Go Eagles

[Heyjoe4]

I don't see why whether or not there was a championship game is relevant. That was the format for determining the champion at the time. Does the NCAA put an asterisk on their football champions before 2014?

Well said rmontro. A championship is a championship, however it is determined. Every team plays according to the same set of rules to determine a champion. If records were changed there would be multiple asterisks to account for, among others, the pre-SB era, the SB era, years with different playoff formats, and on and on.

The Packers' two threepeats are exactly that - they were the best football team in the world for three consecutive years on two occasions. No asterisks required.

On Sunday night Fox flashed an interesting stat. The Packers' OL from their first SB win averaged 6'3" and 245 lbs. The current Eagles OL is on average 6'6" and 336 lbs. It's night and day but both teams are SB champs. No asterisk necessary, thank you.

I think Im safe in saying that as far as world championships, the Packers are to football what the Yankees are to baseball - teams with by far the most championships in their respective sports. Full stop.

 

[El Guapo]

To me it's like the new rushing records. Future generations will not understand that the greats such as ****erson, OJ, and Campbell accomplished these feats in less games than Adrian Peterson or Saquon Barkley.

If you guys don't think that there is a difference between determining a championship by record versus the best teams playing each other at the end of the season, then we'll just have to disagree. My point is merely that all of these records need to be annotated once they no longer align with current standards. It gives context to those who would otherwise not understand the circumstances of past records. An asterisk is merely a grammatical symbol, indicating that further information is supplied. It doesn't diminish the accomplishments of anyone or any team.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Well said rmontro. A championship is a championship, however it is determined. Every team plays according to the same set of rules to determine a champion. If records were changed there would be multiple asterisks to account for, among others, the pre-SB era, the SB era, years with different playoff formats, and on and on.

The Packers' two threepeats are exactly that - they were the best football team in the world for three consecutive years on two occasions. No asterisks required.

On Sunday night Fox flashed an interesting stat. The Packers' OL from their first SB win averaged 6'3" and 245 lbs. The current Eagles OL is on average 6'6" and 336 lbs. It's night and day but both teams are SB champs. No asterisk necessary, thank you.

I think Im safe in saying that as far as world championships, the Packers are to football what the Yankees are to baseball - teams with by far the most championships in their respective sports. Full stop.

Today's NFL is more like a Summo wrestling match in the trenches compared with Lombardi's O line that needed to be lighter and quicker on their feet. That offense was dependent on O linemen being able to pull or trap block and get down field. Today's big-bellied O linemen do a lot less pulling compared with Lombardi's teams. I also think LT changed the game with his awesome pass rush. Once LT wrecked havoc from the outside, teams put a lot more emphasis on height and length to take on the speed rush.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

To me it's like the new rushing records. Future generations will not understand that the greats such as ****erson, OJ, and Campbell accomplished these feats in less games than Adrian Peterson or Saquon Barkley.

If you guys don't think that there is a difference between determining a championship by record versus the best teams playing each other at the end of the season, then we'll just have to disagree. My point is merely that all of these records need to be annotated once they no longer align with current standards. It gives context to those who would otherwise not understand the circumstances of past records. An asterisk is merely a grammatical symbol, indicating that further information is supplied. It doesn't diminish the accomplishments of anyone or any team.

out of curiosity, who is control of the awfully stupid censorship rules on this site?

 

[El Guapo]

out of curiosity, who is control of the awfully stupid censorship rules on this site?

I'm far from the expert, but several forums that I've visited appear to use the same "platform." The same words are auto-censored on all of the sites. You should see how ruffled the feathers get on the snowmobile forums... I don't know if mods have the ability to change which words are censored.

After I saw that his name was blanked out, I thought about changing it to Eric DdIiCcKkerson. One just needs to be creative.

 

[Pkrjones]

I'm far from the expert, but several forums that I've visited appear to use the same "platform." The same words are auto-censored on all of the sites. You should see how ruffled the feathers get on the snowmobile forums... I don't know if mods have the ability to change which words are censored.

After I saw that his name was blanked out, I thought about changing it to Eric DdIiCcKkerson. One just needs to be creative.

Can also get creative with spelling & spacing (e.g. d!ckerson, or d i c k) to get around auto-censor.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Today's NFL is more like a Summo wrestling match in the trenches compared with Lombardi's O line that needed to be lighter and quicker on their feet. That offense was dependent on O linemen being able to pull or trap block and get down field. Today's big-bellied O linemen do a lot less pulling compared with Lombardi's teams. I also think LT changed the game with his awesome pass rush. Once LT wrecked havoc from the outside, teams put a lot more emphasis on height and length to take on the speed rush.

Yeah it's kinda like natural selection/evolution of species applied to football. I still remember the Packer sweeps. Those linemen had to be fast to move as a group, left or right, and clear a path for the RB. I don't remember the last time I saw a sweep like that in the NFL. But linemen routinely shift and stunt, and that takes a lot of athleticism, beyond just big bodies.

But even at 6'6 tall and well over 300 lbs, the O linemen today are incredibly fast and explosive.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Can also get creative with spelling & spacing (e.g. d!ckerson, or d i c k) to get around auto-censor.

I can't believe this site is wound so tightly on language that words like D i c kerson is censored.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I'm far from the expert, but several forums that I've visited appear to use the same "platform." The same words are auto-censored on all of the sites. You should see how ruffled the feathers get on the snowmobile forums... I don't know if mods have the ability to change which words are censored.

After I saw that his name was blanked out, I thought about changing it to Eric DdIiCcKkerson. One just needs to be creative.

Good point. Many sites must use the same or very similar algorithms to censor these words.

 

[Heyjoe4]

To me it's like the new rushing records. Future generations will not understand that the greats such as ****erson, OJ, and Campbell accomplished these feats in less games than Adrian Peterson or Saquon Barkley.

If you guys don't think that there is a difference between determining a championship by record versus the best teams playing each other at the end of the season, then we'll just have to disagree. My point is merely that all of these records need to be annotated once they no longer align with current standards. It gives context to those who would otherwise not understand the circumstances of past records. An asterisk is merely a grammatical symbol, indicating that further information is supplied. It doesn't diminish the accomplishments of anyone or any team.

I see your point - and yet, a championship team is still a championship team. Annotations are fine, there just have to be some common-sense limits to their use. Then again, I don't know if that's possible. What about a modern RB who breaks a single-season rushing record in only 14 games played, or anything less than 17?

As far as champions, I'd have no problem identifying the rules used at the time to determine a champion. That would be useful. Same for any individual records that were made with fewer (or more) games played.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Yeah it's kinda like natural selection/evolution of species applied to football. I still remember the Packer sweeps. Those linemen had to be fast to move as a group, left or right, and clear a path for the RB. I don't remember the last time I saw a sweep like that in the NFL. But linemen routinely shift and stunt, and that takes a lot of athleticism, beyond just big bodies.

But even at 6'6 tall and well over 300 lbs, the O linemen today are incredibly fast and explosive.

No doubt the athleticism among some of the O linemen is impressive. Truly impressive is the "pad level" of Lombardi's O lines. Watching highlights of the first two Super Bowls is a clinic in blocking. The O linemen fired out with great "pad level" and hit their opposition around the waist and frequently just cut the man down. I know the MM harped aborted it but today's O lineman have a tendency to play much higher up.

 

[rmontro]

My point is merely that all of these records need to be annotated once they no longer align with current standards.

I disagree completely. If we change the standards tomorrow, that doesn't change the standards that we determined the champion by today. As Heyjoe4 said, the standards have changed frequently. 10 game season? 14 game season? 16 game season? 17 game season? Two divisions? Three divisions? Four divisions? One bye team? Two bye team? Heavier athletes? Should every pre-Super Bowl champion have an asterisk? You don't need asterisks every time the game changes. If people are interested in history and the ever changing face of the league, it is easy enough for them to look into it.

Reminds me of the people who wanted to put an asterisk on Roger Maris' homerun record (at the time). But the argument for that honestly makes more sense to me than an argument toward putting an asterisk on any of the Packers championships.

 

[weeds]

Once again I'll just say that it is NOT the fault of the Green Bay Packers that they won World Championships before the kiddies today were born. Or... even what I facetiously refer to as the ESPN generation.

Fans of expansion teams trying to build an aura around the NFL which is more of a flippin' video game than a human chess game.

In case you can't tell, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of the NFL. What used to be a game of manly men has devolved into a promenade of *****y millionaires vying for face-time and SHOW ME THE MONEY! The game itself is more watered down than the number of teams spreading out the talent.

But that's just me.