Fred T. Jane Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The Bills did win the AFL in '64 & '65 if you count that.Since the AFL merged with the NFL, I should. The surviving ABA and WHA franchises have all won championships since their respective mergers, so I think the list should be complete. [Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008 Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 What? Saints are only #36? The FALCONS are 10 spots higher and they've been to a Super Bowl? That doesn't make much sense to me, but I sure enjoyed reading this:"NFL football sure was fun in the '70s: The 1974 Falcons scored 111 points (7.9 per game) and QBs Bob Lee, Kim McQuilken and Pat Sullivan combined for 31 interceptions and four TDs."Wow. And that after the '73 Falcons demolished the Saints 62-7 in the season opener. Always wondered what a coach tells the losing team after THAT happens in the first game of the year... That list is ridiculous if teams that have competed for championships are ranked more miserable than teams that have never even made it to the big show. Fun read though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I hate the Cubs with a passion but TCR is right. Nothing comes close to what Cubs fans have suffered through.That's true... to a point.What percentage of Cubs fans root only for the Cubs, and follow only baseball? What I am driving at, is that Chicago sports fans have been given a lifetime of parades in the past 25 years. The Bears' Super Bowl (and an appearance this year), and SIX Bulls titles soften the blow of not winning a World Series for a century. Yeah, there've been some heartaches, but it's tempered by the fact that the local teams have won the big one. You're driving off the road. Don't get me wrong, we're all happy to have had the 1985 Bears, and the 1990s Bulls, but Chicago is a baseball town, and specifically a Cubs town, much to the chagrin of irritable and hostile Sout Syders at this board, but that's another argument, and I don't feel like having it. Anyway, six Bulls titles do nothing to alleviate a near-century of Cub futility. When the Cubs win it all--not this year, but somewhere down the line--it will be a celebration the likes of which the world has never seen, because the Cubs matter more than any other team in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winghaz Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I like that list of cities and the last time a team from there won it all, but you really have to count Green Bay and Milwaukee in the same category. Sure, they're not even in the same metropolitan areas, but Wisconsin really is one in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I'm surprised the Blues are as low as they are, I expected them to be a lot higher. They lost three strait Stanly Cups, and then had that crazy run of playoff seasons without even reaching the Cup, and now they suck as bad as they do. Blues fans have suffered a lot, but at least we got the Cards, and Rams. Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I'm surprised the Blues are as low as they are, I expected them to be a lot higher. They lost three strait Stanly Cups, and then had that crazy run of playoff seasons without even reaching the Cup, and now they suck as bad as they do. Blues fans have suffered a lot, but at least we got the Cards, and Rams.Making the playoffs every year for 20+ years isn't suffering. You got to root for a competitive team year in and year out for more than two decades. Even if they never won big throughout that time, there was never a point in 20 years when going to see a Blues game was completely pointless. I think that's actually pretty good. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I'm surprised the Blues are as low as they are, I expected them to be a lot higher. They lost three strait Stanly Cups, and then had that crazy run of playoff seasons without even reaching the Cup, and now they suck as bad as they do. Blues fans have suffered a lot, but at least we got the Cards, and Rams.Making the playoffs every year for 20+ years isn't suffering. You got to root for a competitive team year in and year out for more than two decades. Even if they never won big throughout that time, there was never a point in 20 years when going to see a Blues game was completely pointless. I think that's actually pretty good.I agree, I keep seeing Blues fans whining about missing the last few playoffs. The playoffs aren't a birthright, although it would be nice to see one of the teams I like to make it to them more often than once every ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Boy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I'm almost surprised the Yankees aren't on this list. That is, if you go by what Steinbrenner and the fans feel.I think it was the Sports Guy that said, "Right now there is a 6-year old boy in the Bronx wondering if the Yankees will ever win a World Series in his lifetime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I'm surprised the Blues are as low as they are, I expected them to be a lot higher. They lost three strait Stanly Cups, and then had that crazy run of playoff seasons without even reaching the Cup, and now they suck as bad as they do. Blues fans have suffered a lot, but at least we got the Cards, and Rams.Making the playoffs every year for 20+ years isn't suffering. You got to root for a competitive team year in and year out for more than two decades. Even if they never won big throughout that time, there was never a point in 20 years when going to see a Blues game was completely pointless. I think that's actually pretty good.I agree, I keep seeing Blues fans whining about missing the last few playoffs. The playoffs aren't a birthright, although it would be nice to see one of the teams I like to make it to them more often than once every ten years.Well that is true, but how can the Celtics be higher when they have won so many championships, even though they were so long ago. At least they have some fans who remember winning it all. I know I shouldn't really be complaining, but 3 strait losses in the Stanley Cup Finals, all of them where sweeps. Like I said I really shouldn't be complaining, lol. Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Of course, there is ONE team out there whose fans have it the absolute WORST...all 32 of them:The TAMPA BAY DEVIL RAYS.So what if they're an expansion team? Hell...the Jags and Panthers damn near met in the Super Bowl in their SECOND YEAR OF EXISTENCE. (of course, the Packers and Patriots prevented that from happening...)Just putting that out there... *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 What fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coast2CoastAM2006 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Low point: Trading Phil Esposito? Trading Dominik Hasek? Trading Ed Belfour? Trading Jeremy Roenick? Trading Chris Chelios? Missing the playoffs in 1998 for the first time in 29 seasons? Being named the worst franchise in professional sports in 2004 by ESPN The Magazine? All excellent options. But the lowest of lows was the day Dollar Bill Wirtz took over as team president in 1966. Did you know Dollar Bill is in the Hockey Hall of Fame?I don't remember too much on the Esposito years so i won't comment on that but at the time when Hasek was on the team they had 2 starting goalies, him and Belfour. Law of averages dictates that one of them was going to be traded it was just who and when. I have no idea why Roenick was traded for Zhamnov strait up. if i'm not mistaken, it was the roenick trade that soured things with Belfour and the hawks and he demanded a trade, which eventually they sent him to SJ and eventually to Dallas. Now Chelios's situation, i think the hawks were having a season anyway and were getting rid of most of the talent, and they wanted to send him to a contender. while a low point, there was some valid reason behind the belfour, hasek and chelios trades. Blackhawk fans know more on this than i do, so i may need to be corrected. Spoilers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 What fans?my point exactly... *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winters in buffalo Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I'm surprised the Blues are as low as they are, I expected them to be a lot higher. They lost three strait Stanly Cups, and then had that crazy run of playoff seasons without even reaching the Cup, and now they suck as bad as they do. Blues fans have suffered a lot, but at least we got the Cards, and Rams.Making the playoffs every year for 20+ years isn't suffering. You got to root for a competitive team year in and year out for more than two decades. Even if they never won big throughout that time, there was never a point in 20 years when going to see a Blues game was completely pointless. I think that's actually pretty good.This list considers a good season without a championship to be more painful than a losing season. The more of those your team has, the more you've suffered. I think it's right. As a Bills/Sabres fan, I've had my share of both. The losing years sucked, but the winning years that ended with heartbreaking playoff losses were infinitely worse. When your team is out of contention, you accept your desitiny. When the season ends suddenly, with the hope of a championship evaporating before you, it's torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Well, I can totally see where close can hurt: Wide Right and No Goal for you, Bartman-->Bobble for me. Those hurt, because they were such dramatic failures. I don't think the fans of the Blues, or for that matter, the Trail Blazers, can be considered long-suffering when the clubs perennially fielded competitive teams. That's called "not suffering." Tell some Tigers fan that making a run for the '62 Mets wasn't as painful as the Braves booting another NLDS. (No specific example; pick one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtthasportfreak Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 OMG ! No Clippers even in the top 10 ? For years they played in a decrepit hell-hole and found ways to lose, just ask Benoit Benjamin. And as a Blazer fan, TCR, thanx for recognizing that despite our record in the correctional facility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 jtthasportfreak was just gunned down mid-sentence by a Trail Blazer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDR Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Low point: Trading Phil Esposito? Trading Dominik Hasek? Trading Ed Belfour? Trading Jeremy Roenick? Trading Chris Chelios? Missing the playoffs in 1998 for the first time in 29 seasons? Being named the worst franchise in professional sports in 2004 by ESPN The Magazine? All excellent options. But the lowest of lows was the day Dollar Bill Wirtz took over as team president in 1966. Did you know Dollar Bill is in the Hockey Hall of Fame?I don't remember too much on the Esposito years so i won't comment on that but at the time when Hasek was on the team they had 2 starting goalies, him and Belfour. Law of averages dictates that one of them was going to be traded it was just who and when. I have no idea why Roenick was traded for Zhamnov strait up. if i'm not mistaken, it was the roenick trade that soured things with Belfour and the hawks and he demanded a trade, which eventually they sent him to SJ and eventually to Dallas. Now Chelios's situation, i think the hawks were having a season anyway and were getting rid of most of the talent, and they wanted to send him to a contender. while a low point, there was some valid reason behind the belfour, hasek and chelios trades. Blackhawk fans know more on this than i do, so i may need to be corrected.Hasek was traded by the Hawks because the expansion draft (don't remember if it was the senators/lightning or ducks/panthers draft) was upcoming and you could only protect one goalie. Hasek would have been taken without a doubt, so they wanted to get something for him. They got a backup goalie and future considerations for him, which is better than losing him outright. Incidentally, the future considerations ended up beging a draft pick which was used to select Eric Daze, who was pretty good, and could have been very good if he could stay on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwtrailtrekker Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 schoenfield is an idiot sonics have 2 finals loses not 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProvidenceRI Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Suffering = Choking, Good records with no championshipSucking = teams that never have a chance.Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.