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.

[HarleyDog]

(02-12-2024, 04:52 PM)Destro Wrote: Patrick Mahomes is an elite football player surrounded by a bunch of trash individuals in his private life.

Absolutely. His freaken wife is over the top. His brother is even worse. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(02-12-2024, 05:18 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Absolutely. His freaken wife is over the top. His brother is even worse. 

And the dad just got his 3rd DUI. It’s a miracle Pat turned out as well as he did.

[HarleyDog]

(02-12-2024, 06:03 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: And the dad just got his 3rd DUI. It’s a miracle Pat turned out as well as he did.

Interesting. Didn't know that.

[Essex Johnson]

(02-12-2024, 01:38 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Thankfully we have Burrow, otherwise taking Ross over Mahommes because we "didn't need a QB" would kinda hurt.

nothing against Burrow (he was leader that got us to 1) and has the ability to get us back to SB but looking back, Mahommes was the right pick (other's passed on him too though) and probably have at least 1 maybe 2 SB now instead of the total rebuild we had to do . 3 SBs by 28 is pretty much on par with Brady...

[Emphasis]

It was a tall task for any QB to win a Super Bowl, with the especially craptacular O-line the Bengals had during their Super Bowl season. The Bengals still came very close in part because of Burrow's talent.

Drafting Burrow was nowhere near a mistake. The inability to provide proper protection for the QB has been a glaring problem for a long time now.

[basballguy]

Unrelated but I’m eating up all the hate Kelce is getting. The world finally got to see this man for what he is

[Destro]

Mahomes also walked into an Andy Reid run team and has Travis Kelce. For sure helps. The Super Bowl he lost he was running for his life because his O-line were tackling dummies.

[*Nately120*]

(02-12-2024, 09:29 PM)basballguy Wrote: Unrelated but I’m eating up all the hate Kelce is getting.  The world finally got to see this man for what he is

Kelce seems like ham and egger heel who walks into the arena and say "I must be at the Kirk S. Nevin Arena in Greensburg PA, because all I see is a bunch of smelly idiots!" and then basks in the cliched boos.  The guy gets the cheap heat and people fall right into the trap every time.

I can't even tell which side of the coin you are on about it.  The world sees him for who he is?  I don't know who he is, I guess.  Just seems like a goofy jock bro who basks in the inevitable hate any team that wins gets these days.  If/when we win 2 SBs Jamar Chase is going to be drawing and loving hate like mad.

[Emphasis]

I don't like or dislike Kelce, but shoving your head coach and then screaming in his face is next level disrespect. If Kansas City would have lost, there would have been more of a spotlight on that.

[Essex Johnson]

(02-12-2024, 09:33 PM)Destro Wrote: Mahomes also walked into an Andy Reid run team and has Travis Kelce. For sure helps. The Super Bowl he lost he was running for his life because his O-line were tackling dummies.

that is what makes the difference normally between dynasties and not.. a great QB and HC together but both have to prove it.. the rap on Andy was good but not great when it comes to the playoffs,, Mahomes changed that

[BengalYankee]

(02-12-2024, 05:11 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: 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.

The Browns could have been in a league of 100 teams and they all folded. The issue that you are not including is that this "Expansion" eam DOMINATED the NFL defending reigning Champion day 1 of the 1950 season and later became the Champions of the NFL that same year and later had a dynasty in the 1950's, pretty good for an  AAFC
 team. So much the comissioner Bert Bell of the NFL stated that this AAFC team was "the greatest team of all time".




As for as indivudual stats does Babe Ruth stats still count?? If you say the Super Bowl era is the one that counts then you are saying the NFL started in 1966. Which means Bart Starr and the Packers did not three peat in 1965-1967. What you are saying his/their NFL 1965 Championship doesn't count. Ridiculous no other team sport relies on such foolishness. For instance the Montreal Canadiens won 24 Championships starting from a 6 team league started in 1915. The league has 32 teams now exactly the same as the NFL. Au contraire, the NFL/APFA started in 1920 with 10 teams, but because of the marketing smartness of the NFL some people started in 1966.   

If they still called the World Championship the AFL-NFL Championship like they did in the beginning nobody, I repeat nobody would say the Pre-AFL-NFL Championship, but some people will say Super Bowl this or that. I disagree the NFL did not start in 1966. Again the NHL sarted well before the NFL and Montreal and the NHL players stats still count. The same for MLB, NBA, College Football, College Basketball etc.    


Is it easier for the offense of the NFL these days or yesteryear? We all know that it is much easier for QB's today than the 1940-1970's, heck it is easier today then the early 2000's. Honestly, you can't even stare at a QB without getting a penalty so please spare me with what Brady has done in 22 years of plaiyng ball in the NFL.  

[KillerGoose]

(02-14-2024, 02:53 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: The Browns could have been in a league of 100 teams and they all folded. The issue that you are not including is that this "Expansion" eam DOMINATED the NFL defending reigning Champion day 1 of the 1950 season and later became the Champions of the NFL that same year and later had a dynasty in the 1950's, pretty good for an  AAFC
 team. So much the comissioner Bert Bell of the NFL stated that this AAFC team was "the greatest team of all time".




As for as indivudual stats does Babe Ruth stats still count?? If you say the Super Bowl era is the one that counts then you are saying the NFL started in 1966. Which means Bart Starr and the Packers did not three peat in 1965-1967. What you are saying his/their NFL 1965 Championship doesn't count. Ridiculous no other team sport relies on such foolishness. For instance the Montreal Canadiens won 24 Championships starting from a 6 team league started in 1915. The league has 32 teams now exactly the same as the NFL. Au contraire, the NFL/APFA started in 1920 with 10 teams, but because of the marketing smartness of the NFL some people started in 1966.   

If they still called the World Championship the AFL-NFL Championship like they did in the beginning nobody, I repeat nobody would say the Pre-AFL-NFL Championship, but some people will say Super Bowl this or that. I disagree the NFL did not start in 1966. Again the NHL sarted well before the NFL and Montreal and the NHL players stats still count. The same for MLB, NBA, College Football, College Basketball etc.    


Is it easier for the offense of the NFL these days or yesteryear? We all know that it is much easier for QB's today than the 1940-1970's, heck it is easier today then the early 2000's. Honestly, you can't even stare at a QB without getting a penalty so please spare me with what Brady has done in 22 years of plaiyng ball in the NFL.  

I'm starting to lose sight of what you're trying to argue, so I am going to keep this fairly short.

I put zero weight into the AAFC championships. I do put weight into the NFL championships. The Browns were a very good team once they got into the NFL. I am not disputing that. I do dispute Otto Graham being arguably the GOAT with any reasoning including his AAFC championships.

Babe Ruth's stats still count, but it was also a different game. Comparisons are kind of pointless due to how different the game is. 

Yes, the NFL started in 1920. 

Is it easier for offenses today? Yes. Is it harder to consistently win today? Absolutely. Not even close. The success that Tom Brady's teams enjoyed over 22 years is significantly more impressive than what the Otto Graham led teams did. Patrick Mahomes may be on his way to surpassing that, though. 

TL;DR - AAFC championships have no weight in an NFL discussion, Browns/Graham were all-time greats still, game is too different to make comparisons, much harder to win consistently in today's game. 

[BengalYankee]

(02-14-2024, 04:18 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I'm starting to lose sight of what you're trying to argue, so I am going to keep this fairly short.

I put zero weight into the AAFC championships. I do put weight into the NFL championships. The Browns were a very good team once they got into the NFL. I am not disputing that. I do dispute Otto Graham being arguably the GOAT with any reasoning including his AAFC championships.

Babe Ruth's stats still count, but it was also a different game. Comparisons are kind of pointless due to how different the game is. 

Yes, the NFL started in 1920. 

Is it easier for offenses today? Yes. Is it harder to consistently win today? Absolutely. Not even close. The success that Tom Brady's teams enjoyed over 22 years is significantly more impressive than what the Otto Graham led teams did. Patrick Mahomes may be on his way to surpassing that, though. 

TL;DR - AAFC championships have no weight in an NFL discussion, Browns/Graham were all-time greats still, game is too different to make comparisons, much harder to win consistently in today's game. 

Sorry to confuse with the multiple facts that I have provided, so I will keep this fairly short.

Subtracting the 4 years of Otto with the team the NFL Commissioner stated was "the greatest team in NFL history", those were not my words but someone who knew football at the time better then you or I.

So lets give Otto 6 years of which he won 3 NFL Championships. That still makes him one of the best of all time. Since you discount the AAFC as a minor league to the NFL, sort of like the minor leagues of MLB, then Otto won as a rookie in 1950. The same as a baseball player playing in minor league ball before he is called up to play in the majors. 

My girl Caitlin Clark is about to break the record of Lynette Woodard of college basketball, however when Woodard played there were no 3 pointers. The idea of this era counts more then yesteryear is debateable. 

The Packers have 13 World Champions, Montreal of the NHL have 24 Titles even though they started with a six team league and Otto has 3 NFL Championships in 6 years and Brady has 7 in 22 years.    

[KillerGoose]

(02-15-2024, 04:24 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Sorry to confuse with the multiple facts that I have provided, so I will keep this fairly short.

I don't think I am the one confused here, Yankee. I'd cut down on the snark lol. I am largely agreeing with what you say. I don't know what you're arguing at this point but you keep going.

Quote:Subtracting the 4 years of Otto with the team the NFL Commissioner stated was "the greatest team in NFL history", those were not my words but someone who knew football at the time better then you or I.


So lets give Otto 6 years of which he won 3 NFL Championships. That still makes him one of the best of all time. Since you discount the AAFC as a minor league to the NFL, sort of like the minor leagues of MLB, then Otto won as a rookie in 1950. The same as a baseball player playing in minor league ball before he is called up to play in the majors. 

 
Yeah, Otto is one of the all-time greats. I agree with you. I've said that multiple times. He just isn't THE greatest. 

Quote:My girl Caitlin Clark is about to break the record of Lynette Woodard of college basketball, however when Woodard played there were no 3 pointers. The idea of this era counts more then yesteryear is debateable. 

I have never said it counts more. I have said two very clear things.

1. Winning is much harder to do in the modern era with significantly more teams, free agency, trading, modern athlete pool etc. There is more parity.
2. The eras are so different, it is almost pointless to compare them.
   

BTW Caitlin Clark is an animal. 

Quote:The Packers have 13 World Champions, Montreal of the NHL have 24 Titles even though they started with a six team league and Otto has 3 NFL Championships in 6 years and Brady has 7 in 22 years.   

Those are all awesome achievements. However, winning your titles in the modern era is more difficult to do which is why people tend to have a little bit of recency bias on these topics. That doesn't mean that historical titles are worth less, they are still titles. However, you're going to find that people aren't going to view them as prestigiously as they do a modern title. This isn't a unique perspective.

The Browns and Otto Graham were undeniably the GOATs of their era. I think that is a very fair way to leave it. 

[BengalYankee]

(02-15-2024, 05:02 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I don't think I am the one confused here, Yankee. I'd cut down on the snark lol. I am largely agreeing with what you say. I don't know what you're arguing at this point but you keep going.


 
Yeah, Otto is one of the all-time greats. I agree with you. I've said that multiple times. He just isn't THE greatest. 



I have never said it counts more. I have said two very clear things.

1. Winning is much harder to do in the modern era with significantly more teams, free agency, trading, modern athlete pool etc. There is more parity.
2. The eras are so different, it is almost pointless to compare them.
   

BTW Caitlin Clark is an animal. 



Those are all awesome achievements. However, winning your titles in the modern era is more difficult to do which is why people tend to have a little bit of recency bias on these topics. That doesn't mean that historical titles are worth less, they are still titles. However, you're going to find that people aren't going to view them as prestigiously as they do a modern title. This isn't a unique perspective.

The Browns and Otto Graham were undeniably the GOATs of their era. I think that is a very fair way to leave it. 

Good friendly debate, which is abnormal on this website. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2024, 02:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I like Patrick Mahomes. I am not a fan of his wife or brother.

I like Andy Reid

I dislike Travis Kelce

I dislike (yet understand) the NFL's obsession w/ Ta-Ta

Credit when it's due:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jackson-mahomes-deemed-hero-protecting-191518102.html

Quote:Jackson Mahomes is being hailed as a hero after helping protect innocent bystanders, including a young child, during the shooting incident

[*rfaulk34*]

(02-15-2024, 10:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Credit when it's due:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jackson-mahomes-deemed-hero-protecting-191518102.html

Probably kept the kid close as a potential meat shield.