Just so Patties fans don't forget...

Literally who?

>>74245185
Tom Brady

>>74245119
>played against slow unathletic whites
>less games
>less teams
>game was still developing
>carried by running game


Wow so impressive

>>74245119
>Lombardi-babby
>defense-babby
Packers finishes in defense in the 60s: 1960 2nd, 1961 2nd, 1962 1st, 1963 2nd, 1964 2nd, 1965 1st, 1966 1st, 1967 3rd
this is coming from a guy who hates brady

>>74245119
>pre superbowl championships
>actually thinking are worth any more than a modern day conference championship win


lol, packer fans are so sad.

>>74245240
>Belichick babby
>video camera babby
>Vinateri babby
>deflated ball babby

>>74245240
they also had the best offensive line in the league, best running backs in the league, and the best coach in the league

>>74245119
There were, like, 14 teams in the league back then and three of Starr's rings were pre-Super Bowl.

>>74245244
packers fans literally cannot stop mentioning "muh gazillion pre-super bowl 'rings' "
it's cute honestly. It's like counting National League pennants as World Series wins

>>74245263
imagine if they had had Jim Brown
they would have won every championship from 1960-67

>>74245119
Brady has been able to play at a high level a hell of a lot longer than any 60s QB though; Starr and Unitas were both completely finished in 8-9 years. The idea of a QB playing 15 years and winning a ring at almost 40 was unheard of back then.

>>74245119
Yeah well the NY Giants lost 5 championships in 6 years.

>>74245381
The Giants are secretly one of the shittier teams in league history. Around since the very beginning of the NFL, and they have so little to show for it. Not even as many Owls as the Cowboys, who have been around half as long.

Presuperbowl champions count just as much until 1960. Fuck off retards.

>>74245392
well i mean both teams have been around the same amount of time in the Owl era but you're right, the Giants are overrated. A top 10 team, sure, maybe even pushing 6th, but overrated nonetheless.

>>74245392
I know they have never really had a period where they have been perennial contenders, but they have 4 SB championships man. That is more than 26 other teams. The Cowboys have 5 Owls, that is part of a 3 way tie for 2nd most ever. This must be a troll.

>>74245431
It's literally like counting national league pennants as world series titles.

>>74245286
That comparison is garbage

>>74245447
It literally isn't, and you should feel bad.

>>74245392
Their biggest problem in the early years was losing in the finals. About 14 appearances in 36 years, but only 3 championships. I think they've had a good history though (especially since the Superbowl era), despite the steep valleys they'd face.

>>74245431
They really don't though. The retarded thing to do would be to think NOT playing all of the competition in a league with like 10 teams is somehow equivalent to the modern day NFL, where competition starts with millions of high school players competing and training to improve and get weeded out to point that only the very best of the best in the world compete in a 32 team league where only 1 team is crowned champion.

But yeah, a bunch of skinny white dads with alcoholism and the early stages of lung cancer who played sports on the weekends for an extra $50 a month are totally comparable..

>>74245392
In the pre-Super Bowl era, the Giants were known as the NFL's punching bag. They appeared in the championship game an average of every 2-1/2 years, but lost almost every time other than in the 1930s and 1956, after which they lost several more title games. After 1963, they wouldn't appear in one again until Super Bowl XXI. Along with the Saints and Jets, they were one of three teams to never make a postseason appearance during the 1970s.

But all things said, the Bears and Eagles (especially the Eagles) have been historically less successful franchises than the Giants, who have three Super Bowl titles and made history by upsetting the Patriots in XLII.

>>74245451
>>74245459
It literally is. It's a "championship" of a different league. If the American league had joined the national league and the combined entity had been called "the national league" it would be an even better comparison. Pre-super bowl "championships" are the same as counting NL pennants as world series titles.

>>74245521
Four super bowls. 86, 90, 07 and 11.

>>74245521
four super bowl titles
XXI, XXV, XLII, XLVI

>>74245331
Medical treatment is miles better now, and QBs are better protected from hits. The game is far less physical than it was in Starr's time; Fran Tarkenton even said he's surprised how much longer the shelf life of a QB is nowadays because he was totally done by the time he retired at 38.

>>74245482
>hurrr the league didn't have millions upon millions being pumped into it and the players didn't get constant attention from physical trainers, therefore those championships are worthless

It is clearly not the same, but it was still the highest achievement possible in football until the AFL formed.

>>74245331
I was going to say Peanut Head, but I remembered that he did jack-all and the Broncos' D totally carried him.

>>74245521
Burrs have more titles than the Giants do...

>>74245600
Most of the Bears' rings were in the 1930s-40s, after that they have a mere two of them in almost 70 years.

>>74245598
Uh...yeah. I'm fairly sure that Brady would be the oldest starting QB to actually do anything in a title game as opposed to going along for the ride.

>>74245542
No, not really. I don't think you understand the history of baseball very well anon.

>>74245591
Ok I see what you are saying. But even then it would only really count from 1950 to 1959. The AAFC was still a successful league in the 40s and before.. So I guess yes, in the decade between the ending of the AAFC and the AFL, the NFL was the highest level of competition for american football, and those 50s championships can be considered legit.

>>74245656
I understand the history of baseball extremely well. If you think that's lacking, then it's probably my understanding of football history that you find. I know the AL was founded to compete against the NL and Ban Johnson helped it become successful enough to actually threaten the senior circuit so they decided to have a series between the champion of each league. After the Giants refused to play the 1904 AL champion, ground rules for the series were firmly established. The leagues didn't unify until the Landis days, though.

Football evolves much more rapidly as a sport than baseball; the NFL of the 2010s is very different from the NFL of the 1990s, let alone the NFL of the 1960s.

>>74245119
Otto Graham > Bart Starr

>>74245763
Well yeah, baseball is the most resistant to change of the four major NA sports by a good margin. I mean, today we have the mel blount rule and all the QB protection stuff. Even this season we had "Makes all chop blocks illegal.", "Expands the horse-collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.", and "A player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls is disqualified from that game"

Also those first two Super Bowls were essentially just an exhibition game played against AFL teams which were much inferior to the NFL talent-wise. Even Vince Lombardi and the Packers players didn't want to do them. They were all like "We already won the NFL championship. This game is pointless."

>>74245798
They didn't even call them super bowls. Wasn't it like "NFL-AFL World Championship Game"?

>>74245798
Packers fans always bring this argument up. "The NFL was so far ahead of the AFL that it wasn't even real competition, so those pre-superbowl championships matter!" If that is the case then why did the AFL/AFC win 7 of the first 10 superbowls? That argument is hog wash.

>>74245811
>"world" champions

>>74245816
I see what this guy is saying.

And why is he excluding the 3rd Super Bowl pre-merger? If the AFL was so inferior why did the team that went 13-1, have the 2nd best offense and the best defense, and the league MVP, and had went 58-14 in two playoff games lose to the AFL champion Jets? How does it make sense if the AFL was so inferior that the AFL champion would hold the NFL's best team by far to their lowest score of the season?

>>74245816
>If that is the case then why did the AFL/AFC win 7 of the first 10 superbowls? That argument is hog wash

This is a specious argument. After the merger, the AFC got the Steelers, Browns, and Colts added to it to balance out the number of teams. The Colts won the first post-merger championship and then the Steelers went on to dominate the 70s. Of the former AFL franchises, the only successful ones during this time were the Raiders and Dolphins, the latter of which was run by veteran NFL coaches.

>>74245854
The Colts basically had the single biggest NFL choke until Super Bowl XLII because of overconfidence that they could beat the peewee football AFL without even trying.

>>74245854
Or how the Chiefs beat the NFL team that had the best offense and defense 23-7 even though the Vikings were favored by 12 points, just like how the Colts had been the 2nd biggest favorite in Super Bowl history after the 94 49ers?

>>74245240
>ref babby
>schedule babby
>Belichick babby
>Gronk babby
>asterisk babby
>cheatbabby

File: 1483307021823.jpg (650KB, 2000x1024px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 2000x1024px

Just so the Packies fans don't forget...

>>74245917
I really really like this post

Still, Bradshaw and Montana never lost a title game while Starr lost one and Brady lost two (including a monumental choke job).

>>74245908
>>74245256
DESU, Belichick has had very little involvement in the Patriots' offense since the early 2000s, he mostly only handles the defensive stuff.

>>74245240
THEY ALSO DIDN'T HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE

>>74245955
DAMAGE

DAMAGE

CONTROL

>>74245956
Did I just imagine Jim Brown?

>>74245937
>getting BTFO in the Wild Card round is better than getting to the Super Bowl
every time

>>74245987
Shouldn't you be getting invaded by Russia or something, Wojack?

>>74245956
the best player of their era was black?

>>74245987
So I guess LeBron > Jordan then

>>74245691
The Leagues didn't unify until the late 1990's senpai.

Even under Landis, both Leagues had separate Presidents.

>>74246067
Yeah but Landis had authority over both leagues. They were under the same jurisdiction. They did plenty of shit like banning players for life before the 90's. That reminds me of when Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were banned for being hired to sign autographs in casinos in Atlantic City after they'd retired

>>74245576
Starr played for 14 seasons (1957 to 1971) but he was almost useless for the last 4 of them; in fact the Packers were slackening a bit in the 1967 season. Johnny Unitas actually lasted 17 seasons (1956 to 1973), by the time of Super Bowl III (which he missed due to injuries), he was already on the decline. The less said about his finale as a Charger, the better.

>>74246122
Unitas didn't miss Super Bowl III. He came in after Morrall had thrown three picks.

>>74246136
Or was it V that he didn't play it. One of them. Anyway, point still stands that he was not a high level QB anymore by the late 60s. That Tom Brady has been competitive as a player this long is a testament to today's sports medicine and better QB protection.

>>74246147
Still, you have QBs like Donovan McNabb that burn out early. He was done by the age of 34.

>>74246174
lyl McFlabb was never good and he also didn't take care of himself which is why he declined so fast

>>74246147
He played in V as well but he got taken out with a rib injury in the 2nd

>>74246208
This is true. System babby with no real skills beyond decent arm strength. He never had the mental acuity or ability to read defenses that is required of a good QB.

>>74245240
Also calling Bart Starr a system babby is unfair because he called his own plays as all QBs in that time did.