Great Super Bowl, Mahomes is a stud like him or not

[KillerGoose]

(02-12-2024, 04:42 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Ahhh, you conveniently forget a few facts.

1. The 1950 Browns in their first game of the season DOMINATED the defending 1949 NFL Champions Philadelphia Eagles.
2. The "Expansion" team Browns won the 1950 NFL Championship.
3. The NFL Commissioner Bert Bell called the Browns "The Greatest Team of All-Time".

Ergo, if the best team of the XFL, CFL or USFL DOMINATES the reigning defending NFL Champion and the opening game of the season and later wins the NFL Championship then by common sense the Browns other rivals of the AAFC were on par with the rest of the NFL.   

Watch and learn. After watching the video tell me what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xOgmjbfF4s

No, I didn't forget those things. I just don't see the end logic the same way as you. The Browns were undeniably a phenomenal team, but their AAFC titles aren't going to hold much weight in any debate where you are comparing modern vs. historical accomplishments. You say it must be common sense for the Browns rivals to be on par with the NFL teams but I heavily disagree. For example, the San Francisco 49ers were an elite team in the AAFC. They never had a losing season in the league and it is quite possible that the only reason they didn't win any championships is because they had to contend with the Browns. 

Their first season in the NFL ended with a 3-9 record.

What is more likely is that the Browns were so far ahead of their contemporaries in the AAFC that they were genuinely the best team in the world but were playing in an inferior league. The New York Yankees, another elite AAFC team, folded and most players on the roster went to play for the newly founded New York Yanks in the NFL. They went 7-5 their first season, 1-9-2 the second season and then folded permanently. This is still the early days of professional football at this point, so you're going to have large gaps in talent between teams. It isn't the hyper competitive modern era where the difference between the best/worst team is a surprisingly small amount.

I do not object to the 40's/50's Browns being a dominating team nor to Graham being one of the greats. However, the game and league were so fundamentally different that trying to make modern day comparisons is useless. Is Graham's seven championships in 10 years more impressive than Brady's in 22 when you account for the fact that Graham played in a defunct league that only had eight teams for most of his career and that Brady did it in the hyper competitive modern era with a league full of 32 teams, and free agency and multiple other factors? No, I certainly don't think so. I think it is a useless comparison, though. It's just too different. 

It's harder to win now for multiple reasons but we should never forget the early pioneers of the sport.