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

[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.