Question to All Packer Fans

[tapupartforpres]

Hello. New to the board here.

I have a question for the fans here. I am a Browns fan that has always liked the Packers. I used to live in the Northwoods for quite some time, just about the time of Sterling Sharpe and Don Majkowski. Have always liked the Pack because they are very similar to the Browns in terms of fan devotion. I admire that.

Which brings me to my question. Do you as Packers fans look back at the "early-era" and count your league championships as a championship? It seems throughout the 60's the Browns and the Packers dominated. So I will throw that out there for comments.

My thoughts on the matter is that the Boston Celtics was a dynasty during the 60's. And in many of those championships there were 16 teams. During many of the Browns and Packers championships there were 14 teams in the league. Would anyone ever discount those rings that the Celtics won? I think not. That is the argument I get a lot, "there were like 8 teams", not true. "It was a defunct league", mind you all of the 14 teams are still in the NFL, how can that be defunct?

Anyways your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Thanks

 

[IronMan]

Welcome to the forum. I agree. A championship is a championship. Anyone who disputes them simply because of the number of teams there were at the time, are probably just bitter.

 

[PackersRS]

Do you only count SBs that have all the 32 current teams??? That were played during the FA era? With salary cap? With the current rules?

 

[angryguy77]

Hello. New to the board here.

I have a question for the fans here. I am a Browns fan that has always liked the Packers. I used to live in the Northwoods for quite some time, just about the time of Sterling Sharpe and Don Majkowski. Have always liked the Pack because they are very similar to the Browns in terms of fan devotion. I admire that.

Which brings me to my question. Do you as Packers fans look back at the "early-era" and count your league championships as a championship? It seems throughout the 60's the Browns and the Packers dominated. So I will throw that out there for comments.

My thoughts on the matter is that the Boston Celtics was a dynasty during the 60's. And in many of those championships there were 16 teams. During many of the Browns and Packers championships there were 14 teams in the league. Would anyone ever discount those rings that the Celtics won? I think not. That is the argument I get a lot, "there were like 8 teams", not true. "It was a defunct league", mind you all of the 14 teams are still in the NFL, how can that be defunct?

Anyways your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Thanks

Celtics FTW. Anyone who discounts those rings is a moron. Think about it this way: less team means the talant wasn't spread around as much.

BTW number 17 is comming....

 

[PackersRS]

Celtics FTW. Anyone who discounts those rings is a moron. Think about it this way: less team means the talant wasn't spread around as much.

BTW number 17 is comming....

BEAT LA!:happy0005:

 

[tapupartforpres]

No

Do you only count SBs that have all the 32 current teams??? That were played during the FA era? With salary cap? With the current rules?

No. As a Browns fan I count all championships. Good point by the guy who said the talent wasn't spread out. All of this is coming from Steeler fans who visit yes a Browns board. I just wanted to get a different point of view from fans that emulate our fans. And to be honest 2 of the most dominating teams in NFL history.

 

[tapupartforpres]

Celtics FTW. Anyone who discounts those rings is a moron. Think about it this way: less team means the talant wasn't spread around as much.

BTW number 17 is comming....

Sorry bud, the Cavs are taking it.

 

[dansz15]

Sorry bud, the Cavs are taking it.

Cavs need to sign LeBron and D Wade after this season before talking about a champ. Boston and LA look too good but its the second week of the season. Shaq is a fossil.


Yes count all the championships. I just wonder how good someone like Ray Nit would be today playing with the Packers LB and comp. Now that would be interesting!

 

[weeds]

A Steelers fan came into your forum talking ****? Now THERE'S a surprise. Haha. k:

Yeah, a lot of youngsters tend to ignore the fact that the NFL existed long before ESPN came on to the scene. We tend to forgive them their youthful ignorance. I once had a Vikings fan argue in a Packers forum that the Vikings had indeed won a championship because in their first Super Bowl appearance (a loss - 1 of 4), they were the "NFL Champions" because the "Super Bowl" was still called the NFL/AFL Championship Game, therefore... they had a "Championship" even though Kansas City beat them. Understand that the term "Super Bowl" was a term coined by flippin' marketing people -- I say that as facetiously as I can without using more quotation marks to signify my indifference.

The people usually dropping the little turdlets that this Steelers fan is dropping are the same people as those who get all uptight about Dallas' claim to be "America's Team" -- another marketing gem that most thinking people recognize for what it is, or was ... back in the 70's, the Cowboys were the flavor of the month and their fans latched onto it assuming it must be true since Marketing people tell us it is. They're also the same people who buy "The Clapper" and give it as a Christmas gift.

What these kiddies fail to recognize is that in the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame, there are footballs on display from games that were played before their team even came into existence. That point takes on weightier importance when they come to realize that outside of the Packers, Giants, Bears and Cardinals ... the other 28 teams are basically expansion franchises. :yes2: ... and that is an irrefutable fact, usually making them just go the "f" away.

So, in summation ... yeah, they count ... ask any Bears fan if they count all 9 ... they'll give you the same answer that any Packers fan will give you regarding the Pack's 12. Yeah, they count ... and even though the monied new kids so to speak are able to buy a trophy every other year or so ... they've still got some catching up to do.

Remind that Steeler fan that prior to the original MR Rooney hitting paydirt in the 70's .... they were a perennial whipping boy in the NFL, and when this current cycle ends ... and it will ... well, just tell him to enjoy it before the window closes - because it will.

 

[RobsPics]

Welcome to the forum. I agree. A championship is a championship. Anyone who disputes them simply because of the number of teams there were at the time, are probably just bitter.

Well if a "championship" truly is a "championship"...then I guess the Vikings have 22 "championships" (counting Divisional and conference championships)

 

[ThinkICare]

If it makes you feel better about your Vikes, then whatever.

 

[3irty1]

Right, but i think they are only counting "World Championships"

 

[weeds]

Well if a "championship" truly is a "championship"...then I guess the Vikings have 22 "championships" (counting Divisional and conference championships)

Well then, we'll have to go and re-total Green Bay's then, won't we? Because I only hear Packers fans kick around the 12 World Championship total.

 

[PackersRS]

Well then, we'll have to go and re-total Green Bay's then, won't we? Because I only hear Packers fans kick around the 12 World Championship total.

Touché!

 

[Raptorman]

About the Championship wins thing. If you were to count them up the way they were historically played MN does have a NFL Championship. Now before you go off on you telling me it's BS here's the thing. Green Bay actually would have 14 not 12. But people don't look at it that way. They look at the first 4 Super Bowls as NFL Championship games. Yet, two of the teams that won them were not in the NFL at the time. So how can a team that is not in the league hold it's Championship? That would be like saying the Badgers beat USC in the Rose Bowl so they are the PAC 10 champs. The fact is the NFL wants everyone to think of the Super Bowl as the NFL championship game which it is today. But the in order to play in the first 4 you had to be the NFL champion in the first place.

There is a reason why on the first two Super Bowl Trophies the Packers have it says AFL-NFL World championship game. The Packer had already won the NFL Championship when they beat Dallas before the first two Super Bowls. Since the first 4 were played between two different leagues. Want to know how separate they really were? NO player who played for only an AFL team from 1960-1970 has ever been considered for the Hall of Fame. If a player in the AFL did not play after 1970 merger, they are not eligible.

But I know I'm bucking the trend here and I know some of you are going to come at me with the "But they didn't win the Super Bowl" statement. And that's fine. Everyone, including the NFL, and most Vikings fans are willing to let ride, but in reality you can't change history.

 

[3irty1]

But they didn't win the superbowl. jk, i like your assessment.

 

[PackersRS]

About the Championship wins thing. If you were to count them up the way they were historically played MN does have a NFL Championship. Now before you go off on you telling me it's BS here's the thing. Green Bay actually would have 14 not 12. But people don't look at it that way. They look at the first 4 Super Bowls as NFL Championship games. Yet, two of the teams that won them were not in the NFL at the time. So how can a team that is not in the league hold it's Championship? That would be like saying the Badgers beat USC in the Rose Bowl so they are the PAC 10 champs. The fact is the NFL wants everyone to think of the Super Bowl as the NFL championship game which it is today. But the in order to play in the first 4 you had to be the NFL champion in the first place.

There is a reason why on the first two Super Bowl Trophies the Packers have it says AFL-NFL World championship game. The Packer had already won the NFL Championship when they beat Dallas before the first two Super Bowls. Since the first 4 were played between two different leagues. Want to know how separate they really were? NO player who played for only an AFL team from 1960-1970 has ever been considered for the Hall of Fame. If a player in the AFL did not play after 1970 merger, they are not eligible.

But I know I'm bucking the trend here and I know some of you are going to come at me with the "But they didn't win the Super Bowl" statement. And that's fine. Everyone, including the NFL, and most Vikings fans are willing to let ride, but in reality you can't change history.

I actually agree with you... Hadn't thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense.

 

[realoatesman]

Sorry bud, the Cavs are taking it.

Everybody knows that the Bucks are gonna win it all this year lol

 

[PackersRS]

Everybody knows that the Bucks are gonna win it all this year lol

The REAL Jennings? Now that's a good debate...

 

[weeds]

I actually agree with you... Hadn't thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense.

Don't encourage him. :Talkative:

What he needs is to step back and ask himself the one and only question that is pertinent in this matter. "Did the Vikes win their last game of that season?" No?? Well then, I've got some bad news for you ....

 

[Raptorman]

Don't encourage him. :Talkative:

What he needs is to step back and ask himself the one and only question that is pertinent in this matter. "Did the Vikes win their last game of that season?" No?? Well then, I've got some bad news for you ....

1930 Green Bay Packers. Lost the second to last game and tied the last game of the season. Still won the Championship. Should they give it up because they didn’t win their last two games?

1931 Green Bay Packers. Lost the last game of the season. Should they give up that Championship because they lost the last game of the season?

 

[weeds]

1930 Green Bay Packers. Lost the second to last game and tied the last game of the season. Still won the Championship. Should they give it up because they didn’t win their last two games?

1931 Green Bay Packers. Lost the last game of the season. Should they give up that Championship because they lost the last game of the season?

Did they have a playoff system? You're grasping and it's not real attractive.

 

[Raptorman]

Did they have a playoff system? You're grasping and it's not real attractive.

So it's ok that two Packer teams have NFL Championships without winning their last game of the year but it's not ok for MN and the Colts the year before. Ah, but now theres a playoff. I see.

So you want to go by the true history of 30 and 31 but not the true history of 68-69. So as long as it benefits your team your fine with it. So we bend a little history for the heck of it. Nevermind that the "true" history gives the Packers 14 "true" championships. As long as you can claim MN dosen't have one. That's what is important.

Nice to know that Packer fans are willing to give up two Championships just to claim the Vikings never won one. :happy0005: