Have the Ravens, Steelers and Bengals benefitted from the Browns lack of success?

blowe

Rorbotron said:
What do you mean what happens? The Browns equate to two games a year for each of the teams mentioned. Nothing happens. The division is tougher and the teams in the AFC north are more battled tested heading in to the playoffs. It's not rocket science and I get this is the off season but this is a stupid ass thread. Steeler fan or not. Stronger division, stronger teams. Better for everyone.

if this is a stupid ass thread then don't xxxxing respond to it...sheesh.

Vagitron

@blowe said:
if this is a stupid ass thread then don't xxxxing respond to it...sheesh.

It's just not worth discussing. Yes of course the other teams in the AFC north have benefited from essentially two free wins from the Browns. If the Browns get better then it's no longer two free wins. Only now the tougher division means teams will always be forced to play at the highest level ensuring that each team is battle tested for the post season. It's a question with a very OBVIOUS answer. "Sheesh"

Hey if I sh.it on my hand will my hand smell like sh.it?

SJ_Browns

@blowe said:
if this is a stupid ass thread then don't xxxxing respond to it...sheesh.

thanks. there's nothing stupid about this thread. i posed a good question and brought up some interesting points. it's all in the thread and i would like some feedback from my fellow brownie fans.

Vagitron

@sj_browns said:
thanks. there's nothing stupid about this thread. i posed a good question and brought up some interesting points. it's all in the thread and i would like some feedback from my fellow brownie fans.

Should I phone Capt. Obvious? What interesting points? and where is the good question? Now you've got me trolling but this thread is beyond stupid. Congratulations you're Retarded.

There is nothing to expose with the Ravens or the Steelers. Top tier defenses and solid offenses with top tier coaching and recruiting. The Bengals always get arrested so the Browns deciding to win some games exposes nothing and only makes the division stronger.

EDIT: The bolds don't make the thread any better.

SJ_Browns

@sj_browns said:
I pose this question to my fellow Browns fans. If you look at it for what it really is, the AFCN has feasted for years off of the Browns lack of success. For the last 11 Seasons, the Browns have been plagued by injuries, bad drafts, poor management, bad coaching, etc. Not to mention the fact that the Browns were screwed by the NFL upon re-entering the league and weren't given the same amount of time and money (as other new teams have received) to get ready for the upcoming season.
So what happens to the AFCN if Holmgren is the real deal (as many of us believe) and he gets the Browns back to prominence? What happens to the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers if they can no longer benefit from a weak Browns team. What happens if there are no more guaranteed wins against the Browns and the competition heats up in the AFCN?

In a weakened state, the Browns have (on a few occassions) held their AFCN rivals out of the playoffs by beating them once or twice. So what happens if the Browns are more competitive? What happens if the Browns become a winning organization? Will this expose a team (or teams) in the AFCN and show they're not as good as people thought they were?

i'll give an example as to what i'm trying to say in the op. the steelers backed into the playoffs in 05 and went on to win the sb. they directly benefitted from the browns being an inferior team (beating the browns enabled them to get into the playoffs). therefore the steelers benefitted from feasting off of a team (the browns) that wasn't competitive.

with that being said, going into the 2010 season, will an improved browns team show the experts that they're overrating the browns afcn rivals? are the browns afcn rivals the real deal (in 2010) or are they just teams that have been benefitting from an inferior browns team?

Vagitron

@sj_browns said:
i'll give an example as to what i'm trying to say in the op. the steelers backed into the playoffs in 05 and went on to win the sb. they directly benefitted from the browns being an inferior team (beating the browns enabled them to get into the playoffs). therefore the steelers benefitted from feasting off of a team (the browns) that wasn't competitive.
with that being said, going into the 2010 season, will an improved browns team show the experts that they're overrating the browns afcn rivals? are the browns afcn rivals the real deal (in 2010) or are they just teams that have been benefitting from an inferior browns team?

Essentially you're saying that because the Browns have been bad the rest of the AFC North is ONLY good because of the Browns and their inadequacies. All of which is a absolutely ridiculous and ego centric point of view. Never mind the fact that the Steelers and the Ravens for that matter have beating plenty of great teams en route to their Super Bowls this decade to hoist the Lombardi. Obviously all of this was possible because of the Browns and their backyard football breakfast buffet of inferior talent. Get real dude. The Browns getting better only makes the AFC north one of the toughest divisions in football. It certainly doesn't unmask inadequacies else where. I guess the Steelers and the Ravens have had some of the best defenses in the history of the NFL because the Browns have been terrible. lol. All of which is exactly the reason I took issue with your original post. It's a ridiculous question and one that shouldn't even be asked. Unless of course you are that ego centric. If that's the case I'd go to the doctor and get checked out, clearly a couple of nerve endings aren't firing upstairs.

hoorta

@sj_browns said:
i'll give an example as to what i'm trying to say in the op. the steelers backed into the playoffs in 05 and went on to win the sb. they directly benefitted from the browns being an inferior team (beating the browns enabled them to get into the playoffs). therefore the steelers benefitted from feasting off of a team (the browns) that wasn't competitive.
with that being said, going into the 2010 season, will an improved browns team show the experts that they're overrating the browns afcn rivals? are the browns afcn rivals the real deal (in 2010) or are they just teams that have been benefiting from an inferior browns team?

You don't "back into" the playoffs with an 11-5 record. 2005 was an aberration on how good a record it took to get in. Once you're in the playoffs, anything can happen if a team gets hot- just ask the Cavs & Orlando about playing the Celtics.

Now the Steelers did benefit in '05 having VonCheapshotten take out Palmer's knee, but beating the Colts and Broncos back to back on the road was no mean feat.

What? You were hoping the Browns would be good enough to keep the Steelers out of the playoffs like we did last year?

SJ_Browns

@hoorta said:
What? You were hoping the Browns would be good enough to keep the Steelers out of the playoffs like we did last year?

i was just making a point that was obviously lost in translation. i'm not saying the opposing afcn teams sucked and only had success because they beat up on the browns. i am saying that there were times when the afcn rivals have benefitted from the browns lack of success. so looking to this upcoming season i was wondering, after making the points i did, what people thought in regards to the future of the browns, their potential success and how that would affect the rest of the afcn.

SJ_Browns

hoorta, these 2 links in this post are from the steelers 05 (11-5) season. the first link is from wk 13 when the steelers were on a 3 game losing streak. the second link is from wk 16 when they beat the browns. the steelers needed to win all four of their remaining games in order to get into the playoffs. so yes, they benefitted from beating a non-competitive browns. one less win that season would've held the steelers out of the playoffs and would've also prevented them from winning the sb that year.

the steelers 05 and 09 seasons were very similiar. in 05, the steelers needed to win their 4 remaining games to get in the playoffs and they benefitted from having to face the browns in one of those games. in 09, the steelers needed to win out after their hell in december plan backfired, but they lost to the browns and missed the playoffs by one game.

wk 13 - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=251204023

The Steelers (7-5) got a gutty effort from Roethlisberger (29-of-41, 386 yards, three touchdowns, three interceptions) despite a possible fractured right thumb but dropped their third in a row and are in danger of not making the playoffs a year after going 15-1.

The way he and the Steelers were talking, the loss hurt more.
"We've put ourselves behind the 8-ball as far as the playoffs go," Ward said. "I think we've got to win all four of our games left."

wk - 16 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=251224005

this quote from wk16 shows that the steelers earned a spot in the playoffs from winning their final game of the season (wk17). so yes, the steelers did back into the playoffs that year. they needed to win all four of the remaining games to get in.

Pittsburgh, which can clinch a playoff spot with a win over Detroit at home next week, seems to have fully recovered from a three-game losing streak that seriously jeopardized the Steelers' postseason hopes.

my op was completely taken out of context. i never said the browns afcn rivals weren't good. my point was that in the past there were times when the browns afcn rivals looked better than they actually were, thanks to the browns. i was trying to tie this into the present state of the afcn and the future. with some of the issues the steelers and the bengals are facing this upcoming season (along with the bengals lack of consistency), these teams can easily get by if the browns have another down season. but an improved browns team can change the game completely.

The Gipper

I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.

Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):

Bengals 10-6

Browns 9-7

Steelers 8-8

Ravens 7-9

But you have this in another division:

Colts 11-5

Titans 10-6

Jags 3-13

Texans 2-14

The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.

This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.

That year the AFC North finished like this:

Steelers 12-4

Ravens 11-5

Bengals 4-11-1

Browns 4-12

The AFC East finished like this:

Dolphins 11-5

Patriots 11-5

Jets 9-7

Bills 8-8

Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.

Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.

So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.

The Gipper

Formerly Stone said:
Blah.....blah.....blah
Water is wet

Grass is green

The sky is blue

Men are pigs

And women are mean

Aren't I brilliant

Am I brilliant? No, just logical and workmanlike, which combined equals brilliance perhaps. And, occasionally, hopefully, humorous.

SJ_Browns

Formerly Stone said:
Now that's stupid!
First off, in 05, the Steelers were ranked in the top five teams the entire season up through week 10 when massive injuries killed them. After a few weeks of recuperation, they came back and ran the table.

Second, every division has it's door mats, granted some are worse than others but 2 games against a weak opponent in a 16 game schedule isn't that big of a deal.

Third, why would you put the Bengals in that mix anyway? The Bengals have done absolutely nothing with their talent, their schedule, their potential..................NOTHING!

what's stupid is that you didn't bother reading or purposely avoided my post #11 which details the steelers 05 season (courtesy of espn links and quotes) and yes the steelers did benefit from beating the browns. reading is fundamental, troll. what's also stupid is that morons like you took my posts completely out of context. your opinion is worthless and you're just a flamer looking to hijack threads so you can live out your cyber tough guy fantasies. good luck with that. there's no rewards for being a lowlife troll like you.

SJ_Browns

@the-gipper said:
I guess the bottom line answer is: yes, if all 4 teams in the division are strong, it may in fact make it easier for teams in the OTHER divisions to make the playoffs. Only 6 teams in a conference make the playoffs, 4 division winners and 2 Wild Cards. If the teams of the AFC North are all pretty good, and end up beating each other up and they all end up with 8-8 or 9-7 records or something like that, then it is possible, even probable that a team in another division that has two weaklings in it will end up with a better record, even though they may not in fact be a better team.
Examples: Say, the AFC North ends up like this (this is just a hypothetical):

Bengals 10-6

Browns 9-7

Steelers 8-8

Ravens 7-9

But you have this in another division:

Colts 11-5

Titans 10-6

Jags 3-13

Texans 2-14

The 10-6 Titans may in fact not be as good a team really as the 9-7 Browns or the 8-8 Steelers, but, the fact is those Titans are going to make the playoffs because they and the Colts were able to say go 4-0 against the lowly Jags and Texans. Where on the other hand all 4 teams in the AFC North end up going 3-3 in Division games. In a sense, you may be right. It may help your playoff chances to have 2 weak teams in your division that you can beat up on and get easy wins from.

This may in fact have happened in the recent past in the AFC North. In fact, we need go no further back than 2008.

That year the AFC North finished like this:

Steelers 12-4

Ravens 11-5

Bengals 4-11-1

Browns 4-12

The AFC East finished like this:

Dolphins 11-5

Patriots 11-5

Jets 9-7

Bills 8-8

Elsewhere in the AFC the Titans finished 13-3 and the Colts 12-4 and both made the playoffs. Thus, the second Wildcard choice came down to the Ravens and the Patriots. The Ravens won out on the tiebreaker for the WC, and the Pats stayed home.

Clearly the Pats played in a stronger division, the Ravens in a weaker one. So, it is clearly arguable that the Ravens benefitted from playing in a weaker division with 2 bad teams and were able to take advantage of that to make the playoffs over the Patriots, who arguably could have been considered the better team.

So your theory could be right. A stronger division could in fact keep a good team out of the playoffs.

glad you seen where i was coming from, gipper. if you look at what i posted in post#11, i show in detail how the steelers directly benefitted from a lowly browns team in 05. you brought up some really good points to. there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to my op (or my follow up posts), it's just about having a legit response. thanks for the good input.

hoorta

@sj_browns said:
glad you seen where i was coming from, gipper. if you look at what i posted in post#11, i show in detail how the steelers directly benefitted from a lowly browns team in 05. you brought up some really good points to. there isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to my op (or my follow up posts), it's just about having a legit response and not the typical troll nonsense. thanks for the good input.

But you can play those hypotheticals to no end. I think Gips pretty well nailed the variables. And sometimes stuff happens that's out of your control- like in the Browns great Anderson year- where they would have made the playoffs if the Colts hadn't decided to tank the game against the Titans.

Mark O

And if Anderson hadn't tanked against the Bengals.

BUNSofSTEEL08

@sj_browns said:
I pose this question to my fellow Browns fans. If you look at it for what it really is, the AFCN has feasted for years off of the Browns lack of success. For the last 11 Seasons, the Browns have been plagued by injuries, bad drafts, poor management, bad coaching, etc. Not to mention the fact that the Browns were screwed by the NFL upon re-entering the league and weren't given the same amount of time and money (as other new teams have received) to get ready for the upcoming season.
So what happens to the AFCN if Holmgren is the real deal (as many of us believe) and he gets the Browns back to prominence? What happens to the Bengals, Ravens and Steelers if they can no longer benefit from a weak Browns team. What happens if there are no more guaranteed wins against the Browns and the competition heats up in the AFCN?

In a weakened state, the Browns have (on a few occassions) held their AFCN rivals out of the playoffs by beating them once or twice. So what happens if the Browns are more competitive? What happens if the Browns become a winning organization? Will this expose a team (or teams) in the AFCN and show they're not as good as people thought they were?

Then Maybe they get and extra Loss each Year. Not that Big a deal.

Brownsfan_Althaus

SJ, I honestly back that 100 %, i truely do. I have always kicked that idea/subject around. When we do beat one of the AFCN teams, it usually put them out of the playoffs, IF we are the real deal this year, I honestly think we won't see the usual, "oh its the browns, free win for us". We will see some good teams hitting it off head to head.

Good post!

SJ_Browns

@brownsfan_althaus said:
SJ, I honestly back that 100 %, i truely do. I have always kicked that idea/subject around. When we do beat one of the AFCN teams, it usually put them out of the playoffs, IF we are the real deal this year, I honestly think we won't see the usual, "oh its the browns, free win for us". We will see some good teams hitting it off head to head.
Good post!

thanks and let's hope we do see an improved browns team this season and beyond!

Brownsfan_Althaus

ahmen to that brotha

The Gipper

FREAKofSTEEL08 said:
Then Maybe they get and extra Loss each Year. Not that Big a deal.

Look at my example from 2008. If the Ravens had sustained just one extra loss then it would have been a very big deal. Unless you think that going from making the playoffs to not making the playoffs is no big deal. Most teams think its a pretty big deal. I mean, in 2005, your 6th seed Steelers would have stayed home with an extra loss. Instead, they end up winning the SB.....sounds like a big deal to me! Maybe winning a Super Bowl is no longer a big deal for certain Steeler fans? Hmm?