a whole different topic for a whole different thread. Winning is cyclical.
This topic was supposed to be about one of those older, traditional teams and football cities having a chance to come up even with another older, traditional football city with the number of titles earned throughout history. The Packers have won 12 titles. All but 3 of those would be what some of your idiots like endymon would declare "irrelevent" because they were won pre-1966.
I mean, it happens all the time. Teams that were a "joke" for years become champions. See the New Orleans Saints. Teams that were great Champions become a joke. See the Oakland Raiders.
And sometimes this can happen in the blink of an eye. Rams go from 4-12 to Super Bowl victory. Patriots go from 5-11 to Super Bowl victory. The opposite can and has happened just as easily.
No one knows this better than we do. Look at the Cavaliers. Two years in a row they had the best record in basketball and coulda/perhaps shoulda won a title until whatshisname decided to quit on the team. Now they have the worst record in the NBA. They are going to have to get worse before they can get better. (just like before they got whatshisname).
-
Let's end this pathetic topic.
Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
The Soldier said:
Let's end this pathetic topic.Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
-
Formerly Sane said:
You're missing the point, it's probably because of the level you think on versus the level you think you think on
Before you checked the source you had to think "How can I post something that makes the Browns look good and tie it in to the current sports buzz being Super Bowl XLV......Oh I know, since the Packers have more world championships than anyone else in football, I will tie the Browns to the combined total of Cleveland, Akron, Canton, and any other part of the region to make the Browns look good"
It's called spinning ......and it's usually reserved for the wind bags in politics but, as you so often demonstrate, not restricted to them.
In other words....Stop always trying to make a silk purse from a pigs ass....I adlibed a bit because there really isn't anything terrible about a pigs ear
Dude, I have been carrying out this "count" on these boards for like 15 years now, going back to the AOL board. This isn't something I just started doing. And if you were paying attention I did it for the cities in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and I noted earlier that I have kept these compilations for college football and college basketball as well. In none of those other sports does Cleveland/Akron/Canton come out at the top by any means.
I have posted these lists on here at the conclusion of every sports season...winter for football, fall for baseball, summer for basketball and hockey. Whether they involve the Steelers and their idiot fans or not, I have posted these lists.
Do you want to talk about any of those?
So, clearly the answer is that it is YOU who are far more concerned about rubbing your palms together to make the Browns look bad than it is the other way around. You only pay attention to whatever is in view of your personal tunnel vision.
Clearly, it is I who see the big picture here.
-
The Soldier said:
Let's end this pathetic topic.Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
OK! Thanks for bringing this information to everyones attention. Good stuff to know!
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