@bunsofsteel08 said:

We are talking the National Football League. And Poll ALL NFL Fans in the Nation and I bet less than 20% would agree with you. But I understand your need to cling to this. It is after all highly Impressive... and I am being serious. But its not on the same level. Being it was 60 yrs ago we are far removed from it all. Perhaps back in the 60s I might have felt differently. But you guys are entitled to your opinion. Most think its nit relevant that's all. And really I am not knocking the Titles. Its an impressive entry into PRO Football. I dont discount them so much as have BIG *`s by them.

Well, likewise maybe 20% of today's fans could tell you who the best team of the 1970s were. Steeler fans can probably tell you because that is their team. Browns fans know their team's history because that is their teams. But, most fans don't know jackshit about their NFL history...or AFL history...or AAFC history. But just because some people are uninformed doesn't mean we all have to be uninformed.

As far as the "level", the fact is, the AAFC and the NFL of the 40s and 50s indeed WERE on the same level as the NFL of today. They were the top of the top level of professional football.... There were say, in 1948, 18 professional teams operating in a nation of about 150 million people. Today there are 32 professional teams operating in a nation of over 300 million people. I believe Silverback questioned the size of the AAFC. In 1948 it had 8 teams. The NFL had 10 teams. The size of these leagues was appropriate for the size of the nation. At that time you had 1 pro football team for each 8.3 million of population. Today with the 32 team you have 1 pro football team for each 9.3 million of population. To have kept the same ratio per the population the NFL should actually now have about 38 teams.

@silverback said:

Let me be the first to congratulate you guys on beating the New York Yankees in a 1 game playoff for some mythical title. Can you please email me some caveman drawings of those games so I can view them? Winning a whopping 8 team league must have taken some herculean efforts!

First off, the NFL only had a one game playoff right up until 1967. The AAFC and the NFL at the time were in parity. Also, the AAFC had just as many teams as the NFL in those years.

You cannot compare those AAFC teams to today's system any more you can compare the NFL teams of that era to today's system. If the AAFC league titles are in your mind illegitmate, then the NFL team's titles of those years you must also declare to be illigitimate.

I mean coming in first place in a 4 team conference to make the mytical playoff championship thingie must have been awesome to watch. And beating such powerhouses as the Los Angeles Dons, the storied Chicago Rockets, and those pesky New York Yankees... Man, talk about murderers row!!!

Again, those teams were every bit as good as the corresponding NFL teams. Probably better because they paid their players more, had black players where the NFL refused to, and had more attendance.

Since 1951 the Browns have won 9 playoff games. 9 playoff wins in 60 years is just awesome!

Since 2004 the Steelers have won 10 playoff games. 10 playoff wins in 7 years totally sucks.

It is my pleasure to be in the presence of living dinosaurs that can remember games from 60 years ago that weren't televised!!!

If the system in the 50s and 60s had called for more playoff games, like today's system does, then the Browns would have won more playoff games. I note parenthetically that while the Browns were winning those playoff games the Steelers were winning exactly zero of those playoff games. If it was so freeking easy to do, then why weren't the Steelers doing it?

I mean coming in first place in a 4 team conference to make the mytical playoff championship thingie must have been awesome to watch. And beating such powerhouses as the Los Angeles Dons, the storied Chicago Rockets, and those pesky New York Yankees... Man, talk about murderers row!!!

Since 1951 the Browns have won 9 playoff games. 9 playoff wins in 60 years is just awesome!

Since 2004 the Steelers have won 10 playoff games. 10 playoff wins in 7 years totally sucks.

It is my pleasure to be in the presence of living dinosaurs that can remember games from 60 years ago that weren't televised!!!

Zombo said:

Less than 20% can find Viet Nam on a map, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Less than 20% could tell you anything about the Korean War it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The Browns of the forties and fifties were great dynasty that was probably the most innovative and influential team in the Modern Era. It happaned. It doesn't matter what some snot nosed fan that can remember ten years back thinks.

Z

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... As I said NOT Knocking it. Its impressive. Most dont care thats all.

Zombo said:

You are talking semantics, we are talking football.

They were a GREAT championship team. Not only did they dominate their league, but when they joined the NFL they trounced the defending champion Eagles and beat the Rams for the Championship. The AAFC Champs were BETTER than the NFL champs. They were the best team in the land. Don't know if they referred to themeselves as "world" champions, but I doubt there was a Uraguan team or something out there that was going to beat Paul Brown's men.

Zombo

We are talking the National Football League. And Poll ALL NFL Fans in the Nation and I bet less than 20% would agree with you. But I understand your need to cling to this. It is after all highly Impressive... and I am being serious. But its not on the same level. Being it was 60 yrs ago we are far removed from it all. Perhaps back in the 60s I might have felt differently. But you guys are entitled to your opinion. Most think its nit relevant that's all. And really I am not knocking the Titles. Its an impressive entry into PRO Football. I dont discount them so much as have BIG *`s by them.

@the-gipper said:

They were "Professional Football Championships. When I do my annual title count, yes, they count....the same that I count AFL titles, ABA titles, and WHL titles, all leagues that merged with the current leagues. (even the NFL has never marketed their champions as "world champions)

As for the 4 teams you mention above, recall that in those final three years it was proposed by many that a "World Series of Football" be played between the AAFC champ and the NFL champ. The NFL would have no part of as they knew the Browns would have wiped the field clean of those teams mentioned...at least those last 3. The only "game" that would have been a hell of a matchup would have been the 46 Bears vs. '46 Browns. Othewise the Browns would have slaughtered those other teams.

Yea, thanks Dude. It is. But it is an educated one.

@wrrebel said:

He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.

Con Air, Garland Green

Put the bunny back.

Go said:

Nooooo, my argument is that the AAFC titles are indeed league championships. But the championships you won in the NFL are WORLD championships. The NFL crowned their own champions in the late 40's.

Yes, the Browns won 8 league titles, no disagreeing. Four of them were not technically "world championships" is all but I'm sure I'd make a different argument if I was a Browns fans.

Auhh, NONE of the championships won by any NFL team ever is a "World Championship" that includes any title ever won by the Browns, the Steelers, the Canton Bulldogs or the Rhein Fire.

And that includes the winner of the "World Series". These are just marketing names.

You want a world championship in Football? See this:

http://www.americanfootball2011.com/en/

Now, it is a joke to call the winner of this title "World Champions" but they do. The guys that play in this are Division III or II level graduates. Should the NFL champion be considered the best (american) football team in the world? Now, Of course.

Could the 1947 Cardinals, '48 and '49 Eagles claim to have been the best (american) football team in the world. F88k NO, because they weren't.

Go said:

Still love counting those old AAFC titles like they're world championships, eh??

Well fine, since we're on the history debate let's go to the NFL records book...

World Champions:

1946 - Chicago Bears

1947 - Chicago Cardinals

1948 - Philadelphia Eagles

1949 - Philadelphia Eagles

The AAFC titles are noteworthy but it was a league that only lasted 4 years and had only one other team go to the NFL, the pre-Montana 49ers. The AAFC championships banners from '46-'49 can be hung proudly in CBS but if you try to pass them off as "World Championship banners" then Cleveland should have joined the league a few years earlier.

They were "Professional Football Championships. When I do my annual title count, yes, they count....the same that I count AFL titles, ABA titles, and WHL titles, all leagues that merged with the current leagues. (even the NFL has never marketed their champions as "world champions)

As for the 4 teams you mention above, recall that in those final three years it was proposed by many that a "World Series of Football" be played between the AAFC champ and the NFL champ. The NFL would have no part of as they knew the Browns would have wiped the field clean of those teams mentioned...at least those last 3. The only "game" that would have been a hell of a matchup would have been the 46 Bears vs. '46 Browns. Othewise the Browns would have slaughtered those other teams.

Zombo said:

Glengarry Glen Ross?

Zombo

coffee is for closers

Zombo said:

Glengarry Glen Ross?

Zombo

He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.

Con Air, Garland Green

Zombo said:

You are talking semantics, we are talking football.

They were a GREAT championship team. Not only did they dominate their league, but when they joined the NFL they trounced the defending champion Eagles and beat the Rams for the Championship. The AAFC Champs were BETTER than the NFL champs. They were the best team in the land. Don't know if they referred to themeselves as "world" champions, but I doubt there was a Uraguan team or something out there that was going to beat Paul Brown's men.

Zombo

Now you're talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working a 50-hour week for 50 years, at the end of which they tell you to piss off. Ending up in some retirement village, hoping to die rather than suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn't you consider that to be insane??

@clevelandfanforlife said:

Are you really making the argument that there is a difference between the name "league" championship and "world" championship? Look man, it's called the world championship today because it is the title they have given it. No other country in the world competes so is it really a world championship? If they called the "league" championship a "world" championship back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Look at the NBA. Everyone says the Mavericks just won the "world" championship yet there are actually TWO other competitions that constitute world champions: The Basketball World Championships and the Olympics. So are the Mavs really "world champions"? Not really. Just like the NFL can't boast about having the world championship. It's just what it's called. The Superbowl is still a league championship no matter how you look at it. Quit trying to stir the pot while trying to make an argument that doesn't exist.

Nooooo, my argument is that the AAFC titles are indeed league championships. But the championships you won in the NFL are WORLD championships. The NFL crowned their own champions in the late 40's.

Yes, the Browns won 8 league titles, no disagreeing. Four of them were not technically "world championships" is all but I'm sure I'd make a different argument if I was a Browns fans.

CFL has what....8 teams. Lmao...

Now....the world cup....that a WORLD sport....football, purely an American sport. Sure world champions sounds good, but no one else plays it so its world by default only.

Its a semantic argument used by stool fans to justify their arrogance...that's all. Revisionist history to erase their years of suckitude

Go said:

Bingo, league championships. That we both agree.

Are you really making the argument that there is a difference between the name "league" championship and "world" championship? Look man, it's called the world championship today because it is the title they have given it. No other country in the world competes so is it really a world championship? If they called the "league" championship a "world" championship back then, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Look at the NBA. Everyone says the Mavericks just won the "world" championship yet there are actually TWO other competitions that constitute world champions: The Basketball World Championships and the Olympics. So are the Mavs really "world champions"? Not really. Just like the NFL can't boast about having the world championship. It's just what it's called. The Superbowl is still a league championship no matter how you look at it. Quit trying to stir the pot while trying to make an argument that doesn't exist.

Zombo said:

I'm not rewriting anything. They are league championships recognized by The Pro Football Hall of Fame. It's Steeler fans that want to narrow it down to make themselves look better.

It happened. While your team blew chunks, Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Len Dawson, Joe Namath, etc. Happened.

Bingo, league championships. That we both agree.

Zombo said:

Pro Football Reference recognizes the AFL and AAFC champonships, as they are considered major professional leagues. As does the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

If you want to throw away the history of teams like the Raiders, Bills, 49ers and Browns ... that's par for the course as a Steeler fan ... but true NFL historians include those franchises from their birth.

Zombo

Yes, much respect that the profootballreference.com and the HOF recognize the championships, but you will not find those titles listed as "world championship" in the record books of the most important source of all: the National Football League.

We'll make a deal: Steelers fans won't try to ignore history as long as Browns fans don't try to rewrite history.

Zombo said:

Pro Football Reference recognizes the AFL and AAFC champonships, as they are considered major professional leagues. As does the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

If you want to throw away the history of teams like the Raiders, Bills, 49ers and Browns ... that's par for the course as a Steeler fan ... but true NFL historians include those franchises from their birth.

Zombo

The NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE Period. AAFC is like the OLD NCAA Div 1~AA Titles ( and whatever they call it now ) Granted the Browns Squads during those years had NFL Caliber talent Most of the League was 2nd level. Argue all you want The NFL DOESN'T Recognize it .

Zombo said:

This is why everyone hates Steeler fans. You don't see any other fanbase try and wipe out half of the NFL's history .. especially when they were part of it!

According to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/

By Championships:

1. Packers 13

2. Bears 9

3. Browns 8 <--- 4 NFL Championships

4. Giants 7

5. Steelers 6

Still love counting those old AAFC titles like they're world championships, eh??

Well fine, since we're on the history debate let's go to the NFL records book...

World Champions:

1946 - Chicago Bears

1947 - Chicago Cardinals

1948 - Philadelphia Eagles

1949 - Philadelphia Eagles

The AAFC titles are noteworthy but it was a league that only lasted 4 years and had only one other team go to the NFL, the pre-Montana 49ers. The AAFC championships banners from '46-'49 can be hung proudly in CBS but if you try to pass them off as "World Championship banners" then Cleveland should have joined the league a few years earlier.

Agree with zombo as well....theres no way in hell you can say Pittsburgh is a better franchise then the Packs or Bears

@bunsofsteel08 said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... come on man The Browns were Great ! Phenomenal even. And Pittsburgh was Crap. We know it and Understand it. You cant tell me that what they have done During the Super Bowl ERA isnt Impressive correct ? Hey I respect the Pack the Browns the Giants as the Early Stud Franchises of the Game ! But all of them have had Stretches of Ordinary and worse... Just as Pittsburgh did early on. I would say the Most Impressive thing about the Steelers Franchise has been how Long they have Held Strong since. Props to the Trailblazing Squads NY GB ( and GB and NY have also represented in the Modern ERA as well ) And C`Town... But Props also to Pittsburgh Dallas SF and NE for what they have done since ! They ALL Hold Royal Spots on the NFL Crest.

Well, that is the pure cyclical nature of the sport. Those crowns you are passing out are the result of good organizations, and as often as not a stellar coach/QB combination. Think about the great dynasties:

The early Packers combo of Curly Lambeau and Arnie Herber

The 40s Bears combo of George Halas and Sid Luckman

The 40s/50s Browns with Paul Brown and Otto Graham

The 60s Packers with Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr

The 70s Steelers with Chuck Noll and Terry Bradshaw

The 80s 49ers with Bill Walsh and Joe Montana

The 90s Cowboys with Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman

The 00s Patriots with Belichick and Brady

A couple of organizations have had a reprise, like the Cowboys who with Landry and Staubach who except for a couple of close losses to the Steelers in the SB could have been one of the great dynasties. The Steelers have had somewhat of a reprise lately with a couple wins and a loss in the SB. Who knows who is poised to be the next dynasty. It could be someone from out of left field. Maybe the Saints run off a couple of SBs in a row here to get them into this team picture. Maybe it will be the Seattle Seahawks or the Jacksonville Jaguars...or the Cleveland Browns or the Cincinnati Bengals. Stay tuned.

Zombo said:

This is why everyone hates Steeler fans. You don't see any other fanbase try and wipe out half of the NFL's history .. especially when they were part of it!

According to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/

By Championships:

1. Packers 13

2. Bears 9

3. Browns 8

4. Giants 7

5. Steelers 6

By Winnning %

1. Bears .579

2. Cowboys .576

3. Dolphins .576

4. Packers .559

5. Vikings .551

6. Browns .549

-

14. Steelers .520

By Wins

1. Bears 704

2. Packers 664

3. Giants 636

4. Redskins 547

5. Steelers 541

By Playoff Seasons

1. Giants 30

2. Cowboys 30

3. Browns 28

4. Rams 27

5. Packers 26

6. Steelers 26

There is absolutely no way you can convince anyone that the Steelers are a greater NFL franchise than the Packers or the Bears. And you'd have a damn hard argument saying they were greater than the Browns or Giants either. At the very best, they are fifth, with the cowboys dead on their ass.

Zombo

Do your figures include AAFC years, or only NFL years? (Don't forget, the Steelers have played at least 16 more seasons than the Browns)