Green Bay closing in on Cleveland
-
Yes, see, I all made it up. I have such incredible power in my hands that I can effect anything, anywhere, anytime. See what I have done to these entities:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Na...ue_Championship
-
What's funny is that 50 years from now if they were to call the superbowl something else and add in about 12 more teams all these trolls would freak if you told them those lombardi trophies they won in the superbowl era didnt mean anything just like they are doing to us.
-
Formerly Sane said:
Gipper, do you work in think tank who's sole purpose in life is to find a way to say something positive about the Browns?Take this to think tank gurus and see what you can come up with, I'll even give you head start.
POOP
Poop, if you remove the smell, the toxins, and the smearyness, you have a fibrous rich healthy snack!
If you remove one of the "o" in poop, you have pop and we all love pop!
POOP, while having four letters, is made up of only two different letters which makes it a P-squared separated by an O-squared, which is drastically opposed to poop in it's natural form which is round and tapered so our buttholes don't slam shut!
Poop originates in the human body as a result of eating food...........we all love to eat!
So........."poop" is the greatest!
Whatever it is that I may thinking in my think tank, it is clearly on a higher plane of thought than what you are thinking.
Nevertheless, my original post took very little thought. I simply clicked on that website on pro-football-reference that I linked above and started counting. Pretty high level think tank stuff there.
I will say this though.... your are right: sometimes there ain't nothing like taking a good shit!
(as long as you are not constipated) -
Let's end this pathetic topic.
Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
-
Formerly Sane said:
Not at all, you're completely missing the point. It's not about the title of the championship it's about the image and the reality of the organization.For example, many of the other great teams from the era when the Browns were great have continued some level of greatness, the Browns have fallen to the basement and stayed there. The Bears, the Packers, the Giants, etc have all found periodic greatness, the Browns haven't (with the exception of the 4-5 year run in the 80's preceded and followed by futility).
The Steelers have extricated themselves from garbage to become the greatest sports franchise in the world and you bozos are the only people on the face of the earth who can't see it!
I am not sure what current success has to do with simply counting up the number of titles that have occurred in the past which is all this thread did (going from 1920-2009).
To say that the Browns have been crappy lately is so obvious its silly. Its a whole different topic for a whole different thread. Winning is cyclical.
This topic was supposed to be about one of those older, traditional teams and football cities having a chance to come up even with another older, traditional football city with the number of titles earned throughout history. The Packers have won 12 titles. All but 3 of those would be what some of your idiots like endymon would declare "irrelevent" because they were won pre-1966.
I mean, it happens all the time. Teams that were a "joke" for years become champions. See the New Orleans Saints. Teams that were great Champions become a joke. See the Oakland Raiders.
And sometimes this can happen in the blink of an eye. Rams go from 4-12 to Super Bowl victory. Patriots go from 5-11 to Super Bowl victory. The opposite can and has happened just as easily.
No one knows this better than we do. Look at the Cavaliers. Two years in a row they had the best record in basketball and coulda/perhaps shoulda won a title until whatshisname decided to quit on the team. Now they have the worst record in the NBA. They are going to have to get worse before they can get better. (just like before they got whatshisname).
-
Let's end this pathetic topic.
Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
The Soldier said:
Let's end this pathetic topic.Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
-
Formerly Sane said:
You're missing the point, it's probably because of the level you think on versus the level you think you think on
Before you checked the source you had to think "How can I post something that makes the Browns look good and tie it in to the current sports buzz being Super Bowl XLV......Oh I know, since the Packers have more world championships than anyone else in football, I will tie the Browns to the combined total of Cleveland, Akron, Canton, and any other part of the region to make the Browns look good"
It's called spinning ......and it's usually reserved for the wind bags in politics but, as you so often demonstrate, not restricted to them.
In other words....Stop always trying to make a silk purse from a pigs ass....I adlibed a bit because there really isn't anything terrible about a pigs ear
Dude, I have been carrying out this "count" on these boards for like 15 years now, going back to the AOL board. This isn't something I just started doing. And if you were paying attention I did it for the cities in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and I noted earlier that I have kept these compilations for college football and college basketball as well. In none of those other sports does Cleveland/Akron/Canton come out at the top by any means.
I have posted these lists on here at the conclusion of every sports season...winter for football, fall for baseball, summer for basketball and hockey. Whether they involve the Steelers and their idiot fans or not, I have posted these lists.
Do you want to talk about any of those?
So, clearly the answer is that it is YOU who are far more concerned about rubbing your palms together to make the Browns look bad than it is the other way around. You only pay attention to whatever is in view of your personal tunnel vision.
Clearly, it is I who see the big picture here.
-
The Soldier said:
Let's end this pathetic topic.Yes Gip, the Browns (and Packers) are the most successfull franchise in the history of professional football.
(i've learned that on this board, reality is not what is important, but what you think happened, or what might happen, is what is important)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
Well, see now, you can't even get it right when you are trying to give it away. though the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area has the most titles, those were accomplished by 4 or 5 different franchises (depending on whether you count the Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs as 1 or 2 different franchises). No one has claimed otherwise. The Green Bay Packers ARE the single most successful franchise in terms of total titles won in their history. Here is the franchise count:
Packers...12
Bears......9
Browns....8
Giants......7
Steelers....6
Redskins...5
Cowboys...5
49ers......5
Lions......4
Colts......4 * 1 in Indy, 3 in Baltimore
Raiders...3 *2 in Oakland, 1 in LA
Eagles.....3
Rams.....3 *1 in Cleveland, 1 in LA, 1 in St. Louis
Patriots...3
Bulldogs...3
Cardinals...2 *both in Chicago
Chiefs....2 *1 as KC Chiefs, 1 as Dallas Texans
Bills.....2
Titans/Oilers...2 *both as Houston Oilers
Broncos....2
Dolphins....2
Pros....1
Jets.....1
Yellow Jackets....1
Ravens.....1
Steam Roller...1
Chargers....1
Saints.....1
Bucs......1[/color
All the asterisks is precisely why I started keeping the "city count" of titles, because, after all, why, say, should the people of Baltimore give a rat's ass about the title won by the Colts in Indy? But I think if you ask a Baltimore fan, they will tell you that what they "cherish" are the Colts titles won by that franchise in Baltimore and the one won by the Ravens.
We in the Cleveland area certainly don't give a cabbage fart for the fact that the Rams have gone on to LA then to St. Louis and won titles. And so on. That is why I consider the city count important. For all you Steeler idjits out there, would you really care if the San Antonio Steelers won a title sometime in the future? (I mean, as successful as that team has been there may have been some Rooney family members that would at one time been more than willing to gamble away their ownership interest in the team and then sold it to say, a Red McComb who has wanted a team for SA for a long time. But, good for you, you had Dan Rooney there to stick it out)
OK! Thanks for bringing this information to everyones attention. Good stuff to know!
-
I think you mean "objective" but.............
The Browns were a successful franchise up until the early 90's? WRONG This is the part where it always gets comical when talking to a young Browns fans.....they actually believe this statement!
The Browns stopped being a successful franchise in the late 60's and despite their four year streak of winning season in the 80's were a sub .500 team from then until the early 90's you reference, and an even worse team since! Immediately prior to that four year run and immediately following that run they were one of the worst teams in the NFL. with a .313 and .188 winning percentage in 1984 and 1990 respectively.
I didn't bother to look up the Steeler numbers you posted for two reason:
1. They are probably wrong as well
2. More importantly..............it's old news just like the last time the Browns were a solid franchise......it's old news!!
This is why you have no credibility...at all. You make bald...incorrect statements constantly. Simple facts that can be looked up.
I interpret "successfull" franchise as one that has winning seasons and makes the playoffs.
So, here are the facts:
1946 to 1973 a total of 28 years the Browns had 26 winning seasons, 1 losing season (1957) and 1 .500 season and made 19 playoff appearances.
For the rest of the 70s, 6 years, the Browns had 2 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons, and no playoff appearances.
For the decade of the 80s, 10 years the Browns had 6 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons with 7 playoff appearances.
So, in the 44 years prior to 1990 the Browns had 34 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, and 3 .500 season with 26 playoff appearances and 8 championships.
Prior to 1990 the Browns NEVER had more than 2 losing seasons in a row....and that only happened twice.
Since the 1990 season, Oh sure, things have been poor. But the statement that the Browns were a successful franchise is absolutely correct.
(Compare this: beginning in the 1972 season there have been 39 NFL seasons. The Steelers have 30 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, 2 seasons of .500, 25 playoff appearances and 6 titles. They too have only twice had 2 losing seasons in a row)
-
Formerly Sane said:
Please drop the rhetoric and kindly tell me what part of the below statement is incorrect?Very well, I will highlight the incorrect parts:
The Browns stopped being a successful franchise in the late 60's and despite their four year streak of winning season in the 80's were a sub .500 team from then until the early 90's you reference, and an even worse team since! Immediately prior to that four year run and immediately following that run they were one of the worst teams in the NFL. with a .313 and .188 winning percentage in 1984 and 1990 respectively.
-
Truly the Steelers are the greatest franchise in the NFL, past and present.
I do not understand why the Browns fans always have to try and compare themselves to us. My advice is to just have fun watching football and not get so caught up in petty jealousy over our success. The Super Bowl has and always will be out of reach for the Browns.
The Super Bowl runs through Pittsburgh.
-
The cutoff point for this discussion has to be beginning with the 1974 season. Prior to that the Browns had 16 consecutive winning seasons. So the Browns record from then until 1990 are as follows:
1974 4-10
1975 3-11
1976 9-5
1977 6-8
1978 8-8
1979 9-7
1980 11-5 *
1981 5-11
1982 4-5 *
1983 9-7
1984 5-11
1985 8-8 *
1986 12-4 *
1987 10-5 *
1988 10-6 *
1989 9-6-1 *
* means made playoffs
Their overall record was 122-117-1 (if you really wanted to go back into the late 60s the winning pct. would be much higher). They had 2 bad years in the 73/74 seasons that were followed up by 5 competitive years. Their bad season in 1984 of course was followed up by 5 playoff seasons.
Nothing in this era of the Browns was any worse than the Steelers stretch of going 7-9 in 1985, 6-10 in 1986, 8-7 in 1987, and 5-11 in 1988.
All I can say is that I wish the Browns would get back to being as "unsuccessful" as they were then.
-
Truly the Steelers are the greatest franchise in the NFL, past and present.
I do not understand why the Browns fans always have to try and compare themselves to us. My advice is to just have fun watching football and not get so caught up in petty jealousy over our success. The Super Bowl has and always will be out of reach for the Browns.
The Super Bowl runs through Pittsburgh.
Truly the Steelers are the greatest franchise in the NFL, past and present.
I do not understand why the Browns fans always have to try and compare themselves to us. My advice is to just have fun watching football and not get so caught up in petty jealousy over our success. The Super Bowl has and always will be out of reach for the Browns.
The Super Bowl runs through Pittsburgh.
Yet your entire thought processe leading up to this game run through the Cleveland Browns. Curious.
Also, last time I looked you are vying in this game for something called "The Lombardi Trophy". Wasn't he a coach or something....and who did he coach for?
There is a trivia question that I would lay even odds this yabo doesn't know the answer to.
-
Gip please have fun watching the Super Bowl. Don't be bitter just enjoy it. It is only football after all.
If you feel so strongly about the lack of respect the Browns get then write ESPN and have them do a show on why they are superior to the Steelers and Green Bay. Why not write the Commissioner of the NFL and demand some accolades?
-
The Squeelers have never won a championship without the aid of steroids, hgh or favorable officiating. Fact.
-
The Soldier said:
just basically any paid football game? Are you counting Hullihan and Big Chuck vs the Browns charity games?Games played by the NFL/AFL/AAFC. Not sure why this concept is difficult for some of you to grasp.
Games played by the NFL/AFL/AAFC. Not sure why this concept is difficult for some of you to grasp.
It's difficult to grasp because it's total BS ....The NFL does NOT recognize ANY of the records or stats from the AAFC .It's Teams are not recognized by the NFL either ...Look that up you idiot ..THE NFL DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE AAFC!!!!Really man ,the Brown's have an excellent NFL history ...why are you so anal about this ??? You solidify the belief that most people around the country have about Brown's fans ...that they are totally clueless and among the biggest crybabies of any fanbase in the NFL ..why the inferiority complex ???...I don't see Detroit Lion's fan carrying on like this >>>>>( another hopeless loser since the late 1950's )
In the 1920's the teams that played professional football were mostly in the state of Ohio .... when you have 8 teams playing and 7 of them are in one state , you are probably going to have the deck stacked in your favor for most "regional wins" ...Ohio is the cradle of Pro Football
The NFL RECOGNIZES the Green Bay Packers with the most NFL titles .... 12 ...I mean come on ..you want the NFL to recognize your Team's stats and records from before the time new fanchise came into town in 1999 and they do (1950-1995)....but yet when the NFL doesn't recognize the AAFC you cry foul??? Just because YOU recognize it ,to back up some weak arguement you conjured up in your dented dome?? ....that's weak man , really , get over yourself ....hopefully your team will pull its head out of its ass and start winning so you can get off Wikipedia and stop dreaming about yesteryear ..... You are turning into a hopless NERD ...
-
I think you mean "objective" but.............
The Browns were a successful franchise up until the early 90's? WRONG This is the part where it always gets comical when talking to a young Browns fans.....they actually believe this statement!
The Browns stopped being a successful franchise in the late 60's and despite their four year streak of winning season in the 80's were a sub .500 team from then until the early 90's you reference, and an even worse team since! Immediately prior to that four year run and immediately following that run they were one of the worst teams in the NFL. with a .313 and .188 winning percentage in 1984 and 1990 respectively.
I didn't bother to look up the Steeler numbers you posted for two reason:
1. They are probably wrong as well
2. More importantly..............it's old news just like the last time the Browns were a solid franchise......it's old news!!
This is why you have no credibility...at all. You make bald...incorrect statements constantly. Simple facts that can be looked up.
I interpret "successfull" franchise as one that has winning seasons and makes the playoffs.
So, here are the facts:
1946 to 1973 a total of 28 years the Browns had 26 winning seasons, 1 losing season (1957) and 1 .500 season and made 19 playoff appearances.
For the rest of the 70s, 6 years, the Browns had 2 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons, and no playoff appearances.
For the decade of the 80s, 10 years the Browns had 6 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons with 7 playoff appearances.
So, in the 44 years prior to 1990 the Browns had 34 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, and 3 .500 season with 26 playoff appearances and 8 championships.
Prior to 1990 the Browns NEVER had more than 2 losing seasons in a row....and that only happened twice.
Since the 1990 season, Oh sure, things have been poor. But the statement that the Browns were a successful franchise is absolutely correct.
(Compare this: beginning in the 1972 season there have been 39 NFL seasons. The Steelers have 30 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, 2 seasons of .500, 25 playoff appearances and 6 titles. They too have only twice had 2 losing seasons in a row)
I think you mean "objective" but.............
The Browns were a successful franchise up until the early 90's? WRONG This is the part where it always gets comical when talking to a young Browns fans.....they actually believe this statement!
The Browns stopped being a successful franchise in the late 60's and despite their four year streak of winning season in the 80's were a sub .500 team from then until the early 90's you reference, and an even worse team since! Immediately prior to that four year run and immediately following that run they were one of the worst teams in the NFL. with a .313 and .188 winning percentage in 1984 and 1990 respectively.
I didn't bother to look up the Steeler numbers you posted for two reason:
1. They are probably wrong as well
2. More importantly..............it's old news just like the last time the Browns were a solid franchise......it's old news!!
This is why you have no credibility...at all. You make bald...incorrect statements constantly. Simple facts that can be looked up.
I interpret "successfull" franchise as one that has winning seasons and makes the playoffs.
So, here are the facts:
1946 to 1973 a total of 28 years the Browns had 26 winning seasons, 1 losing season (1957) and 1 .500 season and made 19 playoff appearances.
For the rest of the 70s, 6 years, the Browns had 2 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons, and no playoff appearances.
For the decade of the 80s, 10 years the Browns had 6 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons with 7 playoff appearances.
So, in the 44 years prior to 1990 the Browns had 34 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, and 3 .500 season with 26 playoff appearances and 8 championships.
Prior to 1990 the Browns NEVER had more than 2 losing seasons in a row....and that only happened twice.
Since the 1990 season, Oh sure, things have been poor. But the statement that the Browns were a successful franchise is absolutely correct.
(Compare this: beginning in the 1972 season there have been 39 NFL seasons. The Steelers have 30 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, 2 seasons of .500, 25 playoff appearances and 6 titles. They too have only twice had 2 losing seasons in a row)
Again clown fan ....start your "facts " in 1950 ...the NFL does not recognize the AAFC or any of its stats and/or teams ...I guess your arguement about being a "successful" franchise is like arguing over whether the glass is half full, or half empty ...If winning regular season games and having a solid winning % is your definition of success then go with that ..you are right ..hooray for the Browns',they have been successful up until and through the mid-1990's .....Now if you judge success by actually winning a title ( isn't that why LeBron left town??) then this guys arguement is correct ...the Browns have SUCKED since the late 1960" s
Your call
-
the browns are very very good at being the doormat NFL franchise that we love to have in our division.
The Browns have contributed to the Steelers success! Thank you Cleveland Browns!
Enjoy the Super Bowl!
-
shouldn't the SF/OAK/SJ be 8 titles? 5 for the niners and 3 for the raiders?
-
I think you mean "objective" but.............
The Browns were a successful franchise up until the early 90's? WRONG This is the part where it always gets comical when talking to a young Browns fans.....they actually believe this statement!
The Browns stopped being a successful franchise in the late 60's and despite their four year streak of winning season in the 80's were a sub .500 team from then until the early 90's you reference, and an even worse team since! Immediately prior to that four year run and immediately following that run they were one of the worst teams in the NFL. with a .313 and .188 winning percentage in 1984 and 1990 respectively.
I didn't bother to look up the Steeler numbers you posted for two reason:
1. They are probably wrong as well
2. More importantly..............it's old news just like the last time the Browns were a solid franchise......it's old news!!
This is why you have no credibility...at all. You make bald...incorrect statements constantly. Simple facts that can be looked up.
I interpret "successfull" franchise as one that has winning seasons and makes the playoffs.
So, here are the facts:
1946 to 1973 a total of 28 years the Browns had 26 winning seasons, 1 losing season (1957) and 1 .500 season and made 19 playoff appearances.
For the rest of the 70s, 6 years, the Browns had 2 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons, and no playoff appearances.
For the decade of the 80s, 10 years the Browns had 6 winning seasons, 1 .500 season and 3 losing seasons with 7 playoff appearances.
So, in the 44 years prior to 1990 the Browns had 34 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, and 3 .500 season with 26 playoff appearances and 8 championships.
Prior to 1990 the Browns NEVER had more than 2 losing seasons in a row....and that only happened twice.
Since the 1990 season, Oh sure, things have been poor. But the statement that the Browns were a successful franchise is absolutely correct.
(Compare this: beginning in the 1972 season there have been 39 NFL seasons. The Steelers have 30 winning seasons, 7 losing seasons, 2 seasons of .500, 25 playoff appearances and 6 titles. They too have only twice had 2 losing seasons in a row)
Again clown fan ....start your "facts " in 1950 ...the NFL does not recognize the AAFC or any of its stats and/or teams ...I guess your arguement about being a "successful" franchise is like arguing over whether the glass is half full, or half empty ...If winning regular season games and having a solid winning % is your definition of success then go with that ..you are right ..hooray for the Browns',they have been successful up until and through the mid-1990's .....Now if you judge success by actually winning a title ( isn't that why LeBron left town??) then this guys arguement is correct ...the Browns have SUCKED since the late 1960" s
Your call
Again clown fan ....start your "facts " in 1950 ...the NFL does not recognize the AAFC or any of its stats and/or teams ...I guess your arguement about being a "successful" franchise is like arguing over whether the glass is half full, or half empty ...If winning regular season games and having a solid winning % is your definition of success then go with that ..you are right ..hooray for the Browns',they have been successful up until and through the mid-1990's .....Now if you judge success by actually winning a title ( isn't that why LeBron left town??) then this guys arguement is correct ...the Browns have SUCKED since the late 1960" s
Your call
The stoolers were the doormat in the NFL from 1933 until 1972. They had 5 winning seasons in 39 years
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login