Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Of this franchise’s three squads that won it all, which do you place as 1, 2 and 3 amongst each other? All three are true champs to me (a title is a title), but what each one may have in common is an ‘excuse’. The first of the three could be the title game’s major snowy field with the following year being in the rain and mud at the Coliseum. “The Browns were better”, may be applied as well for both ’48 and ’49. And then 11 years later the Birds getting Vince’s Pack when they were “still developing” into championship-caliber.

Also, I know Bednarik played on both ’49 (his rookie year) and ’60, but who if any played on all three champion teams?

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Of this franchise’s three squads that won it all, which do you place as 1, 2 and 3 amongst each other? All three are true champs to me (a title is a title), but what each one may have in common is an ‘excuse’. The first of the three could be the title game’s major snowy field with the following year being in the rain and mud at the Coliseum. “The Browns were better”, may be applied as well for both ’48 and ’49. And then 11 years later the Birds getting Vince’s Pack when they were “still developing” into championship-caliber.

Also, I know Bednarik played on both ’49 (his rookie year) and ’60, but who if any played on all three champion teams?

Nobody, because the only other 1960 player who PLAYED in 1949 was Van Brocklin--as a rookie for the Rams.

I like the ’49 team. I think they beat anyone that day including the Browns. When you hold a team with 2 HOF QBs, 2 HOF receivers, and a HOVG RB to under 100 yards passing and under 25 yards rushing - you came to play.

Speaking of excuses, I think the Cards are pretty lucky Van Buren broke his toe in '47. The Eagles would have had 3 straight and the Cards would have had 0 legit titles in a long history.

Whether it constitutes this particular squad being best of the three or not, 1948’s three 45-0 victories...a pretty damn impressive factoid!