Green Bay closing in on Cleveland
-
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
-
Why does anybody care?
It's a silly set of data that is just about meaningless except for those trying desperately trying to hold on to the ancient past.
-
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
The stoolers were the doormat in the NFL from 1933 until 1972. They had 5 winning seasons in 39 years
yes ....the Steelers were sorry during that time ..so?? nobody said that the Steelers were great before the 1970's ..they clearly weren't ..The arguement was about where the Brown's stood as being a successful franchise . Since 1950 through 1970 they were excellent ..Since then , they have had a brief stint of success ...depends on how you grade success
The Brown's have been below average for quite a while..... by any measure . Hopefully your next Head Coach and current GM will turn your fortunes around and you guys can start living in the more recent past/present,rather than 40+ years ago
-
I am more than willing to recognize NFL Championships - when they were won on the field in a structured system.
Anyone who compares a league championship that occured where teams did not play the same number of games, no structured schedule and teams folded during the course of the year - and didn't even have a championship game. Ties weren't factored in, so you could have played 4 fewer games, had 4 fewer wins, but because you had a tie you could have a better winning percentage due to a tie, you were league champion.
These championships were won at a time where these players did not play the games as a career - but as a secondary source of income. The game was pre-historic in the sense of how it was played. Pro football was barely popular until the 1950s, the game has almost nothing in common with what you watch today.
If it makes you feel better that an Akron team won a Championship and think it makes you better - go knock yourself out. What is pathetic is that a loser like Zombo actually thinks that a consolidation of multiple teams in different leagues under different rules and different formats from different cities is preferable to what the Steelers have done with winning 6 Super Bowls.
For what it's worth - the NFL does not recognize AAFC Championships. The NFL also puts the NFL Championship Game at the same level as winning the Conference Championship Game. The proof of that stands out with two very simple examples that I have yet to ever see one Browns fan respond to - instead of ignore.
The Baltimore Colts and the Minnesota Vikings won the NFL Championship in 1968 and in 1969. They lost the Super Bowl. What is remembered? What is considered more relevant?
I know fans of both the Chargers and the Bills - I have never once heard one of those fans brag about their AFL Championships the way you guys brag about AAFC Championship Games and how you guys actually believe it's the same thing as a Super Bowl.
Please - spare us the "Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes the AAFC Championships" bit. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes all kinds of football history. The National Football League is the governing body that sets the standard. To that end, the Cleveland Browns have 4 Championships.
But hey, you had the Cleveland Rams win a NFL Championship. That probably means the world to you doesn't it?
If it makes you feel better that a different franchise won a championship 35 years before you were even born, knock yourself out. I'll take 8 AFC Championships and 6 Super Bowl Championships - with a possibility of 7. And deep down inside, you are a liar if you say otherwise.
-
my grandfather was born in Stuebenville Ohio and played football with the neighborhood kids. His team used to beat all of the other teams in the day. Granted they were only kids but to me, when I think about it, it was just as important as winning a Super Bowl. I wish the NFL would count that but they don't. I don't buy this whole Super Bowl or nothing argument. Plenty of great football was played back in the day when it wasn't commercialized and driven by profits.
These days Super Bowls are just handed out to teams. The real championships were a lot harder to win before the NFL took over. I hope the Steelers finally become relevant to the history of football with a 7th Lombardi Trophy but we are still chasing the Browns's legacy.
Surf and Turf said:
my grandfather was born in Stuebenville Ohio and played football with the neighborhood kids. His team used to beat all of the other teams in the day. Granted they were only kids but to me, when I think about it, it was just as important as winning a Super Bowl. I wish the NFL would count that but they don't. I don't buy this whole Super Bowl or nothing argument. Plenty of great football was played back in the day when it wasn't commercialized and driven by profits.These days Super Bowls are just handed out to teams. The real championships were a lot harder to win before the NFL took over. I hope the Steelers finally become relevant to the history of football with a 7th Lombardi Trophy but we are still chasing the Browns's legacy.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ... You need to Join the Comedy Tour dude !!1
:lol: -
Surf and Turf said:
my grandfather was born in Stuebenville Ohio and played football with the neighborhood kids. His team used to beat all of the other teams in the day. Granted they were only kids but to me, when I think about it, it was just as important as winning a Super Bowl. I wish the NFL would count that but they don't. I don't buy this whole Super Bowl or nothing argument. Plenty of great football was played back in the day when it wasn't commercialized and driven by profits.These days Super Bowls are just handed out to teams. The real championships were a lot harder to win before the NFL took over. I hope the Steelers finally become relevant to the history of football with a 7th Lombardi Trophy but we are still chasing the Browns's legacy.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ... You need to Join the Comedy Tour dude !!1
:lol: ha ha ha ha ha ha ... You need to Join the Comedy Tour dude !!1
:lol: Boo Hoo. This stooler fan is all alone on Super Bowl Sunday taking out his anger on Browns fans because he feels the need to bring other's down to feel good about himself. What a worthless tool.
-
ha ha ha ha ha ha ... You need to Join the Comedy Tour dude !!1
:lol: Boo Hoo. This stooler fan is all alone on Super Bowl Sunday taking out his anger on Browns fans because he feels the need to bring other's down to feel good about himself. What a worthless tool.
Boo Hoo. This stooler fan is all alone on Super Bowl Sunday taking out his anger on Browns fans because he feels the need to bring other's down to feel good about himself. What a worthless tool.
Ya GOOD ONE !!! LOL... Almost Game-time .... Adios !! We will See !!
-
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
Here's what counts:
The Cleveland Browns, along with 31 other teams are current members of the NFL. Right? Right. I count the championships of ALL of those 32 teams, plus I count the NFL championships won by any defunct team.
Not too hard to grasp.
On the question of success, I simply assert that if a team is a challenger for a championship, then they are a successful team.
The Browns were a challenger for the NFL title right up until about 1972. Then in 1973 and for a few years, they were not a challenger, but then they were a challenger for the NFL title for most of the decade of the 80s.
Did they have a couple of bad years? Sure.
Again, only to Steeler fans would these simple concepts be unfathomable.
(but then as of today probably half the trolls on here are not longe Steeler fans)
-
I am more than willing to recognize NFL Championships - when they were won on the field in a structured system.
Anyone who compares a league championship that occured where teams did not play the same number of games, no structured schedule and teams folded during the course of the year - and didn't even have a championship game. Ties weren't factored in, so you could have played 4 fewer games, had 4 fewer wins, but because you had a tie you could have a better winning percentage due to a tie, you were league champion.
These championships were won at a time where these players did not play the games as a career - but as a secondary source of income. The game was pre-historic in the sense of how it was played. Pro football was barely popular until the 1950s, the game has almost nothing in common with what you watch today.
If it makes you feel better that an Akron team won a Championship and think it makes you better - go knock yourself out. What is pathetic is that a loser like Zombo actually thinks that a consolidation of multiple teams in different leagues under different rules and different formats from different cities is preferable to what the Steelers have done with winning 6 Super Bowls.
For what it's worth - the NFL does not recognize AAFC Championships. The NFL also puts the NFL Championship Game at the same level as winning the Conference Championship Game. The proof of that stands out with two very simple examples that I have yet to ever see one Browns fan respond to - instead of ignore.
The Baltimore Colts and the Minnesota Vikings won the NFL Championship in 1968 and in 1969. They lost the Super Bowl. What is remembered? What is considered more relevant?
I know fans of both the Chargers and the Bills - I have never once heard one of those fans brag about their AFL Championships the way you guys brag about AAFC Championship Games and how you guys actually believe it's the same thing as a Super Bowl.
Please - spare us the "Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes the AAFC Championships" bit. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes all kinds of football history. The National Football League is the governing body that sets the standard. To that end, the Cleveland Browns have 4 Championships.
But hey, you had the Cleveland Rams win a NFL Championship. That probably means the world to you doesn't it?
If it makes you feel better that a different franchise won a championship 35 years before you were even born, knock yourself out. I'll take 8 AFC Championships and 6 Super Bowl Championships - with a possibility of 7. And deep down inside, you are a liar if you say otherwise.
I am more than willing to recognize NFL Championships - when they were won on the field in a structured system.
Quite frankly, my dear, nobody, I included, give a damn about what you are willing to recognize.
Anyone who compares a league championship that occured where teams did not play the same number of games, no structured schedule and teams folded during the course of the year - and didn't even have a championship game. Ties weren't factored in, so you could have played 4 fewer games, had 4 fewer wins, but because you had a tie you could have a better winning percentage due to a tie, you were league champion.
As I have said before, this isn't an issue of "comparison". It is simply an issue of counting.
These championships were won at a time where these players did not play the games as a career - but as a secondary source of income. The game was pre-historic in the sense of how it was played. Pro football was barely popular until the 1950s, the game has almost nothing in common with what you watch today.
If it makes you feel better that an Akron team won a Championship and think it makes you better - go knock yourself out. What is pathetic is that a loser like Zombo actually thinks that a consolidation of multiple teams in different leagues under different rules and different formats from different cities is preferable to what the Steelers have done with winning 6 Super Bowls.
For what it's worth - the NFL does not recognize AAFC Championships. The NFL also puts the NFL Championship Game at the same level as winning the Conference Championship Game. The proof of that stands out with two very simple examples that I have yet to ever see one Browns fan respond to - instead of ignore.
And I have given you the reasons for the NFL's position: pettiness and jealousy. That said, the NFL is NOT the decider of what counts or what doesn't. The Pro Football Hall of Fame counts them, the pro-football-eference counts them. The Sporting News counts them. Wikipedia, for what its worth counts them. Everyone counts them.
Again, all I did was do a count. Sorry if you can't count.
The Baltimore Colts and the Minnesota Vikings won the NFL Championship in 1968 and in 1969. They lost the Super Bowl. What is remembered? What is considered more relevant?
I know fans of both the Chargers and the Bills - I have never once heard one of those fans brag about their AFL Championships the way you guys brag about AAFC Championship Games and how you guys actually believe it's the same thing as a Super Bowl.
Please - spare us the "Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes the AAFC Championships" bit. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes all kinds of football history. The National Football League is the governing body that sets the standard. To that end, the Cleveland Browns have 4 Championships.
Actually, NO, it isn't. The NFL is a business venture. It is not a governing body. If, indeed there is a governing body, then the Pro Football Hall of Fame is that body. But I believe there is no "governing" body.
But hey, you had the Cleveland Rams win a NFL Championship. That probably means the world to you doesn't it?
It just means that it was a championship for Cleveland. One of thirteen. Nothing more, nothing less.
If it makes you feel better that a different franchise won a championship 35 years before you were even born, knock yourself out. I'll take 8 AFC Championships and 6 Super Bowl Championships - with a possibility of 7. And deep down inside, you are a liar if you say otherwise.
To me, history is history, whether it happened 90 years ago or 3 years ago.
The only titles that truly count are the last one and the next one. Everything else is history. The fact that the history I have documented makes you crazy is not my problem but yours. That is all this has been, a documentation of history.
I am sorry that I cannot change it for you. I am sorry I cannot tell you that the South won the Civil War, or that Al Gore became President. History is what it is. This is a mere telling of it. Sorry if you want to act like a Holocaust denier.
-
In the course of the history of Professional Football in this country, the following city/regions have won the most professional football titles:
OK, so here is the revised count on this:
Cleveland/Akron/Canton...13
Green Bay...13
Chicago...11
New York/NJ...8
San Fran/Oak./S.J....7
Dallas...6
Pittsburgh...6
Wash. D.C...5
Philadelphia...4
Detroit...4
Boston/Providence....4
Baltimore...4
Buffalo...2
Denver...2
LA/Anaheim...2
Miami...2
Houston...2
Indianapolis...1
Kansas City...1
New Orleans...1
St. Louis...1
San Diego...1
Tampa/St. Pete...1
As I see it, perhaps it is a good omen that Green Bay has caught up. It took someone else 46 years to catch up.
(Note that at the end of 1964 Cleveland had 13, Chicago had 8, and Green Bay had 8. Green Bay has won 5 since while Chicago has won only 1)
-
Zombo said:
I'm not into the whole "region" thing ... just by franchises.So, According to profootballreference.com, these would be the current standings in terms of league championships....
1. Packers 13
2. Bears 9
3. Browns 8
4. Giants 7
5. Steelers 6
...
Zombo
Yes, I understand that, I do the franchise thing too, but the flaw, if you will in counting "franchises" is that the NFL follows franchise records through wherever they may go. So you have the "Rams" who have won NFL titles in Cleveland, Los Angeles and St. Louis. But, truly do the people of St. Louis give much of a crap that the Rams once won a title when that team was here? There certainly may be some old timers who remember and appreciate the Cleveland Rams title won in Cleveland, but do they give a crap that that team went out to LA and then to St. Louis and won titles? I doubt it. Though I don't remember it, I do appreciate the fact that a Cleveland team won an NFL title. But I don't care other than for record keeping purposes that they also won one in LA and St. L.
More recently I know for sure that the people of Baltimore didn't give a rat's ass really that the "Colts" franchise won a title in Indianapolis, and I doubt the people of Indy put much fealty into the titles won by the Colts in Baltimore. But I do know that Baltomorons take a measure of pride in the Colts titles there as well as the Ravens.
And that brings up another reason for doing a city count....a town certainly can have had allegiance or loyalty to one or more team over the years.
Also, take a market like NYC or the Bay area. What I don't really know is what causes a person to be a fan of one team and not the other.
Take Mike Greenberg of Mike and Mike. I am sure many of us listen to him and know he is a crazy Jet fan....but why? Why would he not be a crazy Giant's fan instead? He is a Yankee fan and I always thought that most Yankeee fans were Giants fan and most Jets fans were Mets fans. But that is obviously not the case and I don't know why, so instead of worrying about it, I just put the entire region into a single count. The same could apply to the Bay area.
Capiche?
-
Zombo said:
Oh, I capiche.But since I'm not a native Clevelander, my bragging rights go along with the franchise ... so I like to say things like "the Browns have the third most league titles of all the current NFL franchises" and the "Browns have two more titles than the Steelers." ... I really don't have any bragging rights to the Akron Pros ... but I can respect that do.
Not saying "by region" is wrong ... saying "by franchise" is MY preffered method.
Zombo
Like I said, I keep track both ways. Note that the following franchises have won titles in different towns:
Rams: Cleveland, LA, St. Louis
Colts: Baltimore, Indianapolis
Raiders: Oakland, Los Angeles
Chiefs: Kansas City, Dallas (Texans)
The Cardinals came within about a minute of winning one in Chicago and Ariz.
The Titans came within a foot of winning one in Houston and in Nashville.
The Chargers played for a title in LA and lost but won one in San Diego.
The Redskins lost an NFL title game while in Boston, and have won several in DC.
Here is a statement that was often said around here when the whole issue of "the move" was being consternated:
"The important part of 'The Cleveland Browns' was the 'Cleveland' part, not 'the Browns' part.
-
Zombo said:
Oh, I capiche.But since I'm not a native Clevelander, my bragging rights go along with the franchise ... so I like to say things like "the Browns have the third most league titles of all the current NFL franchises" and the "Browns have two more titles than the Steelers." ... I really don't have any bragging rights to the Akron Pros ... but I can respect that do.
Not saying "by region" is wrong ... saying "by franchise" is MY preffered method.
Zombo
My prior post does bring up one thing about your way of looking at it that could be a bit disturbing: by saying "my franchise" rather than "my town (or region) is that, by that, one could argue then that your attitude could be that you would not care if 'your franchise" were called "The Cleveland Browns" or "The Baltimore Browns" or the "LA Browns" or the "San Antonio Browns" or some such.
-
Zombo said:
Oh, I capiche.But since I'm not a native Clevelander, my bragging rights go along with the franchise ... so I like to say things like "the Browns have the third most league titles of all the current NFL franchises" and the "Browns have two more titles than the Steelers." ... I really don't have any bragging rights to the Akron Pros ... but I can respect that do.
Not saying "by region" is wrong ... saying "by franchise" is MY preffered method.
Zombo
My prior post does bring up one thing about your way of looking at it that could be a bit disturbing: by saying "my franchise" rather than "my town (or region) is that, by that, one could argue then that your attitude could be that you would not care if 'your franchise" were called "The Cleveland Browns" or "The Baltimore Browns" or the "LA Browns" or the "San Antonio Browns" or some such.
My prior post does bring up one thing about your way of looking at it that could be a bit disturbing: by saying "my franchise" rather than "my town (or region) is that, by that, one could argue then that your attitude could be that you would not care if 'your franchise" were called "The Cleveland Browns" or "The Baltimore Browns" or the "LA Browns" or the "San Antonio Browns" or some such.
Agreed. Its the region thing number one in my mind. The CLEVELAND Browns. When the Browns moved to Baltimore I quit watching football (NFL) for 3 years. If they had remained the Browns in Baltimore I would have not watched, and not gave a xxxx.
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