Rank all '46-thru-'49 NFL/AAFC League Champions

[74_75_78_79_]

I know Saban started some threads on hypo-late-'40s Super Bowls a while back. Thought I'd re-introduce that immediate post-WWII era in professional football.

The first four years of the AFL (make that more than just the first four years) myself and, I guess, most others see the NFL champ as the champ in all of professional football each given year. As for the four AAFC years, however, due to just how great Cleveland was, I see '46-thru-'49 each having two 'co'-champions of the football world. Just like numerous past college football campaigns like '78 (Bama/USC), '91 (Wash/Mia), '97 (Mich/Neb), etc.

Of the eight total League Champions below, where do you rank them #1 to #8?

1946
Bears (NFL) 8-2-1. Beat 7-3-1 Giants, 24-14, in LCG.
Browns (AAFC) 12-2. Beat 10-3-1 Yankees, 14-9, in LCG.

1947
Cardinals (NFL) 9-3. Beat 8-4 Eagles, 28-21, in LCG.
Browns (AAFC) 12-1-1. Beat 11-2-1 Yankees, 14-3, in LCG.

1948
Eagles (NFL) 9-2-1. Beat 11-1 Cardinals, 7-0, in LCG.
Browns (AAFC) 14-0-0. Beat 7-7 Bills, 49-7, in LCG.

1949
Eagles (NFL) 11-1. Beat 8-2-2 Rams, 14-0, in LCG.
Browns (AAFC) 9-1-2. Beat 5-5-2 Bills, 31-21, in Semifinal. Beat 9-3 Forty Niners, 21-7, in LCG.

Does Paul Brown take up the entire top-4 of most of you? Do the, perhaps, weakest of Halas's championship teams sadly settle for #8 with you all?

Here are mine FWIW, before I allow those more knowledgeable to take over (perhaps correcting me, or maybe agreeing as well)...

#1 - '48 Browns
#2 - '49 Eagles; arguably 1'b', or maybe even tied for 1st!
#3 - '47 Browns
#4 - '46 Browns
#5 - '48 Eagles
#6 - '47 Cardinals (if only they get it done in the snow a year later; that team would be ranked high here!)
#7 - '49 Browns, the 'weakest' of their '40s titles
#8 - '46 Bears, and most-likely the case for all of Papa Bear's title teams

[NWebster]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

[74_75_78_79_]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

That's just it! '49 for Cleveland reeked of a possible 'let-down' to come, having the makings of a '67 Packers or '79 Steelers precursor. Losing players in the off-season...that and now having to "play with the Big Boys"! Yet they still charge into the '50s the way they did! Their '40s installments were even better which makes it all the more a shame we didn't have a 'Super Bowl' those four years!

If Conzelman/Trippi's bunch finished the job in '48, I'd have that squad at #3 but still behind that other 11-1 NFL champ, Philly! Their regular season body-of-work, defensively at least, looks slightly more dominant to me. IMO, Browns beat Eagles in '48 but lose to them in '49. Now '48 Browns vs '49 Eagles...would love to see that one!

[racepug]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

My understanding is that Greasy Neal and the "Iggles" didn't take their game against the Browns seriously. My favorite part of that is that after Greasy Neale opined after that loss that "The Browns don't play real football." Paul Brown, of course, got wind of that and ordered Otto Graham to not attempt even ONE pass in the rematch (later that season). Cleveland won something like 13 - 7 and I do believe that that is the last time in N.F.L. history that a team did not attempt even ONE pass in a game.

[NWebster]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

My understanding is that Greasy Neal and the "Iggles" didn't take their game against the Browns seriously. My favorite part of that is that after Greasy Neale opined after that loss that "The Browns don't play real football." Paul Brown, of course, got wind of that and ordered Otto Graham to not attempt even ONE pass in the rematch (later that season). Cleveland won something like 13 - 7 and I do believe that that is the last time in N.F.L. history that a team did not attempt even ONE pass in a game.

I'll have to write a piece about this some time, it's true that the box score has no pass attempts but there were extenuating circumstances. Hard rain and a sloppy field made footing impossible. There were two drop backs by the Browns one was nullified by penalty, the other resulted in a sack.

[RichardBak]

I'd say it's a tossup between the '48 Browns and '49 Eagles. Phila proved it could win in a snowstorm and a rainstorm while posting two consecutive title-game shutouts. The only thing left is playing in a typhoon. Cleveland was undefeated and at its postwar peak. Hell of a matchup, absolutely.

[conace21]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

My understanding is that Greasy Neal and the "Iggles" didn't take their game against the Browns seriously. My favorite part of that is that after Greasy Neale opined after that loss that "The Browns don't play real football." Paul Brown, of course, got wind of that and ordered Otto Graham to not attempt even ONE pass in the rematch (later that season). Cleveland won something like 13 - 7 and I do believe that that is the last time in N.F.L. history that a team did not attempt even ONE pass in a game.

I'll have to write a piece about this some time, it's true that the box score has no pass attempts but there were extenuating circumstances. Hard rain and a sloppy field made footing impossible. There were two drop backs by the Browns one was nullified by penalty, the other resulted in a sack.

The Pro Football Chronicle wrote about this, calling it one of the Myths of the Decade. The Browns didn't keep the ball on the ground strictly to make a point to Neale. The game was too important for Cleveland, which was in a tight race with the Giants. The weather was horrible, and Cleveland scored on an interception return early. They sat on the ball and even punted several times on third down.

If PFR is accurate, it's also not like Cleveland overwhelmed Philadelphia with their running game. 41 carries for 68 yards. Motley had 12 carries for 16 yards... and he led the league with 5.8 YPC.

[lastcat3]

Not to be a Debbie Downer about the Browns dynasty but I don't think the '46-'49 teams should automatically be written in as the best team in the country when once they did officially enter the NFL it took them the entire decade of the '50's to get three championships. The Packers dynasty of the '60's was probably better than the Browns ever were. The Browns were good there is no denying that but I think some people on here put them on a bit of a pedestal that I'm not sure they completely deserve. We do need to keep in mind that half of their championships came while they were in a weaker league.

[RichardBak]

Actually, it took them half a decade to win those 3 championships in the '50s, and two of them ('54-55) were blowouts. Now, Cleveland was the first team ever to lose 3 NFL championship games in a row ('51-53), but they were by an average of 6 pts. each to two of the league's established powers, LA and Detroit. I guess we can bend the numbers any way we like, and of course there's absolutely no way of knowing who'd win head-to-head match-ups between AAFC and NFL teams in the '40s. If we did, I guess there'd be no need for a PFRA to chew over such arguments.

Still, 10 title games in 10 years, 7 championships in 2 leagues, one undefeated season, and a 9-3 overall postseason record make it hard for me personally not to give the 46-55 Browns as the nod as best ever. And this is coming from a Detroit guy.

[John Maxymuk]

It's hard to think about this and ignore what the Browns did to the Eagles in 1950.

That's just it! '49 for Cleveland reeked of a possible 'let-down' to come, having the makings of a '67 Packers or '79 Steelers precursor. Losing players in the off-season...that and now having to "play with the Big Boys"! Yet they still charge into the '50s the way they did! Their '40s installments were even better which makes it all the more a shame we didn't have a 'Super Bowl' those four years!

If Conzelman/Trippi's bunch finished the job in '48, I'd have that squad at #3 but still behind that other 11-1 NFL champ, Philly! Their regular season body-of-work, defensively at least, looks slightly more dominant to me. IMO, Browns beat Eagles in '48 but lose to them in '49. Now '48 Browns vs '49 Eagles...would love to see that one!

IIRC Bucko Kilroy said after playing Cleveland, That was a damn all-star team or words to that effect. And it was true. The 1950 Browns only had four players who had turned 30...Motley who had a great year, Speedie who was still very effective, Gatski who would play until he was 38 and Rymkus who was still starting a year later. They lost one player of significance in Lou Saban at linebacker. However, Paul Brown improved the defense by obtaining Len Ford and Hal Herring from the Dons and Bills respectively and adding rookie Ken Gorgal who beat out Cliff Lewis as starting safety. Brown also grabbed Rex Bumgardner from the defunct Bills to fill out his offensive backfield. I don't think they reeked of letdown to come in 1950. They were also led by the best coach in pro football and probably the best quarterback. If I had to guess, I would think that Browns would have won three of four championship games in the late forties, but with the weather conditions that dominated some of those games, it may have come down to where the games were played.