View Full Version : What do the Browns do with their QBs next season?
No poll above.
EDIT: Now there is. I shall vote now.
There is now, hehe.
I got to thinking about this, as there was some speculation in the coming non-bearing game of the Browns that they could start Quinn, just to see how he plays.
With the way Anderson's played for most of the season, management would be taking a huge risk either benching or trading Anderson next season. I say they go with the proven quantity, and get some real good deals for Quinn.
I say use Anderson to get a good draft pick or player they need (seems like they might need some DB help) and get Quinn rolling.
I went with start anderson, bench quinn, but I think in reality they will compete for the job in training camp. Anderson has put up some good numbers 28 TDs to 18 INTs, and 3600 yards with a game to go is nothing to sneeze at.
They still could be a playoff team. Let's face it, while 'legally', as our Brown's fans will tell us, this is a long, storied franchise, the fact is that in 'practice' they are an expansion team with less than a decade in the league. The fact is that most of those years since they rejoined the league from scratch (a concept often referred to as an expansion team), they have generally one 4-5 games, with only a couple exceptions and one other year over .500.
So, I don't think they will just throw aside Anderson and his generally good stats, and the 9 or 10 win season. Quinn will have to earn his way into the lineup.
I went with start anderson, bench quinn, but I think in reality they will compete for the job in training camp. Anderson has put up some good numbers 28 TDs to 18 INTs, and 3600 yards with a game to go is nothing to sneeze at.
They still could be a playoff team. Let's face it, while 'legally', as our Brown's fans will tell us, this is a long, storied franchise, the fact is that in 'practice' they are an expansion team with less than a decade in the league. The fact is that most of those years since they rejoined the league from scratch (a concept often referred to as an expansion team), they have generally one 4-5 games, with only a couple exceptions and one other year over .500.
So, I don't think they will just throw aside Anderson and his generally good stats, and the 9 or 10 win season. Quinn will have to earn his way into the lineup.
That's a pretty good point; actual team-wise, they are like an expansion team, and this has been one of their best seasons. Anderson's played so well this season, they'll probably have to wait for him to really stink things up before starting Quinn. Otherwise, performance expectations for Quinn will be unrealistic for a very new, young player.
That's a pretty good point; actual team-wise, they are like an expansion team, and this has been one of their best seasons. Anderson's played so well this season, they'll probably have to wait for him to really stink things up before starting Quinn. Otherwise, performance expectations for Quinn will be unrealistic for a very new, young player.
And at what point, as a coach, would you take the risk in starting a rookie over someone who proved himself this year in Anderson? Would you give Anderson the benefit of the doubt and let him start next year and play until he botches things while you have your first round QB sitting on the bench?
And at what point, as a coach, would you take the risk in starting a rookie over someone who proved himself this year in Anderson? Would you give Anderson the benefit of the doubt and let him start next year and play until he botches things while you have your first round QB sitting on the bench?
Your point is definitely valid, and that's why I voted for Anderson to keep his starting job and trade Quinn while his value is still very high. It would be a waste of resources and salary to keep either on the bench for long, specially when one of them could garner a pretty good trade scenario. Look at Aaron Rodgers riding the bench at Green Bay. After 2009, his contract expires; it's a race to see which comes first, Favre's retirement or Rodgers' contract expiration.
It's never good to have a quarterback controversy; one eventually has to go to make the team more solid. Next season, I think one of them will go, and I think it'll be the untested Quinn. If I were Miami, I'd rectify my mistake and take either one of them. Minnesota and Atlanta could also use either of them.
Your point is definitely valid, and that's why I voted for Anderson to keep his starting job and trade Quinn while his value is still very high. It would be a waste of resources and salary to keep either on the bench for long, specially when one of them could garner a pretty good trade scenario. Look at Aaron Rodgers riding the bench at Green Bay. After 2009, his contract expires; it's a race to see which comes first, Favre's retirement or Rodgers' contract expiration.
It's never good to have a quarterback controversy; one eventually has to go to make the team more solid. Next season, I think one of them will go, and I think it'll be the untested Quinn. If I were Miami, I'd rectify my mistake and take either one of them. Minnesota and Atlanta could also use either of them.
Great points. It'll be interesting for sure. Either way, I don't really care what happens so long as which ever of them leaves, if one leaves, doesn't end up in the AFC.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 08:38 AM
Bring back Kosar!
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:04 PM
What the hell is with you people?
They are not an expansion team. They were founded in 1946 by Arthur P. McBride.
The team was held in trust by the NFL from 1996-1998. The Browns are the Browns and there is no way around it. They are the Browns. They have the history, they have the records, they have the trophies, they have everything. The Ravens are an expansion team - not the Browns. The Ravens began play in 1996. They have no history from before 1996. They have "Baltimore" history. As in, teams that played in Baltimore from before. But they do not have any "Ravens" history or any history having to do with their current team prior to 1996. Their records and history reflect that they began in 1996. The Browns records and history reflect that they began in 1946.
Well, whatever they do, I'm sure it will be the wrong decision :D
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 01:06 PM
What the hell is with you people?
They are not an expansion team. They were founded in 1946 by Arthur P. McBride.
The team was held in trust by the NFL from 1996-1998. The Browns are the Browns and there is no way around it. They are the Browns. They have the history, they have the records, they have the trophies, they have everything. The Ravens are an expansion team - not the Browns. The Ravens began play in 1996. They have no history from before 1996. They have "Baltimore" history. As in, teams that played in Baltimore from before. But they do not have any "Ravens" history or any history having to do with their current team prior to 1996. Their records and history reflect that they began in 1996. The Browns records and history reflect that they began in 1946.
...so...what's your vote?
Ravens, BTW - worst friggin team in football.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:07 PM
...so...what's your vote?
Ravens, BTW - worst friggin team in football.
Start Quinn, trade Anderson.
It is quite apparent.
Also, yes the Browns did have an expansion draft. But, the circumstances for that draft are far different than the Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars situations.
Those teams had no history and no players.
The Browns were held in trust and had no solid foundation because the players were under contract with Modell. So, how to get players? Sign the scraps from free agency? No, have a "draft" of poor players who were of "free agent" quality.
Start Quinn...bench Anderson (insurance).
I would go with Anderson and trade Quinn. But then I have never been a big Quinn fan. Anderson has played well and shown what he can do. Quinn is still a ?
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 01:11 PM
The Browns have a history, but like it or not, they are/were an expansion team.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:17 PM
The Browns have a history, but like it or not, they are/were an expansion team.
The Ravens are.
The Ravens are a new team.
The Ravens began play in 1996. Look at their history if you disagree. Nowhere in their history will you see Otto Graham, Lou Groza, or any other Browns Greats. You will only see "Colts" players (their own HOF) and "Ravens" players.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:30 PM
Your point is definitely valid, and that's why I voted for Anderson to keep his starting job and trade Quinn while his value is still very high. It would be a waste of resources and salary to keep either on the bench for long, specially when one of them could garner a pretty good trade scenario. Look at Aaron Rodgers riding the bench at Green Bay. After 2009, his contract expires; it's a race to see which comes first, Favre's retirement or Rodgers' contract expiration.
It's never good to have a quarterback controversy; one eventually has to go to make the team more solid. Next season, I think one of them will go, and I think it'll be the untested Quinn. If I were Miami, I'd rectify my mistake and take either one of them. Minnesota and Atlanta could also use either of them.
Ok, you want to talk about "value".
Let's see who will have more value. A player who threw 28 touchdowns and is among the league leaders in that category. Or a player yet to throw a single pass in the NFL? Who would teams give up more for? Anderson. Teams would give up a lot for Anderson based just off of his touchdown number. Anderson should be traded. The Falcons look like they could use a QB - bet they'd offer something nice for him.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Anderson's playing good...he stays put.
Keep Quinny (aka Philip Rivers II) and groom him like SD did Rivers (aka Brady Quinn I) did with Brees…
…if he beats him out in camp, fine, but make Quinny earn the spot.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 01:37 PM
The Ravens are.
The Ravens are a new team.
The Ravens began play in 1996. Look at their history if you disagree. Nowhere in their history will you see Otto Graham, Lou Groza, or any other Browns Greats. You will only see "Colts" players (their own HOF) and "Ravens" players.
Cool.
Browns restarted from scratch. Sure they have a history. But they were an expansion team. Perhaps you'd like the term "reborn" or "resurrected"? better?
And, I believe the Indy Colts maintain all their records themselves. Not the Ravens. I could be wrong though...
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:39 PM
Anderson's playing good...he stays put.
Keep Quinny (aka Philip Rivers II) and groom him like SD did Rivers (aka Brady Quinn I) did with Brees…
…if he beats him out in camp, fine, but make Quinny earn the spot.
You do not know Crennel and his idea of "competition".
He does not believe in fair competition.
Ted Washington and Willie McGinnest show in camp and preseason games that they are not athletic and should not start. But, Crennel knows they are "veterans" and so they deserve to start for the simple fact that they are veterans. That is Crennel's idea of "competition". Starting veterans and sitting the player that proved himself.
There is no "competition" to Crennel.
They should trade Brady Quinn to KC.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 01:41 PM
Cool.
Browns restarted from scratch. Sure they have a history. But they were an expansion team. Perhaps you'd like the term "reborn" or "resurrected"? better?
And, I believe the Indy Colts maintain all their records themselves. Not the Ravens. I could be wrong though...
The Colts do, you are right, but the Ravens found a loophole. As long as they label them "Baltimore" greats and not "Raven" greats they are free to honor them.
So, Johnny Unitas and many other players from the Colts are honored as "Baltimore" Greats and are in the Ravens HOF.
The Browns were held in trust so they were a "returning" franchise. Not reborn, nor resurrected. Resurrected intails that the Browns were a defunct franchise which they were not. They were held in trust.
They should trade Brady Quinn to KC.
Why? They are soo much more exciting with the likes of Croyle and Huard. :laugh:
Long live Sperm Edwards. :beer:
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 01:52 PM
The Colts do, you are right, but the Ravens found a loophole. As long as they label them "Baltimore" greats and not "Raven" greats they are free to honor them.
So, Johnny Unitas and many other players from the Colts are honored as "Baltimore" Greats and are in the Ravens HOF.
The Browns were held in trust so they were a "returning" franchise. Not reborn, nor resurrected. Resurrected intails that the Browns were a defunct franchise which they were not. They were held in trust.
We'll just agree to disagree.
Why? They are soo much more exciting with the likes of Croyle and Huard. :laugh:
Long live Sperm Edwards. :beer:
Oh, I agree. I was just trying to provide some rational thought toward the subject and that seems rational to me.
Will it happen? No. Carl Peterson will spend the entire off season trying to sign Donovan McNabb.
What the hell is with you people?
They are not an expansion team. They were founded in 1946 by Arthur P. McBride.
The team was held in trust by the NFL from 1996-1998. The Browns are the Browns and there is no way around it. They are the Browns. They have the history, they have the records, they have the trophies, they have everything. The Ravens are an expansion team - not the Browns. The Ravens began play in 1996. They have no history from before 1996. They have "Baltimore" history. As in, teams that played in Baltimore from before. But they do not have any "Ravens" history or any history having to do with their current team prior to 1996. Their records and history reflect that they began in 1996. The Browns records and history reflect that they began in 1946.
CR, I won't get into an argument about this. I tried to word it carefully not to offend you, but this was my point.
Even though they are the 'Browns' in terms of tradition, the current incarnation of the Browns started from scratch (just like expansion teams) less than 10 years ago. So, when comparing their current season, it makes no sense to look at what they did prior to their absence from football, because the team in terms of front office, players, coaches, etc., is only 8 or so years old.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 02:07 PM
CR, I won't get into an argument about this. I tried to word it carefully not to offend you, but this was my point.
Even though they are the 'Browns' in terms of tradition, the current incarnation of the Browns started from scratch (just like expansion teams) less than 10 years ago. So, when comparing their current season, it makes no sense to look at what they did prior to their absence from football, because the team in terms of front office, players, coaches, etc., is only 8 or so years old.
That's better.
Now that is much better wording.
The Browns in the last 10 years haven't done well. That's much, much better.
No need to say expansion team, or any of that junk. Just plainly say the Browns in the last 10 years.
That's better.
Now that is much better wording.
The Browns in the last 10 years haven't done well. That's much, much better.
No need to say expansion team, or any of that junk. Just plainly say the Browns in the last 10 years.
CR, I will say what I want, even though in my original post, I was 'sensitive' to your 'sensitivity' on this subject. I won't 'pretend' the Browns didn't start from scratch in '99 via an expansion draft, because then it would be impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the fact that this is the best year and arguably the best QB play that the Browns have had since they started from scratch with an expansion draft in '99. What happened prior to '95 has no bearing on the current organization, because that organization is in Baltimore. The Browns have their history, the Ravens have the Browns organization prior to '95.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 02:28 PM
CR, I will say what I want, even though in my original post, I was 'sensitive' to your 'sensitivity' on this subject. I won't 'pretend' the Browns didn't start from scratch in '99 via an expansion draft, because then it would be impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the fact that this is the best year and arguably the best QB play that the Browns have had since they started from scratch with an expansion draft in '99. What happened prior to '95 has no bearing on the current organization, because that organization is in Baltimore. The Browns have their history, the Ravens have the Browns organization prior to '95.
What constitutes your conclusion?
Is it ownership? Personnel?
Is it ownership? Personnel?
When I look at where the Browns are today, and the fact they could be in the playoffs after Sunday, I can only compare that to the last 8 years (or whatever it is), since they started from scratch with new owners, new management, new coaches and new players. So, I guess the answer to your question is simply "yes".
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 02:33 PM
They've been widely referred to as the "Expansion Browns" in the media and NFL circles.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 02:33 PM
When I look at where the Browns are today, and the fact they could be in the playoffs after Sunday, I can only compare that to the last 8 years (or whatever it is), since they started from scratch with new owners, new management, new coaches and new players. So, I guess the answer to your question is simply "yes".
Sounds like your current QBs done a great job...
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 02:45 PM
When I look at where the Browns are today, and the fact they could be in the playoffs after Sunday, I can only compare that to the last 8 years (or whatever it is), since they started from scratch with new owners, new management, new coaches and new players. So, I guess the answer to your question is simply "yes".
Ok.
Art Modell doesn't own the Ravens.
The Ravens have different ownership than the Browns in 1995.
Steve Bisciotti owns the Ravens.
Bill Bellichick was the Browns coach in 1995. He coaches the New England Patriots.
Eric Mangini was the PR Head with the Browns in 1995. He is the Head Coach of the New York Jets.
Scott O'Brien was the Special Teams coordinator. He is now under the same position with the Denver Broncos. Chuck Bresnahan was a defensive coach with Cleveland in 1995. Now he is the defensive coordinator of Cincinnati.
Phil Savage was an assistant scout with the Browns in 1995. Now he is General Manager of the Browns.
So, once again, if "Coaches and Personnel" are what you use to determine that the Ravens are the "Browns". Then what about the Bengals, Patriots, Jets, Browns, and Broncos?
Are they the Browns as well?
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 02:48 PM
They've been widely referred to as the "Expansion Browns" in the media and NFL circles.
I see.
So since the media labels the Browns as such then they must be correct.
The Patriots are labeled as the Greatest Team in the History of Pro Football by the media as well. Tom Brady is the Greatest Quarterback, as labeled by the media. Bill Bellichick is the Greatest Head Coach in History, as labeled by the media.
So then, why do people disagree? Why are there people saying that there are other teams that are the Greatest, Other Coaches as the Greatest, other Quarterbacks as the Greatest?
Ok.
Art Modell doesn't own the Ravens.
The Ravens have different ownership than the Browns in 1995.
Steve Bisciotti owns the Ravens.
Bill Bellichick was the Browns coach in 1995. He coaches the New England Patriots.
Eric Mangini was the PR Head with the Browns in 1995. He is the Head Coach of the New York Jets.
Scott O'Brien was the Special Teams coordinator. He is now under the same position with the Denver Broncos. Chuck Bresnahan was a defensive coach with Cleveland in 1995. Now he is the defensive coordinator of Cincinnati.
Phil Savage was an assistant scout with the Browns in 1995. Now he is General Manager of the Browns.
So, once again, if "Coaches and Personnel" are what you use to determine that the Ravens are the "Browns". Then what about the Bengals, Patriots, Jets, Browns, and Broncos?
Are they the Browns as well?
You miss the point, because of your aversion to the words expansion and Browns being used together.
None of what you said means anything when you are talking about how old an organization is. Players and coaches naturally turnover over time, but that is far different than when a team starts from scratch, which is what the Browns did in '99.
I am trying to word everything carefully, because of how upset you become with this subject, so I am going to leave it at that.
I my point stands, when you look at how bad the Browns have been since they started from scratch with an expansion draft in '99, this is by FAR their best season, and I think Quinn will have to prove he is better than Anderson before they throw Anderson aside.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Why does this irk you so much?
The Browns were an expansion team. The Legacy of the old Browns is there, yes, but when they were resurrected, came out of trust, whatever you want to call it, they had an "expansion draft." So, obviously, someone thought they were an expansion team. Maybe they've told you this "trust" story to make you feel better, but the Browns were an expansion team in 1999.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Like I said before. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
In my mind, they were an expansion team that revived an old franchise.
Like I said before. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
In my mind, they were an expansion team that revived an old franchise.
That's a good way to put it. A phoenix rising from the ashes that crashed and burned shortly after takeoff. ;)
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:06 PM
You miss the point, because of your aversion to the words expansion and Browns being used together.
None of what you said means anything when you are talking about how old an organization is. Players and coaches naturally turnover over time, but that is far different than when a team starts from scratch, which is what the Browns did in '99.
I am trying to word everything carefully, because of how upset you become with this subject, so I am going to leave it at that.
I my point stands, when you look at how bad the Browns have been since they started from scratch with an expansion draft in '99, this is by FAR their best season, and I think Quinn will have to prove he is better than Anderson before they throw Anderson aside.
The Browns did not start with an expansion draft in '99. The Browns started in 1946 when Arthur McBride hired Paul Brown to coach his new team. The Cleveland Browns. The Browns first owner was Arthur McBride. The Browns first coach was Paul Brown. The Browns post 99' are a continuation of the Browns. The Browns have always been in Cleveland and have never called another city home (other than NFL games held on neutral ground). The Baltimore Ravens are not a cintinuation of anything. They are a brand new team that began operations in 1996. Their first coach was Ted Marchibroda. Not Paul Brown. Their first owner was Art Modell. The Browns playing today are the same Browns playing in 1995 and previous years. As you yourself stated, turnover occurs naturally in the NFL. The Browns underwent management changes between 1996 and 1999. The NFL owned the Cleveland Browns in 1996-1998. Then they granted the team to Al Lerner in 1999.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 03:13 PM
1996-1999 (Inactivity)
After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns legacy in Cleveland. In February 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be 'deactivated' for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn be granted a new franchise for Baltimore, the Baltimore Ravens, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a new team, but the Browns' name, colors, history, records, awards and archives would remain in Cleveland.
- - - - - - - -
1999–present
The Browns on the field in 2004 against the Washington Redskins.Cleveland returned to the NFL in 1999 with high hopes and expectations, featuring deep-pocketed ownership in Al Lerner. The team's football operations appeared to be in solid hands in the form of president and CEO Carmen Policy and general manager Dwight Clark, both of whom had come from the San Francisco 49ers. Chris Palmer, former offensive coordinator of the Jacksonville Jaguars, was hired as head coach.
It was to be expected that the resurrected Browns would struggle at first, as for all practical purposes they were an expansion team. However, the Browns' first two seasons were awful even by expansion standards. 1999 saw the Browns start 0-7 en route to a 2-14 finish, the worst in franchise history. 2000 was little better, with a 3-13 finish—the lone highlight being the Browns' first home win in five years, against the Steelers on September 17. Compounding the fans' frustration was the Baltimore Ravens' win in Super Bowl XXXV that season. Though the Ravens were considered a "new franchise", the team still had players such as Matt Stover and Rob Burnett who had played for the Browns before the Modell move. Palmer was fired after the season and replaced by University of Miami coach Butch Davis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns
Wikipedia can be edited.
How about the NFL's own statements?
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.jsp?franchise_id=8
The Cleveland Browns began as members of the rival All-America Football Conference (AAFC). After capturing that league's title in each of the four seasons the AAFC existed, the Browns moved to the NFL in 1950. Cleveland's domination continued as the Browns advanced to the NFL championship game six straight seasons and won the league crown in 1950, 1954, and 1955. The franchise added a fourth NFL championship in 1964.
~~~~~
The Cleveland Browns were born in 1944 when Cleveland businessman Arthur B. McBride acquired a franchise in the new All-America Football Conference that would begin play in 1946. McBride's first act after acquiring the team was to hire Paul Brown, who had been a very successful high school, college and service coach, as coach and general manager.
~~~~~
Determined to keep the team in Cleveland, Browns fans and Cleveland city officials orchestrated an unprecedented grass-roots campaign to block the move. The NFL quickly responded and, working with city officials, developed a unique solution that not only provided for a new state-of-the-art stadium, but guaranteed the return of pro football to Cleveland by no later than 1999. Additionally, Art Modell agreed to relinquish the "Browns" name, colors and team history to the new owner of the suspended franchise
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:21 PM
Oh, and also. Here is the "Ravens" history for you.
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/team.jsp?franchise_id=3
The rich tradition of professional football in Baltimore returned in 1996 when the league awarded the team to the city. The unique nickname was inspired by the poetry of former Baltimore resident Edgar Allan Poe. A veteran team that had already played as a unit took the field and avoided the usual growing pains of a new team. Success followed soon thereafter highlighted by a victory in Super Bowl XXXV.
~~~~
After an 11-year absence, pro football returned to Baltimore, Md. in 1996 in the form of the new Baltimore Ravens."This is a new beginning and a new era for us," Ravens owner Art Modell told fans at the team naming ceremony.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 03:21 PM
Expansion team in 1999. Plain and simple.
But, who cares anyway? It's the Browns.
The Browns did not start with an expansion draft in '99. The Browns started in 1946 when Arthur McBride hired Paul Brown to coach his new team. The Cleveland Browns. The Browns first owner was Arthur McBride. The Browns first coach was Paul Brown. The Browns post 99' are a continuation of the Browns. The Browns have always been in Cleveland and have never called another city home (other than NFL games held on neutral ground). The Baltimore Ravens are not a cintinuation of anything. They are a brand new team that began operations in 1996. Their first coach was Ted Marchibroda. Not Paul Brown. Their first owner was Art Modell. The Browns playing today are the same Browns playing in 1995 and previous years. As you yourself stated, turnover occurs naturally in the NFL. The Browns underwent management changes between 1996 and 1999. The NFL owned the Cleveland Browns in 1996-1998. Then they granted the team to Al Lerner in 1999.
Refer to my previous statements.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:23 PM
Expansion team in 1999. Plain and simple.
But, who cares anyway? It's the Browns.
No, suspended franchise that resumed operations in 1999.
Also, on the Ravens winning the Super Bowl in 2000. I was as devistated as I was when the Broncos won in 1998. The Ravens had 2 former Browns playing on their team. The Broncos - they had 3.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 03:25 PM
No, suspended franchise that resumed operations in 1999.
Also, on the Ravens winning the Super Bowl in 2000. I was as devistated as I was when the Broncos won in 1998. The Ravens had 2 former Browns playing on their team. The Broncos - they had 3.
I hate the Ravens anyway. Could care less about the Browns too. In my mind, they were an expansion team. Sorry. I'll never convince you, you'll never convince me.
It's really pretty simple.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 03:26 PM
I hate the Ravens anyway.
It's really pretty simple.
(...salute on the low down here...)
(I've given out too much reputation and the cops are looking for me)
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:28 PM
I hate the Ravens anyway.
Then we have something in common. Now, will you please stop saying that the Browns are not the Browns and that the Ravens are the "Browns"?
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 03:31 PM
How about this from the Browns' own site?
Quote:
Dawson, the last remaining player from the 1999 expansion club, kicked a 25-yard goal with 9:19 remaining in overtime to give the Browns a come-from-behind 33-30 victory over the Seattle Seahawks at Cleveland Browns Stadium.
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=7660
Expansion club reviving an NFL franchise.
or this?
Quote:
Al Lerner was doing more than just buying an expansion football team. He was also re-energizing the community on Sundays in the fall. The three seasons the Browns were gone, from 1996 to 1998, were surreal. What had once been arguably the greatest football town in the NFL had become one that forced people to find other activities on Sundays. They went to the park or the movies. They went shopping. They went out to eat or worked around the house.
www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=5864
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 03:56 PM
How about this from the Browns' own site?
Quote:
Dawson, the last remaining player from the 1999 expansion club, kicked a 25-yard goal with 9:19 remaining in overtime to give the Browns a come-from-behind 33-30 victory over the Seattle Seahawks at Cleveland Browns Stadium.
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=7660
Expansion club reviving an NFL franchise.
or this?
Quote:
Al Lerner was doing more than just buying an expansion football team. He was also re-energizing the community on Sundays in the fall. The three seasons the Browns were gone, from 1996 to 1998, were surreal. What had once been arguably the greatest football town in the NFL had become one that forced people to find other activities on Sundays. They went to the park or the movies. They went shopping. They went out to eat or worked around the house.
www.clevelandbrowns.com/article.php?id=5864
The Browns had an expansion year (1999) and that is what it is refering to. The single year (1999). In 1999 the Browns had an expansion season. However, the phrase "expansion" is only for that year because the Browns are a very old team. They have history. They have NFL titles, all of which inherited by the Browns of the past. The current Browns are a continuation of the Browns of 1946-1995.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 03:58 PM
The Browns had an expansion year (1999) and that is what it is refering to. The single year (1999). In 1999 the Browns had an expansion season. However, the phrase "expansion" is only for that year because the Browns are a very old team. They have history. They have NFL titles, all of which inherited by the Browns of the past. The current Browns are a continuation of the Browns of 1946-1995.
Right....
Al Lerner was doing more than just buying an expansion football team.
That is from www.clevelandbrowns.com. You know, the official website?
Good grief. Give up already.
Lonestar
12-26-2007, 04:00 PM
What the hell is with you people?
They are not an expansion team. They were founded in 1946 by Arthur P. McBride.
The team was held in trust by the NFL from 1996-1998. The Browns are the Browns and there is no way around it. They are the Browns. They have the history, they have the records, they have the trophies, they have everything. The Ravens are an expansion team - not the Browns. The Ravens began play in 1996. They have no history from before 1996. They have "Baltimore" history. As in, teams that played in Baltimore from before. But they do not have any "Ravens" history or any history having to do with their current team prior to 1996. Their records and history reflect that they began in 1996. The Browns records and history reflect that they began in 1946.
Nooobody in DEN cares.. To the rest of the real world the browns are now in Baltimore.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:03 PM
Nooobody in DEN cares.. To the rest of the real world the browns are now in Baltimore.
Matt Stover is not "The Browns"
Matt Stover is all that remains of any link between Cleveland and Baltimore.
All others are long gone. They are two seperate entities entirely. The Cleveland Browns play in Cleveland, Ohio. The Baltimore Ravens play in Baltimore, Maryland. Two seperate teams. One team is the Browns - that is Cleveland Browns. The other, is not the Browns.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:07 PM
Right....
That is from www.clevelandbrowns.com. You know, the official website?
Good grief. Give up already.
While you are on that site.
Go to the History section and do tell me who the franchise leaders are.
Because, if your statement that the "Browns" are the Ravens is correct. The Franchise leader should be Tim Couch - because Browns have no history prior to "1999" if the Ravens are the Browns.
Furthermore, Franchise leader in Baltimore should be Brian Sipe if indeed the Ravens are the Browns - not Vinny Testaverde.
Looks like you are wrong. The Browns are the Browns and have the Browns history. For intents and purposes the Browns are the Browns. Just as the Ravens are just the Ravens. They may want to be the Browns. But they are not the Browns. Because, as everyone knows Browns fans stood up to Modell and stopped him from creating the "Baltimore Browns".
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:21 PM
Also, just a bit to add.
By stating "The the Ravens are the Browns" you are allowing that rat to win. Don't let him win. He doesn't deserve it. Just as he does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Now, if there was a Hall of Shame - he deserves to be in it.
So, please, drop it tned and all you others.
The Browns play in Cleveland and are the Browns. The Ravens play in Baltimore and are not the Browns.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 04:22 PM
While you are on that site.
Go to the History section and do tell me who the franchise leaders are.
Because, if your statement that the "Browns" are the Ravens is correct. The Franchise leader should be Tim Couch - because Browns have no history prior to "1999" if the Ravens are the Browns.
Furthermore, Franchise leader in Baltimore should be Brian Sipe if indeed the Ravens are the Browns - not Vinny Testaverde.
Looks like you are wrong. The Browns are the Browns and have the Browns history. For intents and purposes the Browns are the Browns. Just as the Ravens are just the Ravens. They may want to be the Browns. But they are not the Browns. Because, as everyone knows Browns fans stood up to Modell and stopped him from creating the "Baltimore Browns".
The Browns are the Browns. I never said the Ravens are the Browns.
They were also an expansion team in 1999 that revived a storied franchise.
So, please, drop it tned and all you others.
Don't call me out, CR. I took it easy on you, because of your sensitivity to this subject. I brought up a LEGITIMATE point about this season and how it should be evaluated based on what has happened from the '99 expansion draft until now, because that is relevant to their current QB situation.
YOU have turned this thread into a discussion about the Browns history, because you are over-sensitive to the 'expansion' topic.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:28 PM
Don't call me out, CR. I took it easy on you, because of your sensitivity to this subject. I brought up a LEGITIMATE point about this season and how it should be evaluated based on what has happened from the '99 expansion draft until now, because that is relevant to their current QB situation.
YOU have turned this thread into a discussion about the Browns history, because you are over-sensitive to the 'expansion' topic.
No, I didn't turn this into any discussion along that nature.
Somebody else did when they tried to claim that the Ravens were the "Browns" and that the Browns were not the Browns.
Find that person - and you will find who is responsible.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 04:32 PM
Don't call me out, CR. I took it easy on you, because of your sensitivity to this subject. I brought up a LEGITIMATE point about this season and how it should be evaluated based on what has happened from the '99 expansion draft until now, because that is relevant to their current QB situation.
YOU have turned this thread into a discussion about the Browns history, because you are over-sensitive to the 'expansion' topic.
The current Browns incarnation, whatever it is, have drafted these quarterbacks:
Tim Couch, 1999, Round 1, No. 1, Kentucky
Spergon Wynn, 2000, Round 6, 183, Texas State
Luke McCown, 2004, 4, 106, Louisiana Tech
Charlie Frye, 2005, 3, 67, Akron
Brady Quinn, 2007, 1, 22, Notre Dame
So, aside from Brady Quinn, because we don't know what he'll be, in the last eight years, the Browns have really sucked it up drafting quarterbacks. They've failed four times and are working on No. 5.
Ironically, they've jumped on the back of a sixth round draft pick of the Baltimore Ravens in 2005 to take them to a possible playoff berth.
No, I didn't turn this into any discussion along that nature.
Somebody else did when they tried to claim that the Ravens were the "Browns" and that the Browns were not the Browns.
Find that person - and you will find who is responsible.
Ok, I found the person responsible. Here is his quote:
What the hell is with you people?
They are not an expansion team. They were founded in 1946 by Arthur P. McBride.
The team was held in trust by the NFL from 1996-1998. The Browns are the Browns and there is no way around it. They are the Browns. They have the history, they have the records, they have the trophies, they have everything. The Ravens are an expansion team - not the Browns. The Ravens began play in 1996. They have no history from before 1996. They have "Baltimore" history. As in, teams that played in Baltimore from before. But they do not have any "Ravens" history or any history having to do with their current team prior to 1996. Their records and history reflect that they began in 1996. The Browns records and history reflect that they began in 1946.
Omac and I talked about the reality of the Browns situation, that for all practical purposes the team is an expansion team with less than a decade in the league, meaning they started from scratch. You decided to once again tell everyone how wrong they are about the Brown's history, which as usual got reasonable replies about the 'facts' of the expansion draft vs. the legal mumbo, jumbo.
You made the conscious decision to once again start this argument, rather than taking my and OMAC's post at face value and not ASSUME we were insulting the Brown's organization.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:37 PM
The current Browns incarnation, whatever it is, have drafted these quarterbacks:
Tim Couch, 1999, Round 1, No. 1, Kentucky
Spergon Wynn, 2000, Round 6, 183, Texas State
Luke McCown, 2004, 4, 106, Louisiana Tech
Charlie Frye, 2005, 3, 67, Akron
Brady Quinn, 2007, 1, 22, Notre Dame
So, aside from Brady Quinn, because we don't know what he'll be, in the last eight years, the Browns have really sucked it up drafting quarterbacks. They've failed four times and are working on No. 5.
Ironically, they've jumped on the back of a sixth round draft pick of the Baltimore Ravens in 2005 to take them to a possible playoff berth.
Couch was a good QB. But, the offensive line was no good. Couch was by no means a "bust" as the media labels him. He didn't do great. But when looking at multiple other players - Couch is far superior to them. Couch did a very good job given the situation he was in.
Wynn - who didn't expect him to suck? McCown - he was a favorite of Butch Davis. He was supposed to be the QB of the future and looked very good with the Bucs a few weeks ago and Frye? He was decent given his situation. An injury riddle offense and offensive line. Then 1 game against one of the best defenses in the NFL? Savage must really have not liked him. Quinn is a right step. The offensive line is amazing. The offense is healthy. Quinn is in a far, far better situation than both Couch and Frye.
Ironically, they've jumped on the back of a sixth round draft pick of the Baltimore Ravens in 2005 to take them to a possible playoff berth.
That is pretty ironic. :D
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:39 PM
Ok, I found the person responsible. Here is his quote:
Omac and I talked about the reality of the Browns situation, that for all practical purposes the team is an expansion team with less than a decade in the league, meaning they started from scratch. You decided to once again tell everyone how wrong they are about the Brown's history, which as usual got reasonable replies about the 'facts' of the expansion draft vs. the legal mumbo, jumbo.
You made the conscious decision to once again start this argument, rather than taking my and OMAC's post at face value and not ASSUME we were insulting the Brown's organization.
No, wrong quote. The person responsible is the individual who claimed that the Browns were not the Browns. The person who said they were not the Browns used the term "Expansion Team" to imply that the Browns were a "new" team. Their opinion of the Ravens is easily implied by their statement about the Browns.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 04:44 PM
I just read back through. You (Clevland Rocks) were the first person to reference the Ravens.
No, wrong quote. The person responsible is the individual who claimed that the Browns were not the Browns. The person who said they were not the Browns used the term "Expansion Team" to imply that the Browns were a "new" team. Their opinion of the Ravens is easily implied by their statement about the Browns.
While I typically agree with about 3% of what you post, I give you credit for perseverance.
So, with that said, back on topic, I think that it is Anderson's job to lose in training camp, but that Quinn will be given every opportunity to beat him out.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 04:46 PM
The answer hasn't changed since page #1...
Anderson stays put until Rivers, I mean Quinny earns the job.
Dude's had a pretty good year and is a big reason why Cleveland's got a chance to make the playoffs...
Show the guy some love...
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 04:46 PM
I think they should just move the franchise.
:snicker:
edit: I miss that smiley...
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:51 PM
I think they should just move the franchise.
:snicker:
edit: I miss that smiley...
See how "nice" these Denver fans are.
Extremely classless.
It'll bite you one day. After all, your owner was one of those that approved of Modell's plan.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 04:52 PM
Couch was a good QB. But, the offensive line was no good. Couch was by no means a "bust" as the media labels him. He didn't do great. But when looking at multiple other players - Couch is far superior to them. Couch did a very good job given the situation he was in.
Wynn - who didn't expect him to suck? McCown - he was a favorite of Butch Davis. He was supposed to be the QB of the future and looked very good with the Bucs a few weeks ago and Frye? He was decent given his situation. An injury riddle offense and offensive line. Then 1 game against one of the best defenses in the NFL? Savage must really have not liked him. Quinn is a right step. The offensive line is amazing. The offense is healthy. Quinn is in a far, far better situation than both Couch and Frye.
Sorry, but Couch is pretty much a bust. If it were true that he's a good quarterback hindered by a bad line, he would have made it somewhere else. That, he didn't do. He was also the No. 1 player chosen. For him never to get above 80 in quarterback rating, and have a record of 22-42 is not good for a No. 1 overall pick, regardless of situation. Since you won't accept the idea that the Browns in 1999 were an expansion team, than clearly, Couch should have been better, if he had been a good quarterback, which he wasn't.
McCown is what he is, a back up quarterback. I'm sure he'll have a good game here and there, but all he is is a backup quarterback.
Charlie Frye is also nothing but a backup quarterback.
The fact is the Browns have been bad at drafting quarterbacks in the last eight years. That's why they are being led by a Ravens draft pick. Ask the Chiefs how drafting quarterbacks and developing them leads to success, they know all about it.
If Quinn is the guy...I mean really THE guy, then they should be set, but then what do you do with Anderson? Is he young enough to trade for value. To be honest, with McNabb possibly on the move, Duante Culpepper going to be available, Matt Ryan and Brian Brohm in the draft, there's not much value in Anderson, even though he has had a good year. It's hard to trade quarterbacks and get back good value. I think Quinn is going to be a bust myself, but obviously, since he hasn't played, there's no real basis for my opinion, it's just a feeling I have. Maybe it's the history that the Browns have had drafting quarterbacks...I don't know.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 04:54 PM
No, wrong quote. The person responsible is the individual who claimed that the Browns were not the Browns. The person who said they were not the Browns used the term "Expansion Team" to imply that the Browns were a "new" team. Their opinion of the Ravens is easily implied by their statement about the Browns.
Why, exactly, do you refuse to admit to yourself that the Browns had to start over again with an expansion team? That is a large part of the problem in what their situation has been in the last eight years. And why are we classless for realizing the reality that the Browns are in? Joe was only joking about moving the team, not trying to take a shot at you, personally.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 04:55 PM
See how "nice" these Denver fans are.
Extremely classless.
It'll bite you one day. After all, your owner was one of those that approved of Modell's plan.
Yeah - like Browns fans throwing dog biscuits at the Broncos during one of the AFC Championship games.
Now that's class.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 04:57 PM
Sorry, but Couch is pretty much a bust. If it were true that he's a good quarterback hindered by a bad line, he would have made it somewhere else. That, he didn't do. He was also the No. 1 player chosen. For him never to get above 80 in quarterback rating, and have a record of 22-42 is not good for a No. 1 overall pick, regardless of situation. Since you won't accept the idea that the Browns in 1999 were an expansion team, than clearly, Couch should have been better, if he had been a good quarterback, which he wasn't.
McCown is what he is, a back up quarterback. I'm sure he'll have a good game here and there, but all he is is a backup quarterback.
Charlie Frye is also nothing but a backup quarterback.
The fact is the Browns have been bad at drafting quarterbacks in the last eight years. That's why they are being led by a Ravens draft pick. Ask the Chiefs how drafting quarterbacks and developing them leads to success, they know all about it.
If Quinn is the guy...I mean really THE guy, then they should be set, but then what do you do with Anderson? Is he young enough to trade for value. To be honest, with McNabb possibly on the move, Duante Culpepper going to be available, Matt Ryan and Brian Brohm in the draft, there's not much value in Anderson, even though he has had a good year. It's hard to trade quarterbacks and get back good value. I think Quinn is going to be a bust myself, but obviously, since he hasn't played, there's no real basis for my opinion, it's just a feeling I have. Maybe it's the history that the Browns have had drafting quarterbacks...I don't know.
Couch broke his throwing arm. Or something along that nature and has not been with a team since. He even resorted to using a steroid to bring back his muscle strength. Didn't work out well.
Couch's injury cost him after leaving Cleveland. Couch led the Browns to a playoff appearance in 2002. So, he did do something that all those "busts" could not. He led his team to the playoffs. Don't go claiming it was "Holcomb". Holcomb only played in 2 games in he regular season that year. No, they were not the last 2 games of that season. The Browns only QB that can be compared on a level playing field with Quinn is Couch as he was a 1st round draft pick. So the Browns in the past 10 years are 0-1 in terms of 1st round QB's. Anderson should be traded to the Falcons or some other team in need of a QB. Then the Browns can address the numerous needs on defense.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 05:00 PM
See how "nice" these Denver fans are.
Extremely classless.
OMG dude...just friggin relax already.
First, this is a Denver Bronco's board in case you hadn’t noticed, and you’re are talking about the Cleveland Browns, who Denver doesn’t even play this year?? Nobody here, past the 2nd page is going to care about Cleveland’s QB situation.
No one.
Second, since it’s painfully obvious you’re oblivious to this fact, the people here are lighthearted and chill…nothing is taken overly serious and we like to joke around with one another.
Chill the hell out because there's been nothing classless about the discussion so far and what Joe said was d@mn funny, or go troll somewhere else…like a Chiefs board or something.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:01 PM
Yeah - like Browns fans throwing dog biscuits at the Broncos during one of the AFC Championship games.
Now that's class.
King of like Bronco fans throwing snowballs with batteries inside when playing against the Raiders.
Why, exactly, do you refuse to admit to yourself that the Browns had to start over again with an expansion team? That is a large part of the problem in what their situation has been in the last eight years. And why are we classless for realizing the reality that the Browns are in? Joe was only joking about moving the team, not trying to take a shot at you, personally.
The Browns are the same team. They are the Browns. They are a continuation of the Browns prior to Modell's decision. Modell was stopped. He was not able to have his Baltimore Browns team. He got an empty shell of a team. A team with no history. A nobody team. A team with nothing to stand on. Nothing to be proud of. Just a shameful, sad team. With nobody accepting them. He is classless because he says that the Browns should move to another city. Despite Browns fans rising up and stopping Modell's move. That is extremely classless.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:05 PM
OMG dude...just friggin relax already.
First, this is a Denver Bronco's board in case you hadn’t noticed, and you’re are talking about the Cleveland Browns, who Denver doesn’t even play this year?? Nobody here, past the 2nd page is going to care about Cleveland’s QB situation.
No one.
Second, since it’s painfully obvious you’re oblivious to this fact, the people here are lighthearted and chill…nothing is taken overly serious and we like to joke around with one another.
Chill the hell out because there's been nothing classless about the discussion so far and what Joe said was d@mn funny, or go troll somewhere else…like a Chiefs board or something.
I was here long before you. So don't go calling me a Troll.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:06 PM
King of like Bronco fans throwing snowballs with batteries inside when playing against the Raiders.
That was maybe one person, not the entire South Stands....
The Browns are the same team. They are the Browns. They are a continuation of the Browns prior to Modell's decision. Modell was stopped. He was not able to have his Baltimore Browns team. He got an empty shell of a team. A team with no history. A nobody team. A team with nothing to stand on. Nothing to be proud of. Just a shameful, sad team. With nobody accepting them. He is classless because he says that the Browns should move to another city. Despite Browns fans rising up and stopping Modell's move. That is extremely classless.
Well, he did get a Championship!!!
P.S. Isn't there a Browns forum you can post this crap on? I'm sure all your dog pound buddies will agree with your "non-expansion team" BS.
Broncolingus
12-26-2007, 05:08 PM
I was here long before you. So don't go calling me a Troll.
I didn't know time was a factor...besides, most of us 'newbies' gave an opinion on the first 4 pages - you apparently just didn't like the opinions.
The only thing I'm saying is lighten the hell up...
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 05:09 PM
King of like Bronco fans throwing snowballs with batteries inside when playing against the Raiders.
The Browns are the same team. They are the Browns. They are a continuation of the Browns prior to Modell's decision. Modell was stopped. He was not able to have his Baltimore Browns team. He got an empty shell of a team. A team with no history. A nobody team. A team with nothing to stand on. Nothing to be proud of. Just a shameful, sad team. With nobody accepting them. He is classless because he says that the Browns should move to another city. Despite Browns fans rising up and stopping Modell's move. That is extremely classless.
It was a joke, relax.
And they are the same team in the history books, but they had to start all over again with an expansion draft. It is part of their problem they've had winning games in the last eight years. I know you don't want to admit to that, but that is a large part of their problem, is that they were defunct for three years and had to start from scratch.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:11 PM
I was here long before you. So don't go calling me a Troll.
Wow. 4 months is a long time....
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:11 PM
I think I found my new Zambini.... My post count will be back to 16,000 in no time.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Well, he did get a Championship!!!
P.S. Isn't there a Browns forum you can post this crap on? I'm sure all your dog pound buddies will agree with your "non-expansion team" BS.
Yes, there is a Browns board I am on and I contribute to it a lot.
Also, isn't there a board for you? Little "refugee"?
I was on B-Mania for years and I was invited to this board by a friend.
So, I am here because I was invited here. I did not come here to "Troll" I am here to discuss things. If people keep out of my way and stop making ridiculous statements about the Browns - then things will be hunky dory. But untill people start treating me with respect - they had better expect a lot more of this.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:12 PM
Wow. 4 months is a long time....
Thanks, especially since this board is only 4 months long and I was on B-Manis since Oct. 2002.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:14 PM
Yes, there is a Browns board I am on and I contribute to it a lot.
Also, isn't there a board for you? Little "refugee"?
I was on B-Mania for years and I was invited to this board by a friend.
So, I am here because I was invited here. I did not come here to "Troll" I am here to discuss things. If people keep out of my way and stop making ridiculous statements about the Browns - then things will be hunky dory. But untill people start treating me with respect - they had better expect a lot more of this.
A lot more of what? Internet tough-guy talk? Stay out of your way. I'm LMFAO.
P.S. I was also invited here. By tned and others, but thanks anyway.
The Browns were an expansion team in 1999. That my friend is not a ridiculous statement.
SNWORB is BROWNS spelled backwords.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:15 PM
DNALEVELC is CLEVELAND spelled backwards.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:17 PM
A lot more of what? Internet tough-guy talk? Stay out of your way. I'm LMFAO.
P.S. I was also invited here. By tned and others, but thanks anyway.
The Browns were an expansion team in 1999. That my friend is not a ridiculous statement.
No, that is not all you said.
You were saying that the Browns are a "new" team. The Browns are a very old team. One of the oldest teams in the AFC.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 05:22 PM
No, that is not all you said.
You were saying that the Browns are a "new" team. The Browns are a very old team. One of the oldest teams in the AFC.
This current incarnation of the team is new. Get over it. It's the truth.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:24 PM
This current incarnation of the team is new. Get over it. It's the truth.
No
There is only the Browns. Nothing "current" or "past" about it. The Browns are the Browns. Now asterisks nothing of the sorts. The Browns are the same. The only difference is there is an owner that actually cares about the fans and the team in charge now.
BroncoJoe
12-26-2007, 05:25 PM
The Expansion Browns are a new team. The franchise is old/historic.
Say it with me now, "the Browns were an expansion team in 1999."
See? It's really not that difficult.
Yeah - like Browns fans throwing dog biscuits at the Broncos during one of the AFC Championship games.
Now that's class.
And batteries....
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:27 PM
The Expansion Browns are a new team. The franchise is old/historic.
Say it with me now, "the Browns were an expansion team in 1999."
See? It's really not that difficult.
I have no argument with that. In 1999 it was - key word is WAS. 1999 was a long time ago. Different coach, different players, different ownership, different personnel.
My problem is people saying that the Browns are "new" when they are not. Nothing "new" nor anything "old" about them. They are the same team, they are the Browns. No prefix.
Ricky
12-26-2007, 05:29 PM
CR, when I look at the AFL history I see ten teams:
1 Boston/ New England Patriots
2 Buffalo Bills
3 Dallas Texans / Kansas City Chiefs
4 Denver Broncos
5 Houston Oilers
6 Los Angeles Chargers / San Diego Chargers
7 New York Titans / New York Jets
8 Oakland /Los Angeles / Oakland Raiders
9 Miami Dolphins
10 Cincinnati Bengals
Seems to me that even the NFL wanted to jettison the Browns to another league.
Watchthemiddle
12-26-2007, 05:29 PM
I have no argument with that. In 1999 it was - key word is WAS. 1999 was a long time ago. Different coach, different players, different ownership, different personnel.
My problem is people saying that the Browns are "new" when they are not. Nothing "new" nor anything "old" about them. They are the same team, they are the Browns. No suffixes.
WOW...way back in 1999. A whole 8 years ago. I can hardly remember that far back. Your right, the Browns aren't new.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:32 PM
CR, when I look at the AFL history I see ten teams:
1 Boston/ New England Patriots
2 Buffalo Bills
3 Dallas Texans / Kansas City Chiefs
4 Denver Broncos
5 Houston Oilers
6 Los Angeles Chargers / San Diego Chargers
7 New York Titans / New York Jets
8 Oakland /Los Angeles / Oakland Raiders
9 Miami Dolphins
10 Cincinnati Bengals
Seems to me that even the NFL wanted to jettison the Browns to another league.
THe Browns were founding members of the AAFC. They joined the NFL in 1950. In 1970 - when the two leagues merged (NFL and AFL) the Browns, Colts, and Steelers joined the AFC. If you go back to my post I said one of the oldest AFC teams.
MOtorboat
12-26-2007, 05:33 PM
I have no argument with that. In 1999 it was - key word is WAS. 1999 was a long time ago. Different coach, different players, different ownership, different personnel.
My problem is people saying that the Browns are "new" when they are not. Nothing "new" nor anything "old" about them. They are the same team, they are the Browns. No prefix.
They aren't the same team, but whatever. It's two different franchises with the same name that keep the same records. That's the truth.
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:37 PM
They aren't the same team, but whatever. It's two different franchises with the same name that keep the same records. That's the truth.
No, it's not. It's the same team.
If it was two seperate teams it would be like the Titans/Oilers. Titans continue Oilers records and incorporate them into their team. However, the Oilers monicker is "retired" and the records up to the name change are under "Oilers" history and not "Titans".
The Browns are not like that. The Browns history is fluid. The Browns history continues and is alive. They are not "retired" they exist. They are. The Ravens - they have no history prior to 1996. They are a "new" team. They did not exist prior to 1996 - their history reflects that.
Ricky
12-26-2007, 05:40 PM
No, it's not. It's the same team.
If it was two seperate teams it would be like the Titans/Oilers. Titans continue Oilers records and incorporate them into their team. However, the Oilers monicker is "retired" and the records up to the name change are under "Oilers" history and not "Titans".
The Browns are not like that. The Browns history is fluid. The Browns history continues and is alive. They are not "retired" they exist. They are. The Ravens - they have no history prior to 1996. They are a "new" team. They did not exist prior to 1996 - their history reflects that.
You can only say that because Modell was a ***** in the way he moved the team. If he wasn't such a weasel, the commish wouldn't have let the stats stay in Cleveland.
The Ravens are.
The Ravens are a new team.
The Ravens began play in 1996. Look at their history if you disagree. Nowhere in their history will you see Otto Graham, Lou Groza, or any other Browns Greats. You will only see "Colts" players (their own HOF) and "Ravens" players.
No one is contesting the Browns' history.
Though the Ravens were technically an expansion team, they were composed of mostly the same team as the previous season's Browns.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/1995_roster.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/1996_roster.htm
The Browns, however, when their team re-emerged in the league were a team with all new players from different teams or from the draft.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/1999_roster.htm
In that sense, the Browns were starting from scratch, building a new team from players from a whole bunch of different teams and from college. So from this point, where the Browns didn't have a prior team of players to build on, this 2007 season is one of their most succesful ones.
Again, this is not about Browns' history, but about transition; the Ravens players have been playing together previous to their inception, the Browns players haven't.
In that sense, the Browns were starting from scratch, building a new team from players from a whole bunch of different teams and from college. So from this point, where the Browns didn't have a prior team of players to build on, this 2007 season is one of their most succesful ones.
Again, this is not about Browns' history, but about transition; the Ravens players have been playing together previous to their inception, the Browns players haven't.
Exactly, nobody is trying sully the Brown's reputation. I doubt anyone here cares. This was about evaluating the current season and QB's performance to be able to make an intelligent point about what is likely to happen next at the QB position. The fact the organization that inherrited the Browns name and history is only 8 years old is very relevant to the conversation.
Ok, you want to talk about "value".
Let's see who will have more value. A player who threw 28 touchdowns and is among the league leaders in that category. Or a player yet to throw a single pass in the NFL? Who would teams give up more for? Anderson. Teams would give up a lot for Anderson based just off of his touchdown number. Anderson should be traded. The Falcons look like they could use a QB - bet they'd offer something nice for him.
True, Anderson will have more value to most teams than Quinn, but would the Browns risk trading a proven player who's been instrumental to their success this season? That's a huge risk to take.
Ricky
12-26-2007, 05:46 PM
Exactly, nobody is trying sully the Brown's reputation. I doubt anyone here cares. This was about evaluating the current season and QB's performance to be able to make an intelligent point about what is likely to happen next at the QB position. The fact the organization that inherrited the Browns name and history is only 8 years old is very relevant to the conversation.
Same fans that are still pissed about number Seven, 'The Drive' and 'The Fumble"
Same fans that are still pissed about number Seven, 'The Drive' and 'The Fumble"
Yea, good times :D
Cleveland Rocks
12-26-2007, 05:52 PM
You can only say that because Modell was a ***** in the way he moved the team. If he wasn't such a weasel, the commish wouldn't have let the stats stay in Cleveland.
The commisioner didn't just "hand that over" nor did Modell. No matter what Modell may say.
The City of Cleveland had to sue the NFL and Modell. It was only due to that lawsuit that an agreement was made giving the Browns back to Cleveland and stripping Modell from all the associations with Cleveland and giving hima shell of a team. Sure, they still had the players that were under contract for the 1996 season. Because they were under contract with Modell.
The Browns are still the Browns. They are not a "different" team. They are the same team and that team is the Browns.
Exactly, nobody is trying sully the Brown's reputation. I doubt anyone here cares. This was about evaluating the current season and QB's performance to be able to make an intelligent point about what is likely to happen next at the QB position. The fact the organization that inherrited the Browns name and history is only 8 years old is very relevant to the conversation.
Just on a side note, I wanted the Browns to start doing well, because unlike some fans of other teams, the Browns fans are pretty loyal to their team, whether they're winning or not. They definitely did not deserve to lose their team in the mid-90's, although I can think of some fans that do deserve to lose their team because of the way they get down on their players when the going gets tough; not Bronco fans, I'm talking about teams who's fans can be really deplorable despite their players best efforts.
Lonestar
12-27-2007, 01:59 AM
Nooobody in DEN cares.. To the rest of the real world the browns are now in Baltimore.
Matt Stover is not "The Browns"
Matt Stover is all that remains of any link between Cleveland and Baltimore.
All others are long gone. They are two seperate entities entirely. The Cleveland Browns play in Cleveland, Ohio. The Baltimore Ravens play in Baltimore, Maryland. Two seperate teams. One team is the Browns - that is Cleveland Browns. The other, is not the Browns.
Let me try this again..
Nooobody in DEN cares..
To the rest of the real world, the browns are now in Baltimore.
Everyone is yanking your chain here let it go.. Please..
Stargazer
12-27-2007, 03:27 AM
We should see what Cleveland does in the playoffs.
If I ran the Browns, bring them both back.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.