Go Packers!

[nickers]

Homotron said:

I'm not going to get in to a troll battle here but NFL Championships and Super Bowls are not synonymous and whats with the "I dare you bullsh.it" ? I'm also not questioning their toughness but the talent level is definitely different and with the rule changes the game has become more difficult not less difficult. And Diehard a bandwagon fan? Born and raised in Western PA, not sure where Bandwagon works in to that one. It should also be noted that the ONLY reason people are butt hurt about my comments is because the Browns don't have any Super Bowls but have plenty NFL championships. I respect the Browns franchise. You don't need to reach in every direction for some sort of legitimacy.

EDIT: and there is absolutely nothing moronic about what I said that you chose to quote. Prove otherwise. I DARE YOU! lol

theres nothing to legitimize...the Superbowl is basically the brainchild of marketing=dollars...its the age we live in...but to say those championships dont count is stupid on your part...without those "championships"...there would be no Superbowl. so if you wanna act like they never existed thats YOUR problem. Its the NFL's problem they choose to ignore it. your not as brilliant as you portend to be so dont tell me about legitimacy kid.

[BrownsBacker]

Found my Antonio Freeman jersey from '97 today, WOOT! GO PACKS!

[Vagitron]

@nickers said:

theres nothing to legitimize...the Superbowl is basically the brainchild of marketing=dollars...its the age we live in...but to say those championships dont count is stupid on your part...without those "championships"...there would be no Superbowl. so if you wanna act like they never existed thats YOUR problem. Its the NFL's problem they choose to ignore it. your not as brilliant as you portend to be so dont tell me about legitimacy kid.

Call those early championships what you want. If you want to call them Super Bowls call them Super Bowls my point isn't about what the titles are called but the game that is played during one era and the game that was played during the other. There were less teams, the talent was more diluted despite a host of great talents. The rules were drastically different and because of that winning now is much more difficult. Add in the advent of the Salary cap, managing your players, paying your players and maintaining a top tier organizations it's not small feat to win a Super Bowl. I'm not saying that the NFL championships weren't during that time and the Browns were certainly top tier. What I am saying is Super Bowls are now the measuring stick. You don't hear A TON about NFL championships from anyone but the fans from those teams with the most NFL championships and rightfully so. I never said "they never" existed and I'm not sure who you're calling a "kid" old balls.

[Vagitron]

mikeyP72 said:

Had the Browns not moved to Baltimore, we'd be stacking Super Bowl trophies onto our NFL Championships, as we will when the new Browns start winning them.

Fair enough. However I still don't understand the above. If the Browns didn't move to Baltimore how exactly would that have equated to the Browns stacking Super Bowls? The Ravens team that won in 2000 had how many Browns players? There weren't many and when the Browns left and went to Baltimore there was a complete disconnect. The Ravens are not and were not the Browns so no I don't believe you would have been "stacking super bowl titles"

[tampadawgs]

I didnt know football was around 46 yrs ago....

What I think is funny, is everybody including Steeler fans say Jim Brown was the best RB of all time, and if they do not think the best they say top 2 or 3. If you talk about teams and chamionships back then, then you get well it does not count cause they are not SuperBowls..Really???

So According to Steeler Fans no Sports were around berfore 46 yrs ago

That being said

The Yankees only have 7 titles

THe Celtics only have 9 titles and the Lakers are the Greatest of all time with 10 titles...

History as Sports we know it is not what it seems.....

[Vagitron]

mikeyP72 said:

The organization was the same. The natural evolution of the Browns could have led to super bowl titles since the Browns left in the early 90's.

We would have had a much better shot had the team not left than starting from scratch in '99 with an expansion team. Comparing the Browns to the Steelers right now is like comparing the Colts to the Jaguars and you (colts fan) chastising the Jags fan for not winning Super Bowls. Its a stupid argument.

How was the organization the same? If the Browns had not moved would they still have hired Ozzie Newsome as a executive? would they have drafted the same? Ozzie Newsome despite his ties to the Browns is a major reason for that franchise and it's success post super bowl and you can't say definitively whether or not they would have brought him. You then need to add in the fact the the Ravens have only won, one title so the stacking also doesn't apply. Really grasping straws with the above argument and I agree YOUR argument is stupid in that the current Ravens team would be the current Browns team had it not moved because that is in fact what you are implying. You're still in the North, you're still drafting rookies and signing FA's. You had how many first round picks inside the top 10 over the last 10 years? You aren't going to blame the expansion for the Browns dismal play. It's a hell of a lot more involved than that, be rest assured. Yet I'm the delusional one. lol

[Vagitron]

mikeyP72 said:

New organizations take time, it took your shitty organization 40 years. End of conversation.

I guess I'm too assume you're going to ignore my actual response and by pass the "stacking trophies" reference? And who said they don't take time? The good ones usually do hang around. Pittsburgh is a top tier organization from top to bottom, some would say a "model franchise". I at no point said the Browns wouldn't turn things around but found the "stacking trophies" reference to be pretty damn funny. Pittsburgh isn't going anywhere boys and girls. You found that out this year with the Chicken little dance after Ben got suspended. Now they're in the Super Bowl. I wonder why that happened? Must-a been the refs!

[Kennel Club]

Homotron said:

Call those early championships what you want. If you want to call them Super Bowls call them Super Bowls my point isn't about what the titles are called but the game that is played during one era and the game that was played during the other. There were less teams, the talent was more diluted despite a host of great talents. The rules were drastically different and because of that winning now is much more difficult. Add in the advent of the Salary cap, managing your players, paying your players and maintaining a top tier organizations it's not small feat to win a Super Bowl. I'm not saying that the NFL championships weren't during that time and the Browns were certainly top tier. What I am saying is Super Bowls are now the measuring stick. You don't hear A TON about NFL championships from anyone but the fans from those teams with the most NFL championships and rightfully so. I never said "they never" existed and I'm not sure who you're calling a "kid" old balls.

If the pre Super Bowl championships were so much easier to obtain how come your turdy franchise didn't win any?

[Vagitron]

@kennel-club said:

If the pre Super Bowl championships were so much easier to obtain how come your turdy franchise didn't win any?

I already answered that somewhere above. Most of you refuse to see my point but I don't blame you. I wouldn't want my championships discredited either. Best part in all of this though is there isn't a Steeler fan on this board that would bring them up or attempt to knock them down if they weren't touted around here like something supremely special. My point this entire time has been it was much easier to win NFL Championships with the rules that were in place, the talent pool present, the lack of a salary cap..etc, etc, etc than it is to win a Super Bowl now. The current measuring stick is Super Bowls and I don't believe even the Green Bay Packer fans dwell on their NFL championships. I actually know more than a few. You should ask Lerner if he'd rather have those Championships or a Super Bowl. I'd be willing to bet a lot of teams would trade them away no questions asked.

[kshutchins]

Homotron said:

I wouldn't want my championships discredited either. Best part in all of this though is there isn't a Steeler fan on this board that would bring them up or attempt to knock them down if they weren't touted around here like something supremely special. My point this entire time has been ...

So you wouldn't want your championships discredited? Then what does that tell you about how to behave as a person? Ever heard of the Golden Rule?

Your entire point has been nothing other than to aggravate the snot out of people for the sport of it. The one thing I truly hate about the internet is that it has given knuckleheads a platform for creating the impression that rudeness is cool. It isn't.

To paraphrase your own words: There isn't a Browns fan on here who would bring up Steeler Super Bowl victories or attempt to knock them down if Steeler fans weren't on here touting them as if they were something supremely special.

I suppose there are Steeler fans on some message board patting themselves on various body parts and tutoring each other on the number seven so they'll be able to count that high should it become necessary. I don't really care enough to find out nor would I attempt to stop them. In fact, I invite you to join them in that autoerotic exercise in the Steeler family bed rather than our hangout. I suppose there are some people who enjoy watching animals mating. I am not one of them.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Packers, 33-20

[Kosar_For_President]

Homotron said:

the lack of a salary cap

Dude, the leagues best player, Jim Brown made $85,000.00 in 1964 had the same buying power as $594,034.47 in 2010. What does Payton Manning make, $15.8 million?

"On July 3, 1968, after talks with the owners stalled, the NFLPA voted to strike, and the owners countered by declaring a lockout. But on July 14, the owners relented and the brief strike was over. Although the players could celebrate winning a collective bargaining agreement from the owners, the concessions they received were small. The owners compromised by agreeing to contribute about $1.5 million to the pension fund but maintained minimum salaries of $9,000 for rookies, $10,000 for veterans and $50 per exhibition game, and no independent arbitration".

Let me help you with the math, $10,000 minimum salary in 1964, has the same buying power as making $70,340.65 today (at a standard yet conservative 4.31% inflation rate). Today's NFL minimum salary is $340,000. Do you see the correlation, look at the discrepancy in today's salary, minimum at $340k to Payton Manning's $15.8mil. This is why a salary cap was created.

No salary cap? You don't think the owners would of installed a salary cap if it was needed? YES. $50 per exhibition game, lol. There wasn't one needed, numb nuts.

You sound sMartt.

[Vagitron]

@kshutchins said:

So you wouldn't want your championships discredited? Then what does that tell you about how to behave as a person? Ever heard of the Golden Rule?

Your entire point has been nothing other than to aggravate the snot out of people for the sport of it. The one thing I truly hate about the internet is that it has given knuckleheads a platform for creating the impression that rudeness is cool. It isn't.

To paraphrase your own words: There isn't a Browns fan on here who would bring up Steeler Super Bowl victories or attempt to knock them down if Steeler fans weren't on here touting them as if they were something supremely special.

I suppose there are Steeler fans on some message board patting themselves on various body parts and tutoring each other on the number seven so they'll be able to count that high should it become necessary. I don't really care enough to find out nor would I attempt to stop them. In fact, I invite you to join them in that autoerotic exercise in the Steeler family bed rather than our hangout. I suppose there are some people who enjoy watching animals mating. I am not one of them.

Oh the self righteous arrive to the debate, usually in droves. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just saying that if the situations were flipped I'd be up in arms as well. However that doesn't change my opinion or my perspective on the matter. I'm also not alone with this opinion and it's not restricted to just Steeler fans. NFL Championships are what they are and certainly were accomplishments. The Browns franchise carries the aura that it does because of those championships despite the last decade or more of dismal play. However I don't know that many will argue that it's more difficult to win Super Bowls and all anyone cares about in the here and now is Super Bowl trophies. I also can't believe you pulled the "knuckle head and aggravate the snot" out of your bag of tricks considering the company you keep on this message board. There are more than a few individuals that live and breath absolutely childish remarks for the sake of making childish remarks. Keep the self righteous BS to yourself Kathy. It is Kathy right? It's a message board. The sh.it will be slung and slung often. I've been more than civil on several occasions and could exist here without saying anything derogatory but because of the choice few mentioned above it's nearly impossible.

And once again my NFL Championships vs Super Bowls is no where close to me trying to push buttons or stir the pot. I nor the rest of the world put the same kind of stock in NFL Championships when up against Super Bowls. It is what it is.

Your post was ridiculous and nauseating. Read some of the sh.it the mental midgets post here on a regular basis and reevaluate.

[Vagitron]

@kosar_for_president said:

Dude, the leagues best player, Jim Brown made $85,000.00 in 1964 had the same buying power as $594,034.47 in 2010. What does Payton Manning make, $15.8 million?

"On July 3, 1968, after talks with the owners stalled, the NFLPA voted to strike, and the owners countered by declaring a lockout. But on July 14, the owners relented and the brief strike was over. Although the players could celebrate winning a collective bargaining agreement from the owners, the concessions they received were small. The owners compromised by agreeing to contribute about $1.5 million to the pension fund but maintained minimum salaries of $9,000 for rookies, $10,000 for veterans and $50 per exhibition game, and no independent arbitration".

Let me help you with the math, $10,000 minimum salary in 1964, has the same buying power as making $70,340.65 today (at a standard yet conservative 4.31% inflation rate). Today's NFL minimum salary is $340,000. Do you see the correlation, look at the discrepancy in today's salary, minimum at $340k to Payton Manning's $15.8mil. This is why a salary cap was created.

No salary cap? You don't think the owners would of installed a salary cap if it was needed? YES. $50 per exhibition game, lol. There wasn't one needed, numb nuts.

You sound sMartt.

Not that point numb nuts but I figured you would have gathered that much on your own. Teams in the NOW have to deal with the salary cap, outrageous contracts and the agent agenda. It makes it MUCH more difficult now to field a dominant team and THAT WAS MY POINT. I figured for someone "SO SMART" you would have figured that out and applied it accordingly. It's much more difficult to win a Super Bowl and that is a documented FACT. "You're so smart"

[Vagitron]

mikeyP72 said:

No, it is what it is to your fan base because you have NONE.

Not at all but hey if it makes you feel better. The same stock isn't applied to NFL Championships anywhere outside of Cleveland. Hell the prefect place to start would be Green Bay because they have both. Ask them which set means more.

[The Gipper]

Homotron said:

Not at all but hey if it makes you feel better. The same stock isn't applied to NFL Championships anywhere outside of Cleveland. Hell the prefect place to start would be Green Bay because they have both. Ask them which set means more.

1 means 1.

You get 1 for 1929, you get 1 for 1996.

No 2 for 1 coupons are issued. To the people living in Green Bay in 1929 the title meant the same as the one in 1996 meant to those people.

See: Here is one:

And here is another one. It is a different one, but it is still just one:

[The Gipper]

Even if this is Dan Rooney's hand, you still only get one per finger.

[Vagitron]

@the-gipper said:

1 means 1.

You get 1 for 1929, you get 1 for 1996.

No 2 for 1 coupons are issued. To the people living in Green Bay in 1929 the title meant the same as the one in 1996 meant to those people.

See: Here is one:

And here is another one. It is a different one, but it is still just one:

lol. I won't lie. I enjoyed this

and my points still stand and stand tall. I don't think many will argue that it's more difficult to win a Super Bowl. I'd say the same if I weren't a Steeler fan and the argument didn't favor my home town squad.

[The Gipper]

And it still don't matter how old and wrinkley and nasty each title is. They are still yours to take home and each still only counts as one.

[The Gipper]

Homotron said:

lol. I won't lie. I enjoyed this

and my points still stand and stand tall. I don't think many will argue that it's more difficult to win a Super Bowl. I'd say the same if I weren't a Steeler fan and the argument didn't favor my home town squad.

Like I said once, who's comparing? We're just counting. Being a champion now means no more really than being a champion 50-60-70-80-90 years ago.

(this "Champion" is 90 years old, and was the model for Snow White in the Disney Classic)