Can Brady win if he has to do it on his own merit?
-
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
It was a horseshite call. He didn't have his hands on him and he didn't force the receiver out of bounds. There was some hand play...and the receiver put himself in a terrible position by allowing the defender to get the angle on him. Beyond that, it is highly possible that the pass was not catchable. It nearly hit the pylon...which was 10 yards downfield from where they were.
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
-
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
-
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And that is why in all his other years without Brady.....he has 2 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons?
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
-
So exactly how long have you known a football rulebook? See, you are one that thinks they know what a call "should" be.
It IS pass interference whether you want to think so or like it or not. Could it have been a no call, YES. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the call
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
-
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Either way they've more than eclipsed the browns, Steelers, cowboys, 49ers dynasties and arguably eclipsed the Packers as well
Actually, the two that are most debatable is in fact the Browns of the 40s/50s. That lasted a full 11 years...and came away with 7 titles. And the 49ers...if you consider the period from 1981 to 1994 as one continuous. Unlike the Pats/Browns however, who had one coach and one QB, the 49ers did it with 2 coaches and 2 QBs Walsh/Seifert and Montana/Young.
The 90s Cowboys was really only about a 5 year run. The Packers went 8 years and were done. The Steelers run lasted 7 years.
-
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I am a lawyer/magistrate for 37 years.......I think I know how to deal with a rulebook. And with any rulebook, any law...you have to apply facts to that rule.
Sure...there is a rule called pass interference....just like there is a rule for something like say....aggravated murder, or running a red light. For there to be a violation there has to be a set of facts that properly apply to that rule, resulting in the violation.
Here, the facts do not match.
In this case....like many others perhaps....the law..the rule...may not be applied correctly to the fact.
In this case the thing that provides legitimacy to the call is : A. it was made....rightly or wrongly...and B. under the rules that apply...it cannot be disputed. That's it. It can't be disputed, whether or not the call is correct or not.
Ergo...if you think that every application of a rule to any set of facts is ALWAYS correct.....and that by being indisputable and not subject to correction....then you clearly believe, say....that OJ Simpson is indeed not guilty of murdering two people.
So, now, do yo see how this works?
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
And THAT is exactly what happened.....thank you for putting succintly and accurately. The DB ran with the receiver...and used the receiver's momentum and leverage against him.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
-
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it
-
I don't generally count the 49ers 5th super bowl in with their joe Montana/Walsh dynasty but I guess you could look at it that way ...either way Patriots Still superior.
-
No. You can use all this legalise you want, and if we are talking about law, sure you got me, you are a lawyer you would know more. But a coach, players, former players would know more about it than you.
The DB used his hands and HIS leverage to INTERFERE with the receiver. Had the DB just ran with the receiver and used the receivers momentum and leverage against him then no PI.
And THAT is exactly what happened.....thank you for putting succintly and accurately. The DB ran with the receiver...and used the receiver's momentum and leverage against him.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean you or anyone can read and interpret a rule in the correct way. If that were true, then I am a regular citizen could walk into court and defend someone because I read the law. Having a familiarity with applying the rules is a BIG part of it
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
-
Nobody today wins every year in this parity by design NFL, NE has the closest thing to a dynasty going now.
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
.....he has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
-
It is not a closest thing to a dynasty.....it is undeniably a dynasty. That is not the point. The question is....whose dynasty is it?
To me, it is the Tom Brady dynasty. Yes, both will be given credit.
But, in terms of saying who is primary in that dynasty....we can only go by the facts and evidence that we have....and be cognizant of what we don't have:
We do NOT have any record of how Tom Brady would perform under a different HC. So, it is all speculation.
But we DO have evidence of how BB has performed using different QBs.
He has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it
I think Brady deserves more of the credit, and I dont care for BB. But he is a GREAT coach.
But your argument is flawed. You use all these guys that he had in the past to prove your point, but don't factor in 2 keys, 1 being his assistants, but more importantly would be growth.
I think it is fair to say that you are a much better lawyer now that you have grown and learned over the years as compared to when you first started.
Would Bill have 5 SB with Brady? Absolutely not. Would Brady have 5 without Bill? Absolutely not. They are great together, but Brady deserves the majority of credit for it.
....I HAVE said...consistently...if you had paid any attention....that indeed BB had grown as a coach.....that is why I said that he WOULD likely have his teams be consistent playoff contenders. I point out his non-Brady record for two reasons: A. to say...yes...he is now better than this record was in those days...and B. to prove the ultimate point...that you agree on: the majority of credit goes to Brady.
-
Yes, fact, rules, law, evidence...that is all I am applying here. Your problem....which you don't see....is simply that you see the facts the way you want to see them.....even if they are not accurate. You stated it accurately....got it right....then contradicted yourself.
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
No, you are seeing them the way you want. He used his hands AND forced the receiver out.
No, ..he didn't ..you just want it to be that way.
I will all but guarantee that you know more law than I, and I know more football rules than you.
What makes you think that? Prove your credentials.
It's obvious you aren't going to change your view of the play no matter what is said, and I KNOW the rule, so instead of arguing I will just let it go and you can go ahead and think you are correct. It's not like the other 95% of people who think they "know" the rules and actually just just formulate an opinion are any different.
Good day and God bless
You can know the rules upside down and sideways......that does not mean that you are any better at applying them to the facts than any Joe on the street. I don't change my view of the play....because I VIEWED the play. From what I saw....your statement earlier....of the rule....absolutely applies...the DB ran with the receiver and used his momentum against him. The fact...the view as I saw it...matched your statement of the rule precisely.
Now Texas AG says that he has seen a different camera angle of the play.....Show me that...and if I see something different...I can be willing to change my mind. But you must provide your evidence.
-
.....he has a 52-60 record without Brady. (112 games is a fairly significant sample size) His primary QBs those years without Brady were: 1 year with Kosar, 1 year with Mike Tomscak, 3 years with Vinny Testaverde, 1 year with Drew Bledsoe, and 1 year with Matt Cassel.
OK, these guys are not Tom Brady....but what you do have here are 3 #1 overall draft picks (BK was taken in trade of the #1 overall pick...to be used in the supplemental draft), plus some other good QBs. Let's face it.....is it fair to say that just about everyone of these guys is likely better than any QB the Browns have had since Kosar and Vinny? Point being....the QBs were not slouches. They were pretty good. BB did not have to deal with the likes of Johnny Manziel or Brandon Weeden (well....except for when he dumped Kosar ....and relied on Todd Philcox).
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
And that's where you get into the apples/oranges thing remember Belichick was just learning how to be THE head coach in Cleveland, plus it was a different era, management, etc. The Browns were already headed down. Bill was also very much a defensive guy first, Bernie has some great stories about that!
To combine those records is very misleading to say the least.
No.....BBs own mentor said it: You are what your record is.
.......Belichick began his coaching career in 1975, and by 1985, was the defensive coordinator for New York Giants head coach Bill Parcells. Parcells and Belichick won two Super Bowls together (XXI and XXV), before Belichick left to become the head coach in Cleveland in 1991. He remained in Cleveland for five seasons, and was fired following the team's 1995 season. Belichick then rejoined Parcells, first in New England where the team lost Super Bowl XXXI, and later with the New York Jets.
After being named head coach of the Jets in early 2000, Belichick resigned after only one day on the job to accept the head coaching job for the New England Patriots on January 27, 2000........
And what has this to do with the price of tea in China.
BB was a great DC....but a fairly bad HC...until he got Brady.
-
The browns aafc titles don't count in any official NFL capacity so...their dynasty is only officially counted from 50-55
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
Fuyuck off arsebag. Are you also a holocaust denier? Do you think the south won the civil war. The fuyucking facts are the fuyucking facts. The AAFC was a better league at the time than the NFL.
Do you actually know why the NFL does not want to recognize the AAFC? Even when every single other entity does? Do you know the fact surrounding that situation?
It was pure resentment and jealousy on the part of Bert Bell....then NFL commissioner AND owner of the Philadelphia Eagles....the defending NFL champs who got there asses stomped by the Browns in the first game played. He got embarassed by his team's arse kicking...and the proclaimed in a snit....."we are not going to recognize the previous accomplishment of AAFC teams". It was a pure petty and vindictive move.
So...now you have been educated about that. It was a pure venal matter
And as I said....every reputable entity other than them does "recognize" it. The Pro Football HOF, the Sporting News....I don't know, all of them...name your favorite.
No matter what mumbo jumbo you use to rationalize it the NFL does not and will never recognize the AAFC titles.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
So...gip...
.jpg.04fecb9700bd9a7c6ea846b28067dfcc.jpg)
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And the faux-british crap calling everyone arsehole only makes you look like a pretentious twat.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind...
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