Skip to content

Why does it feel like Goodell and the Patriots are running the NFL?

The Browns Board
46 20 1.2k
  • @mark-o said:

    Three...

    Four...

    Zombo said:

    Not the greatest dynasty ever, because they went 10 years without a championship ... but an outstanding organization, best of this era ... and I really don't get this thread at all.

    But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.

    We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.

    Z Zombo wrote on last edited by
    #16

    @tour2ma said:

    Four...

    But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.

    We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.

    Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.

    They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.

    Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.

    Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.

    The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.

    But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.

    Zombo

  • @tour2ma said:

    Four...

    But in that 10 years when were they ever out of the conversation? In the 15 years of Belichick they've missed the playoffs twice... and one of those years they were 11-5.

    We're probably down to semantics, but I'm not sure how much more dynastic you can get.

    Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.

    They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.

    Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.

    Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.

    The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.

    But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.

    Zombo

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #17

    Zombo said:

    Ya, to me a "dynasty" is about ruling ... actually winning chamionships.

    They definitely get the "sustained excellence award" for this century.

    Four Championships in 14 years in this era is very impressive, but the Steelers won 4 in six. Browns won 7 in 10 (two leagues), Packers won 5 in 7.

    Yes, smaller league, and all that ... But those are the teams I think of when I think dynasty, as well as Yankees, Celtics, Canadians ... just being the dominant team for so long.

    The Patriots would be a dynasty in my opinion from 2001-2004 and now they are trying to start another one. But the Giants have more SBs in the last ten years than Patriots. Steelers too.

    But "best sustained excellence over a 15 year period" I would give them that if not for the Cleveland Browns who stayed among the top for a longer period (1946-1972) with eight titles from 46-64.

    Zombo

    Cowboys also had 20 years of sustained excellence under Tom Landry: 21 straight years of winning records. 19 playoff appearances

    Dolphins under Shula: 24 winning seasons out of 26. 16 playoff appearances.

    49ers under Walsh and Seifert: 18 winning years out of 19.

    The Packers first under Holmgren then under McCarthy since 1992....now 23 years, have only had 2 losing seasons.

    The Raiders between 1965 and 1985 had only 2 losing seasons.

    and the Browns.....in their first 28 years of existance: 1 losing season. One year at .500.

    Back to THE BROWNS BOARD

  • OldBrownsFanO OldBrownsFan wrote on last edited by
    #18

    I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.

  • Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #19

    Feels like the discussion is turning from "a dynasty" to "the dynasty".

  • Feels like the discussion is turning from "a dynasty" to "the dynasty".

    MudflyM Mudfly wrote on last edited by
    #20

    @tour2ma said:

    Feels like the discussion is turning from "a dynasty" to "the dynasty".

    Ill take credit for starting that line...😉...

    @mudfly said:

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    I could be a bit premature....or its at least debatable.....but they are right up there with them all.....and in good position to continue the quest for more.....

  • I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #21

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    I look back at prior Browns successes and they were great times but I feel for our younger fans especially since 99 who have had very little to cheer about. I am hoping with enough time Pettine and Farmer will be able to build a solid club. Even though this year has been disappointing especially on defense I believe we are headed in the right direction. We are a scrappy team that doesn't quit and I give them credit for that. 3 of the 4 losses we were in these games until the end but fell short.

    I guess we could try to find the opposite of dynasty.....which teams have had the most sustained period of poor play/losing seasons.:

    The Browns: since their 1989 division title, they have played 22 years with only 3 winning seasons, 19 losing seasons. 1994, 2002, 2007.

    Cardinals, 1985 to 2006. 22 years. 1 winning season of 9-7, one .500 year. 20 losing seasons.

    Saints: 1967 to 1986 20 years. -0- winning seasons, 2 seasons at .500.

    Eagles: 1962-1978. 16 years. 1 winning season, no playoffs -0- .500 15 losing seasons

    Bucs: 1983-1997 14 consecutive losing seasons.

    Redskins: 1945-1971. 25 seasons. 4 winning (barely, like 7-5). no playoffs. 2 .500 seasons 19 losing seasons

    Recently:

    Raiders 2003 to present. 12 seasons. no winning, 2 .500 seasons

    Bills 2000 to present: 15 seasons 2 winning seasons both 9-7. no playoffs. 2 .500 seasons. 11 losing seasons.

    Lions 2000-2010 10 consecutive losing seasons.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #22

    While the Steelers went from 1933 to 1972 with only one playoff appearance in those like 39 years, their longest streak of losing seasons was the 8 losing year just before 1972 (1972 to 1985 they had no losing seasons and on .500 season).

    Before that they would have 3-4 losing seasons, then a .500 year. 4-5 more losing seasons, then a slightly above .500 year. only making the playoffs in 1947. But they were not epic bad like some of the above teams. Just mediocre at times.

  • I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    W wargograw wrote on last edited by wargograw
    #23

    @mudfly said:

    I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    This is where I am. I'm a fan of most dynasties. USC last decade was my favorite.
  • @mudfly said:

    I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    This is where I am. I'm a fan of most dynasties. USC last decade was my favorite.
    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #24

    @wargograw said:

    This is where I am. I'm a fan of most dynasties. USC last decade was my favorite.

    Here is a thread from before you were on here about Certifiable Dynasties:

    http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20549&hl=%2Bcertified+%2Bdynasties&do=findComment&comment=251930

  • Or its just jealousy

    KvoetheK Kvoethe wrote on last edited by
    #25

    @cdl15 said:

    Or its just jealousy

    So tru!

  • miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by miktoxic
    #26

    so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

  • so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #27

    @miktoxic said:

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire... the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?

  • so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by nickers
    #28

    @miktoxic said:

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    Um that was King Artie that hired Ozzie, dude...not Kraft...

  • @miktoxic said:

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    Um that was King Artie that hired Ozzie, dude...not Kraft...

    miktoxicM miktoxic wrote on last edited by
    #29

    @nickers said:

    Um that was King Artie that hired Ozzie, dude...not Kraft...

    oh, my bad. i forgot old fartie lived that long.

  • jrb12711J jrb12711 wrote on last edited by
    #30

    Bottom Line with the Patriots organization is they have a win at all costs mentality. Winning cultures breed winning while losing cultures breed losing (looking at you, Brownies). If starters go down for the Pats, it's expected their backups play at elite levels. They go into every game thinking they are going to win. There's a reason they could plug in a dude like Matt Cassell and go 11-5. This attitude won't change until ol' Bill steps down at the very least.

  • so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #31

    @miktoxic said:

    so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    I don't think it was ever an issue that they are a true dynasty. Clearly they are. The issue was whether or not people hated them, or admired them.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    TB, BB certainly. Kraft a little tougher call.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    Many or most think they cheat. Many or most think they could win a lot without cheating. It is the hubris of them that begets scorn.

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    Does that include the DC? I agree with you except for keeping the Browns DC.

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    The Jets hired BB before the Pats.....but he quit after one day.

    And the last time I looked....Kraft did not own the Ravens.

    (are you saying that Kraft did a Robert Irsay/Caroll Rosembloom type franchise trade?)

  • Bottom Line with the Patriots organization is they have a win at all costs mentality. Winning cultures breed winning while losing cultures breed losing (looking at you, Brownies). If starters go down for the Pats, it's expected their backups play at elite levels. They go into every game thinking they are going to win. There's a reason they could plug in a dude like Matt Cassell and go 11-5. This attitude won't change until ol' Bill steps down at the very least.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #32

    @jrb12711 said:

    Bottom Line with the Patriots organization is they have a win at all costs mentality. Winning cultures breed winning while losing cultures breed losing (looking at you, Brownies). If starters go down for the Pats, it's expected their backups play at elite levels. They go into every game thinking they are going to win. There's a reason they could plug in a dude like Matt Cassell and go 11-5. This attitude won't change until ol' Bill steps down at the very least.

    Bottom line is that the Patriots have Tom Brady. Everything else was superfluous. Sure, Cassell could hold the fort and do well for one year. I suggest that is they had to play him any more than that the Pats would have sunk into mediocrity.

  • @miktoxic said:

    so mark me down as #5 on this board that agrees that the pats are a true dynasty.

    I don't think it was ever an issue that they are a true dynasty. Clearly they are. The issue was whether or not people hated them, or admired them.

    kraft, brady, belichick. first ballot HOFers guaranteed.

    TB, BB certainly. Kraft a little tougher call.

    fuck this cheating crap. you could call holding on every play of the game. the DBs are getting killed by these new rules and we're worried about deflategate or spycam?

    Many or most think they cheat. Many or most think they could win a lot without cheating. It is the hubris of them that begets scorn.

    how about hiring a head coach and staff, staying with them for more than 3 years and seeing where that leads?

    Does that include the DC? I agree with you except for keeping the Browns DC.

    oh and btw, who was smart enough to hire a fired head coach and the brown's HOF TE as GM. that's right kraft.

    The Jets hired BB before the Pats.....but he quit after one day.

    And the last time I looked....Kraft did not own the Ravens.

    (are you saying that Kraft did a Robert Irsay/Caroll Rosembloom type franchise trade?)

    MudflyM Mudfly wrote on last edited by
    #33

    @the-gipper said:

    @miktoxic said:

    The Jets hired BB before the Pats.....but he quit after one day.

    Actually....he didnt quit....the Pats traded their first round pick to the Jets for him......

  • I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    The Cysko KidT The Cysko Kid wrote on last edited by
    #34

    @mudfly said:

    I think Im the only guy in the world who actually likes the Pats and admires their ability to win year after year after year....

    In my eyes, the greatest dynasty ever......

    I like the pats

  • @the-gipper said:

    @miktoxic said:

    The Jets hired BB before the Pats.....but he quit after one day.

    Actually....he didnt quit....the Pats traded their first round pick to the Jets for him......

    Mark OM Mark O wrote on last edited by
    #35

    @mudfly said:

    Actually....he didnt quit....the Pats traded their first round pick to the Jets for him......

    He resigned after one day to take the Patriots job.