Cujo

NFL '13 SEASON THREAD

Recommended Posts

For whatever you want to take it for, the Titans (by virtue of the Houston Oilers) and Chargers did win championships in the AFL, pre-Super Bowl years. Maybe the Bills did as well, but I don't remember for certain with them.

The Bills won at least one AFL title. I think Jack Kemp was their QB when they won it.

Anyway, if we're talking the entirety of NFL history, the Browns have 4 NFL titles. I believe the Lions have at least one or two. The Eagles won it all in 1960. And so on...

But as we all know, anything won before Super Bowl I doesn't count.

I was only talking about Super Bowls won and lost and so I didn't feel the need to mention pre-super bowl history.

And I know I should care about the history before the Super Bowl, but I don't really. Maybe that's because of my age or because the team I cheer for was established in the Super Bowl era, but pre-Super Bowl NFL history doesn't interest me that much. I know that's wrong, but whatevs. Sorry.

You should care about pre-Super Bowl NFL history only because that's the only way the Steelers aren't the most successful team, title-wise, in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of how the pre-merger NFL doesn't count...

It's interesting that the NFL is the only sport where we're completely comfortable with re-writing it's history. The NBA merged with the ABA back in the 70's but we still count the NBA titles won pre-merger. If we applied the same...I guess...historical model to the NBA, the championship picture looks a little different. The Lakers only have 10 titles and the Celtics only have 5. The Bulls move into second place on the list with 6.

Or...what if we applied the NFL model to the pre-WHA merger NHL? All of a sudden, the Canadiens have all of 3 Stanley Cup titles. The Maple Leafs are still waiting. So are the Flyers, etc. In our new NHL, the Islanders have more titles than Montreal.

And so on...

EDIT: Fans of pre-merger NHL teams would still talk about their Stanley Cup titles but Islanders fans would just say that the Stanley Cup isn't as prestigious as winning the Super Cup. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboys because NBC.

Yeah, I can see that because it's going to be a logisitics nightmare for Dallas as they'd have to travel to Seattle and then to London to play regular season games.

The Seattle game for Dallas will be early in the season; probably no time after Week 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of how the pre-merger NFL doesn't count...

It's interesting that the NFL is the only sport where we're completely comfortable with re-writing it's history. The NBA merged with the ABA back in the 70's but we still count the NBA titles won pre-merger. If we applied the same...I guess...historical model to the NBA, the championship picture looks a little different. The Lakers only have 10 titles and the Celtics only have 5. The Bulls move into second place on the list with 6.

Or...what if we applied the NFL model to the pre-WHA merger NHL? All of a sudden, the Canadiens have all of 3 Stanley Cup titles. The Maple Leafs are still waiting. So are the Flyers, etc. In our new NHL, the Islanders have more titles than Montreal.

And so on...

I think the primary reason for this is simply because the championship was re-named the Super Bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that, since I mentioned the Steelers, that organization was a complete trainwreck in the pre-merger NFL. I'm not kidding, I think they only had ONE winning season between 1933-1969 (there was some wartime "Steagles" nonsense, but it doesn't deter the main point). While the AFL had certainly proved its quality in the third and fourth Super Bowl's, it's no surprise to see that Pittsburgh's fortunes changed in the '70s. Yes, excellent drafting and stewardship played an integral role in that, but I have to think switching conferences also played a non-insignificant role.

Going by Super Bowl's alone, they have more than the rest of the league. Factor in NFL championships, and I know just off the top of my head that they get jumped by the Packers, Bears, and Giants, and by a fairly comfortable margin, too. The Cleveland/Baltimore franchise (if we go by lineage) matches Pittsburgh as well with six league championships. There might be a couple other tidbits that exist that I would have to do some more research to unearth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NFL and the networks want to save the Hawks-Niners games for mid and late season. Build up the wait.

Hawks at Niners in the middle of the season.

Niners at Hawks on the last Monday night of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that, since I mentioned the Steelers, that organization was a complete trainwreck in the pre-merger NFL. I'm not kidding, I think they only had ONE winning season between 1933-1969 (there was some wartime "Steagles" nonsense, but it doesn't deter the main point). While the AFL had certainly proved its quality in the third and fourth Super Bowl's, it's no surprise to see that Pittsburgh's fortunes changed in the '70s. Yes, excellent drafting and stewardship played an integral role in that, but I have to think switching conferences also played a non-insignificant role.

Going by Super Bowl's alone, they have more than the rest of the league. Factor in NFL championships, and I know just off the top of my head that they get jumped by the Packers, Bears, and Giants, and by a fairly comfortable margin, too. The Cleveland/Baltimore franchise (if we go by lineage) matches Pittsburgh as well with six league championships. There might be a couple other tidbits that exist that I would have to do some more research to unearth.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but you aren't the only person here who knows that. B)

That's an interesting point. I'm going to take a look at their schedules back then and see if there's anything to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of how the pre-merger NFL doesn't count...

It's interesting that the NFL is the only sport where we're completely comfortable with re-writing it's history. The NBA merged with the ABA back in the 70's but we still count the NBA titles won pre-merger. If we applied the same...I guess...historical model to the NBA, the championship picture looks a little different. The Lakers only have 10 titles and the Celtics only have 5. The Bulls move into second place on the list with 6.

Or...what if we applied the NFL model to the pre-WHA merger NHL? All of a sudden, the Canadiens have all of 3 Stanley Cup titles. The Maple Leafs are still waiting. So are the Flyers, etc. In our new NHL, the Islanders have more titles than Montreal.

And so on...

EDIT: Fans of pre-merger NHL teams would still talk about their Stanley Cup titles but Islanders fans would just say that the Stanley Cup isn't as prestigious as winning the Super Cup. B)

I like to think the Super Cup would have been the Stanley Cup and the Avco Cup stacked on top of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any players on this Seahawks roster who were on the 2005 team?

No, but one of the 2005 secondary is a coach. Not sure the name, but I saw it on si.com or something.

Remember when the read option was the hot new thing? Is it still?

You might be thinking of Marquand Manuel, a defensive assistant who was on that '05 team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, the Chargers are kind of sucky. You weren't wrong :D

Hey, at least there's actual reasons to be optimistic going into next season for the first time in ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of how the pre-merger NFL doesn't count...

It's interesting that the NFL is the only sport where we're completely comfortable with re-writing it's history. The NBA merged with the ABA back in the 70's but we still count the NBA titles won pre-merger. If we applied the same...I guess...historical model to the NBA, the championship picture looks a little different. The Lakers only have 10 titles and the Celtics only have 5. The Bulls move into second place on the list with 6.

Or...what if we applied the NFL model to the pre-WHA merger NHL? All of a sudden, the Canadiens have all of 3 Stanley Cup titles. The Maple Leafs are still waiting. So are the Flyers, etc. In our new NHL, the Islanders have more titles than Montreal.

And so on...

I think the primary reason for this is simply because the championship was re-named the Super Bowl.

Indeed. The Stanley Cup has always been the Stanley Cup (and even predates the NHL...hell it even predates professional hockey), the World Series has always been the World Series, and the NBA Championship will always lack any sort of special name.

Of course the NHL/WHA merger wasn't a true merger and is basically regarded as an expansion with none of the WHA records counting, unlike the NFL/AFL merger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the subject of how the pre-merger NFL doesn't count...

It's interesting that the NFL is the only sport where we're completely comfortable with re-writing it's history. The NBA merged with the ABA back in the 70's but we still count the NBA titles won pre-merger. If we applied the same...I guess...historical model to the NBA, the championship picture looks a little different. The Lakers only have 10 titles and the Celtics only have 5. The Bulls move into second place on the list with 6.

Or...what if we applied the NFL model to the pre-WHA merger NHL? All of a sudden, the Canadiens have all of 3 Stanley Cup titles. The Maple Leafs are still waiting. So are the Flyers, etc. In our new NHL, the Islanders have more titles than Montreal.

And so on...

I think the primary reason for this is simply because the championship was re-named the Super Bowl.

Indeed. The Stanley Cup has always been the Stanley Cup (and even predates the NHL...hell it even predates professional hockey), the World Series has always been the World Series, and the NBA Championship will always lack any sort of special name.

Of course the NHL/WHA merger wasn't a true merger and is basically regarded as an expansion with none of the WHA records counting, unlike the NFL/AFL merger.

The same applies for the NBA-ABA merger. It was played more as an annexation/expansion rather than a true merger.

PLZ to have Rams face Seahawks in opening Thursday. If only to avert the annual trip to Seattle at the end of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone find it surprising that they were referring to Marcus Allen as a member of the Oakland Raiders last night during the trophy presentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Fans of pre-merger NHL teams would still talk about their Stanley Cup titles but Islanders fans would just say that the Stanley Cup isn't as prestigious as winning the Super Cup. B)

I like to think the Super Cup would have been the Stanley Cup and the Avco Cup stacked on top of each other.

And it would have been awesome...

dc7901bd-35ad-42b3-b927-d227733125a3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AFL was pretty strong by the time of the merger and every team moved with it to the NFL. That wasn't the case in the ABA/WHA which were mostly gong shows and accidentally developed a few good markets, while most of their teams were folded. The NFL/AFL merger is a far more significant event than the mergers in the NBA and NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone find it surprising that they were referring to Marcus Allen as a member of the Oakland Raiders last night during the trophy presentation?

I guess it was just easier since the Los Angeles Raiders don't exist anymore. *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, guys. I was just having some fun. I get that that the WHA and ABA weren't on the same level as the AFL - hell, I was around for all of it. My point was that we're OK with revising NFL history. I used the other leagues as examples of what we do with the NFL. That's all. Revise all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the NFL did indeed exist before 1966.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, guys. I was just having some fun. I get that that the WHA and ABA weren't on the same level as the AFL - hell, I was around for all of it. My point was that we're OK with revising NFL history. I used the other leagues as examples of what we do with the NFL. That's all. Revise all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the NFL did indeed exist before 1966.

Just because I want to...

Here's how the Super Bowls would have looked if they began with the AFL in 1960...

1960: Houston Oilers vs Philadelphia Eagles

1961: Green Bay Pakers vs Houston Oilers

1962: Dallas Texans vs Green Bay Packers

1963: Chicago Bears vs San Diego Chargers

1964: Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns

1965: Green Bay Packers vs Buffalo Bills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.