What made you a Packers fan?

[DoURant]

I don't know why. Since the first one, it's the last team standing. Things changed at that point. If we would have lost those first two; I certainly would not have considered us champions those years.

Agreed, even though we have an NFC & AFC Champion, plus a trophy to go with it, what really matters is who won the Super Bowl. When we lost to Denver, I didn't hang my hat on the "Well at least we have the NFC trophy"

 

[Heyjoe4]

Technically, 1969. The last year before the merger. But people don't count it because of the AFL-NFL Championship game.

Thanks R. So they won the NFC title in 69 and then lost to, I think, KC in the AFL-NFL Championship Game, now SB IV or V?

 

[Raptorman]

Agreed, even though we have an NFC & AFC Champion, plus a trophy to go with it, what really matters is who won the Super Bowl. When we lost to Denver, I didn't hang my hat on the "Well at least we have the NFC trophy"

And I've never hung my hat on the 1969 championship because they lost the Super Bowl. But people claim it doesn't matter while making sure anything before 1966 matters. Or that nothing's changed. But in 1968, we had what amounts to two now-AFC teams playing in the Super Bowl. The Colts and the Jets. But nothing changed. A lot changed.

I'm simply pointing out how the NFL screwed the pooch on this over time. The AFL was a young league in 1966. But they pushed the limits of income that the NFL hadn't. TV contracts and the like. It is what it is. I know a lot of people don't like my point of view on that time period, and every once in a while, some moron will say, "But your team didn't win the last game." Yeah, okay.

1921 Chicago Staleys. Tied the last game
1926 Frankfurt Yellow Jackets. Tied the last game
1928 Providence Steam Rollers, tied the last game.
1930 Packers, Tied last game, lost the game before that
1931 Packers. Lost their last game.

So that's not the argument you really want to bring to the table. Does it matter? Not really, see back then they just gave the title to the team with the best win percentage. Ties didn't count as games played. Had they, the Packers wouldn't have won the title in 1930, Providence in 29, Frankford in 26, and Chicago in 25.

It wasn't until 1932 that they played a Championship game. And that should not take away from the Championships of those previous years. Which is why I don't hang my hat on the 1969 NFL Championship. I just wish for those 4 years, people gave more respect to the teams that lost the Super Bowl because they did win their league title. See, in reality, the Jets don't have an NFL title. They have an AFL title and an AFL-NFL title. They weren't part of the NFL at the time, so how do people claim they have a title to a league they didn't belong to? It's on the trophies, different league shields.

But that's just my opinion. And a lot of people don't like that take.

 

[Raptorman]

Thanks R. So they won the NFC title in 69 and then lost to, I think, KC in the AFL-NFL Championship Game, now SB IV or V?

Super Bowl IV. Should be AFL-NFL IV. And the next year should really be the start of the Super Bowl era. But that's just me. Not a popular opinion.

 

[DoURant]

And I've never hung my hat on the 1969 championship because they lost the Super Bowl. But people claim it doesn't matter while making sure anything before 1966 matters. Or that nothing's changed. But in 1968, we had what amounts to two now-AFC teams playing in the Super Bowl. The Colts and the Jets. But nothing changed. A lot changed.

I'm simply pointing out how the NFL screwed the pooch on this over time. The AFL was a young league in 1966. But they pushed the limits of income that the NFL hadn't. TV contracts and the like. It is what it is. I know a lot of people don't like my point of view on that time period, and every once in a while, some moron will say, "But your team didn't win the last game." Yeah, okay.

1921 Chicago Staleys. Tied the last game
1926 Frankfurt Yellow Jackets. Tied the last game
1928 Providence Steam Rollers, tied the last game.
1930 Packers, Tied last game, lost the game before that
1931 Packers. Lost their last game.

So that's not the argument you really want to bring to the table. Does it matter? Not really, see back then they just gave the title to the team with the best win percentage. Ties didn't count as games played. Had they, the Packers wouldn't have won the title in 1930, Providence in 29, Frankford in 26, and Chicago in 25.

It wasn't until 1932 that they played a Championship game. And that should not take away from the Championships of those previous years. Which is why I don't hang my hat on the 1969 NFL Championship. I just wish for those 4 years, people gave more respect to the teams that lost the Super Bowl because they did win their league title. See, in reality, the Jets don't have an NFL title. They have an AFL title and an AFL-NFL title. They weren't part of the NFL at the time, so how do people claim they have a title to a league they didn't belong to? It's on the trophies, different league shields.

But that's just my opinion. And a lot of people don't like that take.

I didn't say you were hanging your hat on anything, I was responding to someone elses post... All I said at my conclusion is that I wasn't hanging my hat on an NFC Championship, when we lost to Denver.

As for the debate, all I know is the "NFL" decided to re-name the first 4 games, Super Bowls 1-4. By doing so, it made those AFL/NFL Titles in those years moot, to a point.

 

[milani]

Thanks milani. I knew the Lions had never won a SB, but didn't realize they haven't even made an appearance. Well at least they can say they never lost a SB, contrasted with the Queens' 0-4 record.

The consensus seems to be that the Lions will take a step back this year. I just don't see it. Campbell will use that home playoff loss to the Commanders all through training camp. If anything, the Lions will be a tougher out this year than last.

Indeed. Because the Lions are an older franchise than the Vikings they can at least say they were NFL Champions before the SB era. But it has been like 70 years. The Lions may be better off struggling a bit this year and then become hungrier in the playoffs. Last season may have appeared a bit too ewsy.

 

[milani]

The point for me is that the Packers have won 13 NFL championships. 9 came before the SB era, but that's a difference without a distinction. No other NFL team comes close. The Packers are to the NFL what the Yankees are to MLB.

I read V's comment and don't recall Queens' fans trying to revise history in terms of their futile experience in the SB. If anything, a Queens' fan is acutely aware of the team's SB history.

The 1960s saw the Cowboys, Vikings, Falcons, and Saints enter the NFL before free agency which made it difficult to compete initially. The Boys and Vikes were playing at a high level in that first decade. It took the other 2 franchises a longer time to be competitive. Credit to their coaches.

 

[gopkrs]

1921 Chicago Staleys. Tied the last game
1926 Frankfurt Yellow Jackets. Tied the last game
1928 Providence Steam Rollers, tied the last game.
1930 Packers, Tied last game, lost the game before that
1931 Packers. Lost their last game.

I assume those were not championship games. At that time the best record won. If it was blatant I'd go with you. But you are not being reasonable. Maybe you'll finally win one this year. Hahahahahaha. Anyway, imho, the bears will always be our biggest rival. And the oldest in football.

 

[Raptorman]

I didn't say you were hanging your hat on anything, I was responding to someone elses post... All I said at my conclusion is that I wasn't hanging my hat on an NFC Championship, when we lost to Denver.

As for the debate, all I know is the "NFL" decided to re-name the first 4 games, Super Bowls 1-4. By doing so, it made those AFL/NFL Titles in those years moot, to a point.

Oh I know that. I'm just making sure everyone knows where I'm coming from. This isn't about the Vikings and their "NFL championship". It's about how the NFL screwed things up during that time period, at least that's how I feel about it. I think it did a great disservice to the teams involved in those 4 years. I believe it cheapened their accomplishments.

 

[Raptorman]

I assume those were not championship games. At that time the best record won. If it was blatant I'd go with you. But you are not being reasonable. Maybe you'll finally win one this year. Hahahahahaha. Anyway, imho, the bears will always be our biggest rival. And the oldest in football.

The point is, they didn't have a championship game. Whoever had the highest win percentage won the title. And if you tied a game, that game didn't count in the number of games you played. And not everyone played the same number of games. For example, in 1930, the Packers went 10-3-1. For a win percentage of .769. The Giants went 13-4-1 with a win percentage of .765. Had they counted the ties as games played, the Packers would have been .714 and the Giants .722. Giving the title to the Giants.

 

[milani]

And that's the problem with the way the NFL has handled those 4 years. They should have separated them from the Super Bowl.

It is a technicality. The Vikings did win the NFL and the Chiefs won the AFL. Except for some preseason games the NFL and AFL teams did not play each other at all in the regular season prior to the official merger. And maybe that is the distinction. MLB has always maintained separate leagues and the interleague play never existed for eons. It was questionable whether the AFL would survive after its first 5 seasons. How many new leagues in professional sports go under and are forgotten? The real trigger occurred in 1965 when the New York Jets

Well, they do have an NFL Championship. But then, technically, so do the Vikings.

And I still respect that. In the first 6 seasons of the AFL their champion never had a chance to play an NFL team. It was not easy to win an NFL Championship then. And it is not easy today. I will say this. THOSE NFL champions of that time earned their titles for pennies on the dollar compared to those of today. I credit them.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I assume those were not championship games. At that time the best record won. If it was blatant I'd go with you. But you are not being reasonable.

No, that's a rather... odd point of view. It sounds like a pretty elaborate rationalization.

Bottom line is that 13 times over their 106 seasons, Green Bay did what was required in that era to be named NFL champions. That's all that matters.

 

[rmontro]

It is a technicality. The Vikings did win the NFL and the Chiefs won the AFL.

It's an odd situation. No one disputes that the Raiders were AFL champions of the 1967 season. But the NFL is kind of claiming all professional football history in retrospect.

What's interesting is that even though most people viewed the NFL as the superior league, after the two Packer wins, the AFL/AFC team won the next 8 out of 9 Super Bowls, and the next 11 out of 12. There is a caveat there though, because five of those 11 championships were won by teams that came from the NFL and were put into the AFL/AFC to even out the number of teams: The Colts and the Steelers.

If you count those teams as NFL, it makes things closer: The AFL would have won 5 out of 9, and 7 out of 12. Still advantage to the AFL, but things are definitely tighter.

It still irritates me that when the Packers lost to the Broncos in the Super Bowl XXXII, it broke an NFC winning streak of 13 straight games. That was one reason GB was so heavily favored in that game, IMO.

 

[milani]

The point for me is that the Packers have won 13 NFL championships. 9 came before the SB era, but that's a difference without a distinction. No other NFL team comes close. The Packers are to the NFL what the Yankees are to MLB.

I read V's comment and don't recall Queens' fans trying to revise history in terms of their futile experience in the SB. If anything, a Queens' fan is acutely aware of the team's SB history.

It's an odd situation. No one disputes that the Raiders were AFL champions of the 1967 season. But the NFL is kind of claiming all professional football history in retrospect.

What's interesting is that even though most people viewed the NFL as the superior league, after the two Packer wins, the AFL/AFC team won the next 8 out of 9 Super Bowls, and the next 11 out of 12. There is a caveat there though, because five of those 11 championships were won by teams that came from the NFL and were put into the AFL/AFC to even out the number of teams: The Colts and the Steelers.

If you count those teams as NFL, it makes things closer: The AFL would have won 5 out of 9, and 7 out of 12. Still advantage to the AFL, but things are definitely tighter.

It still irritates me that when the Packers lost to the Broncos in the Super Bowl XXXII, it broke an NFC winning streak of 13 straight games. That was one reason GB was so heavily favored in that game, IMO.

What I failed to say in completing my post was that the real transformation for the AFL occurred 1965 when the Jets drafted and signed QBs, Joe Namath, Mike Talifiero, and John Huarte, the Heisman Trophy winner. No team today drafts or pays that way, all things equal. It showed the AFL was serious and was ready to battle the big boys. Ironically, a team like the Packers spent a boatload of $$ in the draft the following year on Jim Grabowski and Donnie Anderson t9 keep them out of the AFL.

 

[Heyjoe4]

And I've never hung my hat on the 1969 championship because they lost the Super Bowl. But people claim it doesn't matter while making sure anything before 1966 matters. Or that nothing's changed. But in 1968, we had what amounts to two now-AFC teams playing in the Super Bowl. The Colts and the Jets. But nothing changed. A lot changed.

I'm simply pointing out how the NFL screwed the pooch on this over time. The AFL was a young league in 1966. But they pushed the limits of income that the NFL hadn't. TV contracts and the like. It is what it is. I know a lot of people don't like my point of view on that time period, and every once in a while, some moron will say, "But your team didn't win the last game." Yeah, okay.

1921 Chicago Staleys. Tied the last game
1926 Frankfurt Yellow Jackets. Tied the last game
1928 Providence Steam Rollers, tied the last game.
1930 Packers, Tied last game, lost the game before that
1931 Packers. Lost their last game.

So that's not the argument you really want to bring to the table. Does it matter? Not really, see back then they just gave the title to the team with the best win percentage. Ties didn't count as games played. Had they, the Packers wouldn't have won the title in 1930, Providence in 29, Frankford in 26, and Chicago in 25.

It wasn't until 1932 that they played a Championship game. And that should not take away from the Championships of those previous years. Which is why I don't hang my hat on the 1969 NFL Championship. I just wish for those 4 years, people gave more respect to the teams that lost the Super Bowl because they did win their league title. See, in reality, the Jets don't have an NFL title. They have an AFL title and an AFL-NFL title. They weren't part of the NFL at the time, so how do people claim they have a title to a league they didn't belong to? It's on the trophies, different league shields.

But that's just my opinion. And a lot of people don't like that take.

All good points. I think it's best to count the champions in the year they became champions. You point out that for a while, the champion was the team with the best record, there was no championship game.

And yeah, the Vikings are 0-4 in championship games, in games after the start of the "SB era". I think it's true that it's much easier to name the winner of a particular game than the loser. But the Queens still made it to the SB 4 times, no easy feat. The Lions have never even been in the game.

And last year the Queens won a LOT of games. They are a talented team. What will this year look like? Who the hell knows? I like their HC and the team is relevant every year, at least in recent memory. And for the Packers, the Queens have never been an easy out.

 

[rmontro]

after the two Packer wins, the AFL/AFC team won the next 8 out of 9 Super Bowls, and the next 11 out of 12.

Sorry, hate to quote myself, but that should be 11 out of 13, not 11 out of 12.

 

[El Guapo]

Wow - I think some people here have missed a few days from their pill-of-the-day boxes.

I think that all of this all or nothing talk is garbage. Yeah these guys are all playing for big dollars and to get a ring, but they don't have any shame about being second-best in a league of 32 teams. I don't see any shame in it either. That '97 season for the Packers was great, and I've enjoyed many of our runs deep into the playoffs despite losing the chance to be overall champion.

The Vikings and Bills playing in four SBs is an accomplishment. At some point, every team will likely hoist a trophy.

That first NFL-AFL game after the 1966 season was more of an exhibition, or demonstration of the NFL's might, than a championship game. However, it quickly became clear that this was a true championship game, pitting the two best from each league against one another. I don't mind the NFL revising the history to match what these games really were - a test to determine the best team.

I respect the AFL and NFL winners each season. The AFL trophy and NFL trophy celebrate the accomplishment, but the SB winner is the champion.

 

[weeds]

Nope. Since the Vikings came into being in 1960-61, the merger had nothing to do with it. They were originally going to be an AFL team, But they brought in Ole Haugsrud as a 10% owner, and he had a deal with the NFL from the 1920's after selling the Duluth Eskimos back to the league. Once that happened, the NFL offered them an expansion franchise; they gave up their AFL one, which went to another new team, the Oakland Raiders. I think the offer from the NFL came because they didn't want to be sued by old Ole. That SB loss to the Raiders hurts more than the others. The only reason they existed at that time was because of the Vikings' history.

It's good to be back among "family".

By God, you're right. However an expansion franchise is still just another expansion franchise.

 

[Raptorman]

By God, you're right. However an expansion franchise is still just another expansion franchise.

Just an expansion franchise until it isn't. What gave the AFL legitimacy was the merger. When several teams went from the NFL to the AFC, that's when things really changed. Had they not done that, I think people would have looked down on the AFC for a while. And I think the fact that the Browns went, with 8 NFL Championships, was the key factor. Seriously, can you name another team that played in the Championship game 10 years in a row, winning 7 of them? That's NFL royalty that moved.

 

[weeds]

Oh for sure the Browns were a powerhouse and Otto Graham doesn't get anywhere near the props that he deserves. However, 4 of those Championships were in the old AAFC but, to roll into the NFL and win the league championship in their very first year - a little before my time - IS indeed NFL royalty.

Colts, Browns and Steelers.... went from the NFL to the AFC ...did I miss any? I'm just flying from memory here. You're absolutely right, that gave the merger legitimacy.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

All good points. I think it's best to count the champions in the year they became champions. You point out that for a while, the champion was the team with the best record, there was no championship game.

And yeah, the Vikings are 0-4 in championship games, in games after the start of the "SB era". I think it's true that it's much easier to name the winner of a particular game than the loser. But the Queens still made it to the SB 4 times, no easy feat. The Lions have never even been in the game.

And last year the Queens won a LOT of games. They are a talented team. What will this year look like? Who the hell knows? I like their HC and the team is relevant every year, at least in recent memory. And for the Packers, the Queens have never been an easy out.

Sometimes I think it's been a long time since Green Bay has been to the Super Bowl.

Then I think of the Vikings. The last quarterback who took them there was Fran Tarkenton. He turned 85 in February.

And the Lions, as you mentioned, have never even sniffed a Super Bowl. They did win a championship, however, back in 1957. Vince Lombardi was still an assistant coach with the Giants that year, Dwight Eisenhower was the President, and no one had ever heard of "The Beatles" yet.

Things are better for da Bearz....they lost the Super Bowl game to a still young Peyton Manning in 2007. And of course, they won one way back in 1985 with a very dominant defense.

So, things aren't all that bleak for the Green & Gold, although February 11th, 2011, does seem like a long time ago.

 

[rmontro]

So, things aren't all that bleak for the Green & Gold, although February 11th, 2011, does seem like a long time ago.

Well, when you have the nickname Titletown, that comes with certain pressures.

 

[Raptorman]

Well, when you have the nickname Titletown, that comes with certain pressures.

Hate to tell you this. Only Packer fans call it that. And maybe some TV people.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Hate to tell you this. Only Packer fans call it that. And maybe some TV people.

Obviously the people who don't like the Packers refuse to call it that.

But the moniker persists all the same. And there is no other place in the NFL that lays claim to it.

13 world championships...

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Well, when you have the nickname Titletown, that comes with certain pressures.

The standard is indeed high.

And it's still our coach's name on the trophy.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!