FanNation - The Republic of Sport

KansasToonami said 01/12, 06:02 PM
This argument is based on my comments on two blogs: "Thin Skins" at http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/109935 and "Loyal Fans" at http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/109776

Packers fans have enjoyed a relatively good run with their team over the past 15 years or so, since a certain quarterback arrived (note here I'm NOT arguing that said QB is not the best ever, nor that the Packers are the best team ever...), but for a significant stretch of time before then, they suffered through what can only be called woeful mediocrity. Of course, anyone who tries to follow in Vince Lombardi's footsteps has a big act to follow. Bart Starr (former Packers QB) couldn't pull it off as coach in the 70s (when I first started paying attention as a kid); neither could Forrest Gregg (former lineman) in the 80s.

But the fans persevered. There was no owner threat to move to a bigger market. That's because the fans *are* the owners... the franchise is owned by the public, not by any rich businessman. And Packers fans even shoveled snow from the Lambeau bleachers before the season finale vs. the Lions. Finally: you've got to be thick-skinned to take the heat from other fans for wearing a "Cheesehead".

KansasToonami said 01/12, 09:08 PM
Hmmm, you make a good point, what with the suffering and all... I'm afraid that the Bills have the Packers beat on that one.

Though, wouldn't you expect a formerly great team that has fallen on hard times to require fans with even thicker skins? That is, having won the championships and been such a powerhouse, to then be the laughingstock? (well, OK, not the BIGGEST laughingstock, the '76-'77 Buccaneers might have been more laughable than the Packers)

The Bills also have some "glory days", though not as rich as that of the Packers. But I would say that the difference between past glories and the sufferings (admittedly, not current in the case of the Packers) is greater for the "Cheeseheads".

For the Bills, they have more suffering, that's true, but they haven't had as far to fall as the Packers did, from the 60s to the 70s. I would still give the Packers the edge... though in the blogs that prompted me to write this, it's possible to come up with a ranking if you so choose, and plenty of people mentioned the Browns as well. The "Cheesehead" factor also plays a part, to actually be willing to wear a "cheesehead", even in "hostile territory", speaks volumes without saying a word!

KansasToonami said 01/13, 03:51 PM
Hmmm... if you're going to keep arguing for the team with the most suffering:

A good argument was made in the blog (see the link in my first argument) that the Browns' fans deserve that honor. Stacking the Bills directly against the Browns, no debate, the Browns' fans have suffered more. The Bills didn't have the owner pack up and move town despite the *intense* fan support the team continued to receive. That's why I'm not including the Los Angeles Rams' fans (such as I was during childhood), the level of support was never that of Cleveland, Buffalo, and perhaps Detroit (again, the Lions didn't move in such circumstances). I might also include Colts' fans, given the middle-of-the-night move in 1984, but Art Modell's pure money-grubbing evil of 1995 surpasses that.

Anything Buffalo has suffered from four Super Bowl losses and the "Music City Miracle" pales in comparison to (a) two consecutive losses in the AFC championship game to Denver, one occurring after what is (in)famously known as "The Drive", and (b) the owner moving the team despite FANATIC support.

That said, I'm not saying "most suffering", I'm saying "thickest skinned". TWENTY years of "suckage" after Lombardi. Pack!