New Coach Discussion
-
Fisher Fazio vs Pick n Pay?
-
Several of you have implied that a rivalry only exists if it means something. I whole heartedly disagree to a point.
Obviously a game against any opponent that is very important....say the AFC Conference title games the Browns played vs. the Broncos...mean something. But that does NOT mean that just because a couple of teams happen to be good at the same time that a rivalry is created.
Browns vs. Broncos is NOT a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the event at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Elway and Kosar.
Patriots vs. Colts is not a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the events at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Brady and Manning.
Every time a couple of teams meet in the playoffs doesn't make it a rivalry.
This afternoon the Bengals and the Texans are going to meet in the postseason for the second year in a row. Are you all going to try to maintain that the Texans/Bangles rivalry is all that?
Poppycock.
Rivalries are created by natural forces....by proximity and familiarity.
Yes, divisional matchups are important. Someone mentioned a Browns/Oilers rivalry. Manufactured in my opinion. Yes, important matchups were contested because both teams were in the same division and had to fight for supremacy. But really, there is no Cleveland/Houston rivalry.
There is a Cleveland/Pittsburgh rivalry....because of proximity and history. There is a Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry because of the sharing of the same state and an intertwined history. There is somewhat of a Cleveland/Baltimore rivalry because of both being in the same division and intertwined history.
Certainly history has shown that the father can often have a rivalry with his bastard sons.....going back to King Arthur and Mordred. The Bengals and Ravens are bastards of the Browns, so sure, a somewhat natural rivalry exists there.
But not with the Broncos simply because once upon a time they were both good at the same time.
The Cleveland/Detroit rivalry is lost because there IS proximity AND a history there.
-
Someone mentioned a Giants/Browns rivalry. Yes, there were important games at stake between those two teams during some times of the 50s/60s...though I don't think it was a true rivalry...other than that they bumped heads to win their conference.
The one thing that added to that rivalry was the mano a mano match between Jim Brown and Sam Huff. The clash of those two titans meeting on the field of battle did add "spice" if you will to the games.
Unlike the quarterback rivalries, a RB/LB matchup involved true grit...against each other. Huff and JB had a clash of pads on many occasions.
I am not sure I have seen anything quite like that. Did Mike Singletary and Barry Sanders go head to head?
Maybe you can come up with some other good mano a mano matchups.
-
Several of you have implied that a rivalry only exists if it means something. I whole heartedly disagree to a point.
Obviously a game against any opponent that is very important....say the AFC Conference title games the Browns played vs. the Broncos...mean something. But that does NOT mean that just because a couple of teams happen to be good at the same time that a rivalry is created.
Browns vs. Broncos is NOT a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the event at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Elway and Kosar.
Patriots vs. Colts is not a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the events at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Brady and Manning.
Every time a couple of teams meet in the playoffs doesn't make it a rivalry.
This afternoon the Bengals and the Texans are going to meet in the postseason for the second year in a row. Are you all going to try to maintain that the Texans/Bangles rivalry is all that?
Poppycock.
Rivalries are created by natural forces....by proximity and familiarity.
Yes, divisional matchups are important. Someone mentioned a Browns/Oilers rivalry. Manufactured in my opinion. Yes, important matchups were contested because both teams were in the same division and had to fight for supremacy. But really, there is no Cleveland/Houston rivalry.
There is a Cleveland/Pittsburgh rivalry....because of proximity and history. There is a Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry because of the sharing of the same state and an intertwined history. There is somewhat of a Cleveland/Baltimore rivalry because of both being in the same division and intertwined history.
Certainly history has shown that the father can often have a rivalry with his bastard sons.....going back to King Arthur and Mordred. The Bengals and Ravens are bastards of the Browns, so sure, a somewhat natural rivalry exists there.
But not with the Broncos simply because once upon a time they were both good at the same time.
The Cleveland/Detroit rivalry is lost because there IS proximity AND a history there.
Several of you have implied that a rivalry only exists if it means something. I whole heartedly disagree to a point.
Obviously a game against any opponent that is very important....say the AFC Conference title games the Browns played vs. the Broncos...mean something. But that does NOT mean that just because a couple of teams happen to be good at the same time that a rivalry is created.
Browns vs. Broncos is NOT a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the event at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Elway and Kosar.
Patriots vs. Colts is not a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the events at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Brady and Manning.
A rivalry is nothing more than a competition betweren two teams. Now, if two teams are in the same division and play twice per year then the intensity of that rivalry increases. A rivalry can't be quantified merely based on geographic proximity and/or history The intensity of the rivalry is solely determined by the efforts put forth by those involved in the competition. Fans and media love to discuss why a rivalry has increased or decreased, exists or doesn't exist, by factors totally removed from the fundamental definition of a rivalry. I see nothing wrong with that. It allows the media to bring in revenue; fans to have something to talk about at the bar and internet posters to exert opinions that are sometimes on point and often complete twaddle. Your viewpoints, counselor, favor the latter.
-
Okay, so then let's pose the questions to some of our resident Steelers fans. Would you consider the Browns to still be a rival of the steelers since 1999?
-
Gipper, I disagree with your opinion about the Browns-Oilers. Granted, the Oliers weren't much of a threat to any AFC Central foes for a long time, but around 1978-1995 those were some great games- usually low scoring slugfests. I was a kid when Robert L. Jackson knocked Earl Campbell's teeth out.
Other rivalries I remember as a kid were the Vikings-Cowboys, Steelers-Raiders, Raiders-Dolphins. One of the greatest games I ever saw was when Stabler was falling down & heaved a pass to Clarence Davis to beat the Dolphins in the playoffs- it was huge, as Miami was so dominant (I think it was the 1974 playoffs, 28-26 Raiders won, and spelled the end of Miami's dynasty/great run of the early 70s).
Atlanta-New Orleans is one of the league's best rivalries, but not talked about a lot.
Personally, I love the Browns-Steelers & Browns-Bengals games the best. I also like the NFC North rivalries, although the Vikings & Lions moving indoors kind of ruined it a bit.
Karlis Missed -
Several of you have implied that a rivalry only exists if it means something. I whole heartedly disagree to a point.
Obviously a game against any opponent that is very important....say the AFC Conference title games the Browns played vs. the Broncos...mean something. But that does NOT mean that just because a couple of teams happen to be good at the same time that a rivalry is created.
Browns vs. Broncos is NOT a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the event at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Elway and Kosar.
Patriots vs. Colts is not a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the events at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Brady and Manning.
Every time a couple of teams meet in the playoffs doesn't make it a rivalry.
This afternoon the Bengals and the Texans are going to meet in the postseason for the second year in a row. Are you all going to try to maintain that the Texans/Bangles rivalry is all that?
Poppycock.
Rivalries are created by natural forces....by proximity and familiarity.
Yes, divisional matchups are important. Someone mentioned a Browns/Oilers rivalry. Manufactured in my opinion. Yes, important matchups were contested because both teams were in the same division and had to fight for supremacy. But really, there is no Cleveland/Houston rivalry.
There is a Cleveland/Pittsburgh rivalry....because of proximity and history. There is a Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry because of the sharing of the same state and an intertwined history. There is somewhat of a Cleveland/Baltimore rivalry because of both being in the same division and intertwined history.
Certainly history has shown that the father can often have a rivalry with his bastard sons.....going back to King Arthur and Mordred. The Bengals and Ravens are bastards of the Browns, so sure, a somewhat natural rivalry exists there.
But not with the Broncos simply because once upon a time they were both good at the same time.
The Cleveland/Detroit rivalry is lost because there IS proximity AND a history there.
Several of you have implied that a rivalry only exists if it means something. I whole heartedly disagree to a point.
Obviously a game against any opponent that is very important....say the AFC Conference title games the Browns played vs. the Broncos...mean something. But that does NOT mean that just because a couple of teams happen to be good at the same time that a rivalry is created.
Browns vs. Broncos is NOT a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the event at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Elway and Kosar.
Patriots vs. Colts is not a natural rivalry. It was only made so by the importance of the events at hand and the presence of the good QBs facing off in Brady and Manning.
Every time a couple of teams meet in the playoffs doesn't make it a rivalry.
This afternoon the Bengals and the Texans are going to meet in the postseason for the second year in a row. Are you all going to try to maintain that the Texans/Bangles rivalry is all that?
Poppycock.
Rivalries are created by natural forces....by proximity and familiarity.
Yes, divisional matchups are important. Someone mentioned a Browns/Oilers rivalry. Manufactured in my opinion. Yes, important matchups were contested because both teams were in the same division and had to fight for supremacy. But really, there is no Cleveland/Houston rivalry.
There is a Cleveland/Pittsburgh rivalry....because of proximity and history. There is a Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry because of the sharing of the same state and an intertwined history. There is somewhat of a Cleveland/Baltimore rivalry because of both being in the same division and intertwined history.
Certainly history has shown that the father can often have a rivalry with his bastard sons.....going back to King Arthur and Mordred. The Bengals and Ravens are bastards of the Browns, so sure, a somewhat natural rivalry exists there.
But not with the Broncos simply because once upon a time they were both good at the same time.
The Cleveland/Detroit rivalry is lost because there IS proximity AND a history there.
So if we go by your criteria the Denver can't have a rivalry, Seattle can't have a rivalry, Kansas City only rivalry could be St. Louis, Dallas only rivalry could be Houston, Miami only rivalry could be Tampa Bay and Jacksonville. Its not just proximity and familiarity you need to add importance as well and you only need 2 of the 3 for a rivalry. If Proximity was the number 1 thing you needed for a rivalry then Denver, Seattle, Kansas City, Dallas and Miami have no division rivalries.
How about the Raiders and Steelers in the 70's
Vikings and Rams in the 70's
As mentioned before the Cowboys and 49ers
Giants and Browns 15 times in 16 years one of them was representing the East conference in the NFL Championship game
-
Two hot rumors just hit the Cleveland Twitter-sphere. First, SportsRadio 94 WIP’s Brain Startare out in Philadelphia has a potentially dynamite rumor for Cleveland Browns fans:
Brian Startare@brianstartare
Sources tell me Chip Kelly and the eagles are close to an agreement on a 5 year deal. If I'm right I'm golden. If wrong my source is fired
5 Jan 13 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
The Plain Dealer’s Mary Kay Cabot just retweeted his rumor about Oregon head coach Chip Kelly closing in on a five-year deal with the Philadelphia Eagles. As Cabot had just pointed out, the Eagles and Kelly were running late on their scheduled lunch — he had not yet began his dinner appointment out in Arizona with the Browns.
Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot
#Browns not meeting with #Oregon's Chip Kelly yet because he's still with the #Eagles.
5 Jan 13 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Meanwhile, Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network remains a must-follow on the case, as he added these new details about the Browns’ continued pursuit of Syracuse coach Doug Marrone:
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
Source: #Browns met with #Cuse's Doug Marrone again. Yesterday, looked like job was Kelly's. Today Browns trying to figure out their choice
5 Jan 13 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
Asked two sources whether the #Browns like Chip Kelly or Doug Marrone more: "They are deciding." Was told neck-&-neck. #Staytuned
5 Jan 13 Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Rapoport appeared to be very careful to clarify that the Browns are still deciding who their favorite candidate is.
We’ll keep you updated with the latest. But if Startare’s report is true, it could be a heartbreaker for many Cleveland fans. But regardless, Rapoport’s rumor indicates the Browns still aren’t as set on either one of the candidates just yet.
I called this last month!!!! look it up, just saying
-
Everyone should be happ y we wont have 16 helmets and 16 jerseys and 16 pants and shoes and socks...
-
Your all a bunch a idiots. Would you rather have Kelly or a guy who went .500 in the Big East on his career.
-
I called Kelly to the Esagles over a month ago, because he is REALLY good friends with the GM. I had no Idea who Monroe was until 2 weeks agao
-
Fuck the Browns.
They literally cannot do a single fucking thing right. It is statistically impossible for them to fail this hard, yet they always do.
-
We might have been a 500 coach with The Orangemen, but he was the OC with the Saints 2006-08 where he was 5th in tital Offense in 06, 12th in 07, and 1st in 08....
Just saying, we also won 2 bowl games as well
-
He didn't call plays in NO.
-
Dont know the answer, but how do you know that. Because Sean Peyton called the plays??? I have no idea
-
Fuck the Browns.
They literally cannot do a single fucking thing right. It is statistically impossible for them to fail this hard, yet they always do.
Fuck the Browns.
They literally cannot do a single fucking thing right. It is statistically impossible for them to fail this hard, yet they always do.
yeah im like in shock right now....
-
Fucking pissed. That being said we've seen a ton of fake rumors today already, so who knows. It was reported that Kelly and Haslam/Banner were at dinner and lawyers would be present. Now it never happened and he's close to a deal with the eagles.
Who fucking knows what's happening. All I know is we're going to get the short end of the stick again.
-
This is shit that always happens to the browns. Who knows what will happen but does anyone get this vibe Kelly will have the eagles in the playoffs next year while we hire a coach who could barely cross the .500 mark in the big east? I'm getting genuinely conviced someone placed a curse on the browns.
-
Here we go again:
@Brownsupdates
BREAKING NEWS: Browns are meeting with Chip Kelly right now and lawyers are present after meeting with the eagles for over 5 hours.
@Brownsupdates
Reliable source just told me they are working on a 5 year deal as I write this tweet.
-
Fucking pissed. That being said we've seen a ton of fake rumors today already, so who knows. It was reported that Kelly and Haslam/Banner were at dinner and lawyers would be present. Now it never happened and he's close to a deal with the eagles.
Who fucking knows what's happening. All I know is we're going to get the short end of the stick again.
Fucking pissed. That being said we've seen a ton of fake rumors today already, so who knows. It was reported that Kelly and Haslam/Banner were at dinner and lawyers would be present. Now it never happened and he's close to a deal with the eagles.
Who fucking knows what's happening. All I know is we're going to get the short end of the stick again.
We went from being the frontrunners in landing the hottest commodity in the coaching scene this season to now signing Pat Shurmur v2.0.
At least this guy has head coaching experience....with a .500 record playing in the Big East.
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