Todd Pence wrote:I remember one time in the mid-1990's reading an issue of the magazine FOOTBALL DIGEST. Now this was a magazine that was written at about the third grade reading level. I don't know if it marketed itself to juveniles or what.
Anyway, there was an article in this issue that was about the greatest running backs, or greatest players, or most valuable football cards, or something like that. One of the players under discussion in this article was Jim Brown. I do remember clearly the writer of the article opined that Brown could never be considered a truly great running back because he never won a Super Bowl ring.
Hopefully I don't have to explain the idiocy of that statement to others on this forum.
A similar type of book that I read stated that the Cleveland Browns were like the little girl with the curl. When they were good, they were very good, but when they were bad, they were horrid. An example of this that they used was Cleveland losing the 1954 NFL Championship game to Detroit, 56 to 10.
Of course, this was factual except for one thing: Cleveland beat Detroit in that game, 56 to 10, instead of the other way around.
The author may have had a point, if he was talking about the Cleveland Browns during the middle or late 1960"s. Then, after winning the 1964 championship game against Baltimore and Johnny Unitas, 27 to 0 (that was one of the times that they were very good), Cleveland lost to the Cardinals, 49 to 13 in 1965, 55 to 7 to Green Bay in 1967, 52 to 14 in a 1967 playoff game with Dallas, 34 to 0 in the 1968 NFL Championship game, 51 to 3 in a game against the Minnesota Vikings in 1969 (that's when they were horrid).
During the 1960's, the Browns were 2nd only to Green Bay in games won and conference championships in the NFL, but they did have their off days.