i don't HAVE to go back to anything to prove my point. i just CHOSE to.

even ignoring all the pre-merger history:

we've WON a super bowl more recently than you guys.

we've PLAYED in a super bowl more recently than you guys.

and we're BETTER than you guys RIGHT TODAY.

how on earth does that equal "raider legacy >>> bears legacy" in your mind?

you've won more "super bowls" than we have. that's your only leg to stand on here, and as i've said, in a macro sense it's an entirely arbitrary delineation. you're just establishing a randomly shifting window where your argument is valid, and ignoring any outlying facts that refute it. classic intellectual dishonesty. i know you're new around these parts, but ppl don't exactly discuss jim plunkett or fucking snake stabler here any more than they discuss luckman, so i don't see what point you were making there.

i mean, shit. we got guys who never even made the playoffs (butkus, sayers) that are better than anyone who's ever played for your squad, lol.

shit, man. what we talkin bout? © hov

you were wrong to leave the bears off that list you posted in #167. period. their legacy, whichever random slice of it you choose to analyze, supersedes that of every other nfl franchise. that's my ONLY point in this exchange.

now i really am done here. you kids have fun.

(dig your style btw. came thru this bitch hurling kerosene molotovs @ niggas, lol)




>relevant on a national scale... but as far as I'M concerned
>they aint messing with the Raiders legacy in regards to the
>NFL... again the NFL... hell, when's the last time you seen a
>thread in this forum discussing the attributes of Syd
>Luckman?? Nobody outside Chicago and Green Bay give a flying
>fizzuck what transpired in 1940's football... lmao @ you
>having to go back to WWII era football to be relevant... if it
>aint post-1960 and Super Bowl 1, it means absolutely NOTHING
>in the context of this thread...