Bye gronk!!
-
They were still one of the worst teams in football during that period far worse than the Browns lots of teams were worse than the browns and made a Super bowl
I know what you were trying to say. But even when they were a good team, the Browns couldn't reach the height of the bad Patriots.
Just doesn't make sense to me to call them so bad when they obtained something like that.
I know what you were trying to say. But even when they were a good team, the Browns couldn't reach the height of the bad Patriots.
Just doesn't make sense to me to call them so bad when they obtained something like that.
Well, maybe they started to become good when Parcells took over....but I don't think I want to give much credit to a team coached by Ron Meyer and QBed by Tony Eason. I mean, a number of franchises have had a bit of luck to fall into one Super Bowl. Chargers, Titans, Cards, some others
But 5 times the Browns have lost the game leading into the Super Bowl. That has not happened to any other team.
-
Great player... hard worker (work hard play hard).
In addition to his physical gifts and receiving prowess, he was one of the best blocking TEs I've ever seen...
Great player... hard worker (work hard play hard).
In addition to his physical gifts and receiving prowess, he was one of the best blocking TEs I've ever seen...
Can make the case for Shannon Sharpe as best blocking TE
He's talked about as a good blocker, but NE was only 5th this year in rushing and have never led the league.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
-
-
-
Great player... hard worker (work hard play hard).
In addition to his physical gifts and receiving prowess, he was one of the best blocking TEs I've ever seen...
Can make the case for Shannon Sharpe as best blocking TE
He's talked about as a good blocker, but NE was only 5th this year in rushing and have never led the league.
Can make the case for Shannon Sharpe as best blocking TE
He's talked about as a good blocker, but NE was only 5th this year in rushing and have never led the league.
Only 5th??? That's your counter-argument???
-
I know what you were trying to say. But even when they were a good team, the Browns couldn't reach the height of the bad Patriots.
Just doesn't make sense to me to call them so bad when they obtained something like that.
Well, maybe they started to become good when Parcells took over....but I don't think I want to give much credit to a team coached by Ron Meyer and QBed by Tony Eason. I mean, a number of franchises have had a bit of luck to fall into one Super Bowl. Chargers, Titans, Cards, some others
But 5 times the Browns have lost the game leading into the Super Bowl. That has not happened to any other team.
Well, maybe they started to become good when Parcells took over....but I don't think I want to give much credit to a team coached by Ron Meyer and QBed by Tony Eason. I mean, a number of franchises have had a bit of luck to fall into one Super Bowl. Chargers, Titans, Cards, some others
But 5 times the Browns have lost the game leading into the Super Bowl. That has not happened to any other team.
I'm not questioning the Browns success during the time, but in my opinion I cant say a team that reached the SB twice could be classified as one of the worst teams.
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
As it sits at the moment, there is a reason why many have questions about the Browns even with the great looking roster on paper.
In fact, I know that part of the good years of the Browns, so I went back and looked. I know you like old history. I went back to 1971 since that is when NE entered the NFL. So 71-00.
New England: 215-243 which is .469 and 2 Super Bowl appearances
Cleveland: 192-215. Which is .471. Cleveland also had 3 ties, which if you factor them in as half a win, it gets them to .473 rounded up.
Cleveland 10 playoff appearances, 3 Conference championship appearances
New England 9 playoff appearances, 2 conference championship wins and 2 Super Bowl losses
-
Well, maybe they started to become good when Parcells took over....but I don't think I want to give much credit to a team coached by Ron Meyer and QBed by Tony Eason. I mean, a number of franchises have had a bit of luck to fall into one Super Bowl. Chargers, Titans, Cards, some others
But 5 times the Browns have lost the game leading into the Super Bowl. That has not happened to any other team.
I'm not questioning the Browns success during the time, but in my opinion I cant say a team that reached the SB twice could be classified as one of the worst teams.
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
As it sits at the moment, there is a reason why many have questions about the Browns even with the great looking roster on paper.
In fact, I know that part of the good years of the Browns, so I went back and looked. I know you like old history. I went back to 1971 since that is when NE entered the NFL. So 71-00.
New England: 215-243 which is .469 and 2 Super Bowl appearances
Cleveland: 192-215. Which is .471. Cleveland also had 3 ties, which if you factor them in as half a win, it gets them to .473 rounded up.
Cleveland 10 playoff appearances, 3 Conference championship appearances
New England 9 playoff appearances, 2 conference championship wins and 2 Super Bowl losses
I'm not questioning the Browns success during the time, but in my opinion I cant say a team that reached the SB twice could be classified as one of the worst teams.
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
As it sits at the moment, there is a reason why many have questions about the Browns even with the great looking roster on paper.
In fact, I know that part of the good years of the Browns, so I went back and looked. I know you like old history. I went back to 1971 since that is when NE entered the NFL. So 71-00.
New England: 215-243 which is .469 and 2 Super Bowl appearances
Cleveland: 192-215. Which is .471. Cleveland also had 3 ties, which if you factor them in as half a win, it gets them to .473 rounded up.
Cleveland 10 playoff appearances, 3 Conference championship appearances
New England 9 playoff appearances, 2 conference championship wins and 2 Super Bowl losses
Well....I go back to 1960 when the Boston Patriots started. They were like the worst team in that league for that whole decade....and actually, their rival for worst team: the Denver Broncos.
I think if you compare their record in the 1960s you would find that they sucked and that the Browns did not.
And in MY remembrance, the Pats sucked balls for a very, very long time. And even after they went to the SB to get hammered by the Bears, they sucked balls again for the next number of years. But like I said, when Parcells took over, they began their upward flight.
But the ultimate bottom line to all this is: I want them to again start sucking balls the way Robert Kraft sucks whore's tits fairly soon.
-
Well, maybe they started to become good when Parcells took over....but I don't think I want to give much credit to a team coached by Ron Meyer and QBed by Tony Eason. I mean, a number of franchises have had a bit of luck to fall into one Super Bowl. Chargers, Titans, Cards, some others
But 5 times the Browns have lost the game leading into the Super Bowl. That has not happened to any other team.
I'm not questioning the Browns success during the time, but in my opinion I cant say a team that reached the SB twice could be classified as one of the worst teams.
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
As it sits at the moment, there is a reason why many have questions about the Browns even with the great looking roster on paper.
In fact, I know that part of the good years of the Browns, so I went back and looked. I know you like old history. I went back to 1971 since that is when NE entered the NFL. So 71-00.
New England: 215-243 which is .469 and 2 Super Bowl appearances
Cleveland: 192-215. Which is .471. Cleveland also had 3 ties, which if you factor them in as half a win, it gets them to .473 rounded up.
Cleveland 10 playoff appearances, 3 Conference championship appearances
New England 9 playoff appearances, 2 conference championship wins and 2 Super Bowl losses
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
I'm enjoying the discussion and you have many valid points, but I prefer not losing a final, because the blow is bigger.
I prefer having 5 conference final losses than 4 SB appearances (Bills, Vikings, I see you)
-
I'm not questioning the Browns success during the time, but in my opinion I cant say a team that reached the SB twice could be classified as one of the worst teams.
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
As it sits at the moment, there is a reason why many have questions about the Browns even with the great looking roster on paper.
In fact, I know that part of the good years of the Browns, so I went back and looked. I know you like old history. I went back to 1971 since that is when NE entered the NFL. So 71-00.
New England: 215-243 which is .469 and 2 Super Bowl appearances
Cleveland: 192-215. Which is .471. Cleveland also had 3 ties, which if you factor them in as half a win, it gets them to .473 rounded up.
Cleveland 10 playoff appearances, 3 Conference championship appearances
New England 9 playoff appearances, 2 conference championship wins and 2 Super Bowl losses
Well....I go back to 1960 when the Boston Patriots started. They were like the worst team in that league for that whole decade....and actually, their rival for worst team: the Denver Broncos.
I think if you compare their record in the 1960s you would find that they sucked and that the Browns did not.
And in MY remembrance, the Pats sucked balls for a very, very long time. And even after they went to the SB to get hammered by the Bears, they sucked balls again for the next number of years. But like I said, when Parcells took over, they began their upward flight.
But the ultimate bottom line to all this is: I want them to again start sucking balls the way Robert Kraft sucks whore's tits fairly soon.
Well....I go back to 1960 when the Boston Patriots started. They were like the worst team in that league for that whole decade....and actually, their rival for worst team: the Denver Broncos.
I think if you compare their record in the 1960s you would find that they sucked and that the Browns did not.
And in MY remembrance, the Pats sucked balls for a very, very long time. And even after they went to the SB to get hammered by the Bears, they sucked balls again for the next number of years. But like I said, when Parcells took over, they began their upward flight.
But the ultimate bottom line to all this is: I want them to again start sucking balls the way Robert Kraft sucks whore's tits fairly soon.
Well I doubt that happens for awhile, but either way doesn't matter to me
-
Getting there any losing is more impressive than not getting there to me. And I would guess that a lot of people would rather have had their team in the SB than not.
I'm enjoying the discussion and you have many valid points, but I prefer not losing a final, because the blow is bigger.
I prefer having 5 conference final losses than 4 SB appearances (Bills, Vikings, I see you)
I'm enjoying the discussion and you have many valid points, but I prefer not losing a final, because the blow is bigger.
I prefer having 5 conference final losses than 4 SB appearances (Bills, Vikings, I see you)
Valid point, I just disagree. I wonder if you asked Dan Marino after going to 1 which he would rather have.
But I also see the other side, and not being from Cleveland I have a different view with other sports than most of yall, as I cant stand LBJ. The worst part is now he is on my favorite basketball team. But anywho, he is talked about different because he lost all those finals.
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