I recently got a book for christmas called "Sports illustrated Footballs greatest".
I reccomend this book to any person who wants a history lesson on the best moments in the nfl. They had a section for each player position and a group of editors debated each other and came up with top ten lists for each one. However they also had sections on less "on the field" topics such as best franchise and best uniforms.

The packers were ranked #1 in franchise with the steelers at #2. Now this itself didn't bother me. I have a lot of respect for green bay. It was why they picked it. It had the big words 13 CHAMPIONS in it.

Now I myself believe that the pre merger championships do matter. But they're in no way on the same magnitude as SBs.
The more I read about what the nfl was like, the less and less each individual championship seemed to matter.

1. The nfl was cut in half. There was no AFC. There was hardly even an NFC do to their being just that few teams.

2. Their was no overtime. If a game ended in a tie it did not go into overtime. This might not seem so bad but you have to know that the nfl did not count ties back then. One season the packers made it into the champion with a whopping 7-1-6. However because the rules did not count ties, the packers technically were 7-1.

3. It was a college football system for most of the timespan. You can see how this system is flawed cause now even college football is abandoning it. It was not decided on a field like it should have been, it was decided in a meeting room. And this debate combined with the fact that they did not count ties would lead do some weird matchups in the playoffs.

So you can go ahead and say the packers are the best franchise because of the old championships. Just make sure you include the browns and lions too. Now you look like idiots. The point is a team needs SBs to back these up. In order to be the best franchise you need more than just pre merger wins because then everyone thinks you just took advantage of the old system.

Does that mean they don't count? If that team has no SBs then no I don't think they should count. But if they do then yes. Which is why I consider the bears and packers to be legit. But by how much?

Well because the pack does have 4 SB rings but they just have so many championships(If they only had 1 or 2 I wouldn't think much of it). But because they're so easy compared to SBs they shouldn't BE SBs. 9 old championships just sounds like 1 or 2 SBs. 2 SBs would make them our equals which is kind of the what everybody in the world considers the success of both teams when compared anyway................. Equal. Though I give us the edge because the steelers have been more consistent since the 70s(where were the packers in the 70s and 80s?).

And if you're wondering. Would I still be saying this if the steelers had won pre merger champions? Yes. Yes I would.

The eras were so different that they cannot be compared.

So no matter what a packers fans tells you. Green Bay does not have 13 SBs. They just don't have just their 4 rings either.

They have 4 SBs rings and 9 old championships. With the 9 holding much, much, much less magnitude than the 4. It's just the fact that they have so many is why I would consider them our equals success wise. I just don't think they're a better all around franchise simply because they're not as consistent or as well run as the steelers.