Packers and their 13th championships

I am sick and tired of the media talking about how the Packers have 13 championships. They are 4 and 1 in the superbowl era. They won 9 other NFL championships prior to the SB era..seriously? There were 8 teams back then.

give me a break..I certainly don't count those.

 

Well, most other people do. The world existed before the 1960s

 

Yep I don't count them either.....who cares about back then anyway

 

The Packers' championships are just as much of football history as the Steelers' Super Bowl titles from the '70s. Why should they stop talking about them?

 

because they are NOT "as much of football history as the Steelers' Super Bowl titles." that would be like bragging about 'baseball titles' that occured prior to 1903 (when the world series began).

the packers antiquated 'nfl titles' are a farce. over half of their eleven 'nfl championships' came prior to 1960. four of those came before the steelers were even the 'steelers'. it was a fledgling league with only three stable teams (packers, giants, bears). the rest of the league consisted of a revolving door of a dozen or so teams that were either created, moved, or folded. teams like the dayton triangles and duluth eskimos. the 'title' went to the team with the best record. a championship game wasn't even required. to equate that to the modern era where a 28-32-team league consisting of established teams competing for division titles, a playoff round, and then, ultimately, a championship game (the super bowl), is silly. it's simply not the same. the packers, bears, and giants were winning titles fifty years before the nfl/afl merger. i could go on and on about the disparity of competition, the extraordinary way in which the game has evolved (forward pass anyone?) -- the rules of baseball have pretty much remained consistent for over a century -- , the difference between lambeau, halas, and paul brown being the steinbrenners of their generation in a pre-salary cap era, etc, etc, etc . . .

the packers '13 championships' are a joke.

with that said, the timing of it all, for them, was rather inopportune as they DID have the most dominant football team in the game in the early sixties and their '61, '62, and '65 nfl titles would have undoubtedly been super bowl titles had the merger taken place in 1960 rather than 1970. they could easily be boasting seven super bowls.

but . . . it is what it is and the super bowl is the measuring stick and 6 is where the bar is currently set.

go giants!

 

They are as much a part of NFL history as Super Bowls until they eliminate them from the books. That doesn't mean they are comparable to Super Bowls and that is why they don't lump them together.

It's funny that some fans dismiss any records or stats that don't benefit their team.

 

In reality, the first four Super Bowls were merely exhibition games. They didn't determine squat. At the time the AFL and NFL had not merged. So, for instance, the 1968 Baltimore Colts are still and will always be the NFL Champions, despite losing Super Bowl III to the Jets. And the first two Super Bowls weren't even called Super Bowls.

The true "Super Bowl" era began with the 1970 season. The leagues merged, rules merged, divisions set up, etc. Whatever took place before that is all good and fine, but almost half the league's teams entered in 1970 with that merger. Any discussion of titles begins there.

 

Do we ever talk about national league champions from 1876 to 1909? No. Nobody gives a darn what happened in professional baseball prior to the first World Series. Those are the titles that now matter.

 

You're right, they should just eliminate all of the records from prior to 1970. They are worthless. Any players from the pre-Super Bowl era that are in the HOF should be kicked out. What they did simply doesn't matter.

If NFL titles before '70 don't matter, why did you mention that the '68 Colts are still and always will be NFL Champions?

 

We cannot forget history,,plain and simple..It does matter ,,they went out and competed and hit and bled and played for peanuts ..To me those guys way back then truly played for pride and they deserve to be remembered ....All of them,not just Green Bay or the Steelers

 

Nobody talks about Cleveland's NFL championships, except for Cleveland fans.

 

Nobody talks about the Browns anything... except their suckage!

 

Agreed!

 

"Those who can't remember history are condemned to repeat it" Of course those championships count. If the Steelers had 9 NFL championships you can bet fans of the black and gold would count them.

 

Go to a Pitt game, they have all sorts of reference to 9 Nat'l Championship all but 2 from before 1920.

Every year, on the anniversary of Maz's HR in 1960, there is a little commemeration of it where Forber Field used to be.

Walk by PNC Park during the season, banners for the 1909 and 1925 teams hang proudly.

Are these things lame too?

There was football before 1966, I can personnally attest to it. And I do find it amusing that the SB win by the 1966 Packers counts, but their 1965 championship doesn't. Same team, coached by the guy they named the trophy after.

 

My good friend is a Packer fan and he never brings up the championships as being on par with the Super Bowl titles. Hell he hardly ever brought them up at all. Did they win them? Yeah. Do they really mean anything? No.

 

AAFL? not an existing league. Just like Charger fans wanting to count their 1 AFL championship. Doesn't count 'cause the league doesn't exist anymore, the NFL does.

 

The NFL of it's current form isn't the same NFL. Not since the merger. That's what we're saying. The old NFL is more comparable to the NFC.[/quote:24rcozla]
I understand what you guys are saying, and agree with the NFL NFC analogy but, until 1960, there wasn't any other league.

 

So what happens in 50 years when the game changes again and it becomes world wide and its no longer the super bowl,but the megaworld bowl or whatever..Do we discount all the current accomplishments of "this"era...those teams and men back then played when they played and won what was to be won..Doesn't matter that it was in a different era..They played and beat who they were up against..I think its kinda silly to discount that..Competition is competition ,,period...If you think about it the steeler 1st 4 SB's there was a lot of difference from today ..Less teams,less playoff spots , less games per season,less competition ..
i just don't think we should ever discount or forget about the men who played the game back then...