Skip to content

The Las Vegas Raiders

The Browns Board
197 26 5.8k
  • @mjp28 said:

    Wonderful climate ......if you're a snake or a lizard.

    No wonder why no one seriously settled the deep south or west until the invention of good HVAC or water pipelines.

    Scorpions.... you forgot scorpions. My neighbor lived in Vegas for many years, moved back to Ohio. On my return from there back one May I commented about springtime in the desert "you can almost imagine some green in all that brown."

    As I told Ghoolie all those desert towns are an artificial oasis- based on a very limited supply of water. It was little wonder when I was there right after 9\11 they had National Guard armed with automatic weapons keeping an eye on anyone who wanted to cross the Hoover Dam. (They've since diverted the road at great expense.) Instead of symbolically taking down the World Trade Center buildings Al-Qaeda could have done way more & lasting damage taking out that dam.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @hoorta said:

    Scorpions.... you forgot scorpions. My neighbor lived in Vegas for many years, moved back to Ohio. On my return from there back one May I commented about springtime in the desert "you can almost imagine some green in all that brown."

    As I told Ghoolie all those desert towns are an artificial oasis- based on a very limited supply of water. It was little wonder when I was there right after 9\11 they had National Guard armed with automatic weapons keeping an eye on anyone who wanted to cross the Hoover Dam. (They've since diverted the road at great expense.) Instead of symbolically taking down the World Trade Center buildings Al-Qaeda could have done way more & lasting damage taking out that dam.

    If they had run into the Hoover Dam with planes however, only the planes would have been obliterated. I don't think the dam would have been that badly scathed.

  • Yeah... but it's a dry heat...

    You want hot? Try Houston in August... 100 deg F plus 90% humidity...

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by

    @tour2ma said:

    Yeah... but it's a dry heat...

    You want hot? Try Houston in August... 100 deg F plus 90% humidity...

    Been there! They offered me a job in the Baytown steel plant....no thanks.

    So the difference between Lost Wages, NV and Houston is one is self basting 😆

  • T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by

    Well having been born on the swamp that was reclaimed as Beaumont (there are no beautiful mountains anywhere near it), Houston has nothing on that place. It's really SW La.-even has a damn cajun name.

  • @tour2ma said:

    Yeah... but it's a dry heat...

    You want hot? Try Houston in August... 100 deg F plus 90% humidity...

    Been there! They offered me a job in the Baytown steel plant....no thanks.

    So the difference between Lost Wages, NV and Houston is one is self basting 😆

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by

    @mjp28 said:

    So the difference between Lost Wages, NV and Houston is one is self basting 😆

    lol.. you nailed it...

    @texasag1969 said:

    Well having been born on the swamp that was reclaimed as Beaumont (there are no beautiful mountains anywhere near it), Houston has nothing on that place. It's really SW La.-even has a damn cajun name.

    Ever do the Barbequed crab thing at Sartens down by the ferry landing... I miss that place... great frog legs, too.

  • @mjp28 said:

    So the difference between Lost Wages, NV and Houston is one is self basting 😆

    lol.. you nailed it...

    @texasag1969 said:

    Well having been born on the swamp that was reclaimed as Beaumont (there are no beautiful mountains anywhere near it), Houston has nothing on that place. It's really SW La.-even has a damn cajun name.

    Ever do the Barbequed crab thing at Sartens down by the ferry landing... I miss that place... great frog legs, too.

    T TexasAg1969 wrote on last edited by TexasAg1969

    @tour2ma said:

    Ever do the Barbequed crab thing at Sartens down by the ferry landing... I miss that place... great frog legs, too.

    I put Beaumont in the rear view mirror in 1959. Been back maybe 5 times since, last time being maybe 30+ years ago. Gumbo's in Georgetown is about as close as I get to creole/cajun these days.

    If Mexico has a Margaritaville, then Beaumont surely qualifies as Mosquitoville in the US.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @ghoolie said:

    Oakland? Look who's talking. What, don't you like Baltimore?

    The Vegas Raiders are not the Oakland Raiders.

    Best Climate in the USA......................... funny, nobody retires up North. Florida? LMAO. Zomblow dates a lot of hot women in Naples. He takes them home and pulls on their tits until the wrinkles come out.

    A lot of people retire up north, simply by staying home. As I have gotten older the cold, ice, snow can sort of get to me. My biggest worry is falling on ice. So I understand why people go south.

    If it were not for the fact that my kids are here I would retire to southern Ireland. (FYI, they have palm trees there)

    As for Zombo pulling on old ladies tits....yep, I can believe that.

  • @ghoolie said:

    Oakland? Look who's talking. What, don't you like Baltimore?

    The Vegas Raiders are not the Oakland Raiders.

    Best Climate in the USA......................... funny, nobody retires up North. Florida? LMAO. Zomblow dates a lot of hot women in Naples. He takes them home and pulls on their tits until the wrinkles come out.

    A lot of people retire up north, simply by staying home. As I have gotten older the cold, ice, snow can sort of get to me. My biggest worry is falling on ice. So I understand why people go south.

    If it were not for the fact that my kids are here I would retire to southern Ireland. (FYI, they have palm trees there)

    As for Zombo pulling on old ladies tits....yep, I can believe that.

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    A lot of people retire up north, simply by staying home. As I have gotten older the cold, ice, snow can sort of get to me. My biggest worry is falling on ice. So I understand why people go south.

    If it were not for the fact that my kids are here I would retire to southern Ireland. (FYI, they have palm trees there)

    As for Zombo pulling on old ladies tits....yep, I can believe that.

    Many people working or retired have started moving away from "Zika-ville" and other areas for various reasons and are moving "back home".

  • @the-gipper said:

    A lot of people retire up north, simply by staying home. As I have gotten older the cold, ice, snow can sort of get to me. My biggest worry is falling on ice. So I understand why people go south.

    If it were not for the fact that my kids are here I would retire to southern Ireland. (FYI, they have palm trees there)

    As for Zombo pulling on old ladies tits....yep, I can believe that.

    Many people working or retired have started moving away from "Zika-ville" and other areas for various reasons and are moving "back home".

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @mjp28 said:

    Many people working or retired have started moving away from "Zika-ville" and other areas for various reasons and are moving "back home".

    My sister "retired" from Fort Lauderdale Fla. after 35+ years of being there to back home here in Northeast Ohio.

  • OldBrownsFanO OldBrownsFan wrote on last edited by

    I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

  • I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

    Mark OM Mark O wrote on last edited by

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

    Going to be a very very long time before Oakland could get another NFL team (just like San Diego) but I agree with what you're saying. The Raiders belong in Oakland.

  • I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

    We did not get "another team". We kept the same team we had from 1946.

    As for Oakland getting another team, I don't see it happening. The NFL will want the 49ers to be the "Bay Area" team. I mean, hell, after all, they now play 45.3 miles south of San Francisco...and Oakland is actually only 42.8 miles from Santa Clara.

    In a sense, they should be the San Jose 49ers.

    I just am aware of the historic cultural differences between the 49er fan base and the Raider fan base. 49er fans are white collar, Silicone valley, yuppie wine sipping types. Raider fans are Blue Collar, Hell's Angels/Road Warrior types.

    Can the two mix to support the same team?

    I have my doubts. Some Oaklanders may continue to follow the Raiders. Many may just give up on the NFL altogether.

  • @oldbrownsfan said:

    I was (very) glad Cleveland was first of all able to get another NFL team and second to keep their name and colors (even though the Browns have been a big disappointment since 99 and nowhere near the Browns of old). Too bad for Oakland that apparently that is not going to happen here and we will see the Las Vegas Raiders. I think when a team pulls up stakes from a city and moves to another city let them get another logo/mascot and new team colors and leave the old behind. If Oakland would ever get another NFL team it just seems surreal they would have to get a different name than the Raiders.

    We did not get "another team". We kept the same team we had from 1946.

    As for Oakland getting another team, I don't see it happening. The NFL will want the 49ers to be the "Bay Area" team. I mean, hell, after all, they now play 45.3 miles south of San Francisco...and Oakland is actually only 42.8 miles from Santa Clara.

    In a sense, they should be the San Jose 49ers.

    I just am aware of the historic cultural differences between the 49er fan base and the Raider fan base. 49er fans are white collar, Silicone valley, yuppie wine sipping types. Raider fans are Blue Collar, Hell's Angels/Road Warrior types.

    Can the two mix to support the same team?

    I have my doubts. Some Oaklanders may continue to follow the Raiders. Many may just give up on the NFL altogether.

    OldBrownsFanO OldBrownsFan wrote on last edited by OldBrownsFan

    @the-gipper said:

    We did not get "another team". We kept the same team we had from 1946.

    As for Oakland getting another team, I don't see it happening. The NFL will want the 49ers to be the "Bay Area" team. I mean, hell, after all, they now play 45.3 miles south of San Francisco...and Oakland is actually only 42.8 miles from Santa Clara.

    In a sense, they should be the San Jose 49ers.

    I just am aware of the historic cultural differences between the 49er fan base and the Raider fan base. 49er fans are whit collar yuppie wine sipping types. Raider fans are Blue Collar, Hell's Angels/Road Warrior types.

    Can the two mix to support the same team?

    I have my doubts. Some Oaklanders may continue to follow the Raiders. Many may just give up on the NFL altogether.

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

  • @the-gipper said:

    We did not get "another team". We kept the same team we had from 1946.

    As for Oakland getting another team, I don't see it happening. The NFL will want the 49ers to be the "Bay Area" team. I mean, hell, after all, they now play 45.3 miles south of San Francisco...and Oakland is actually only 42.8 miles from Santa Clara.

    In a sense, they should be the San Jose 49ers.

    I just am aware of the historic cultural differences between the 49er fan base and the Raider fan base. 49er fans are whit collar yuppie wine sipping types. Raider fans are Blue Collar, Hell's Angels/Road Warrior types.

    Can the two mix to support the same team?

    I have my doubts. Some Oaklanders may continue to follow the Raiders. Many may just give up on the NFL altogether.

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    What are you missing? Everything apparently...like the facts.

    Our team did not move to Baltimore. Art Modell moved to Baltimore....was given a new NFL franchise. OUR NFL franchise stayed right here.

    Not sure how you could have missed that fact.

    Its like a house. You...the owner may move from that house, and you may take some of your furnishings with you....but the house was not moved just because you moved.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

    Well, that is a tough negotiation. Only Cleveland among NFL teams has been able to keep its franchise intact.

  • @oldbrownsfan said:

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    What are you missing? Everything apparently...like the facts.

    Our team did not move to Baltimore. Art Modell moved to Baltimore....was given a new NFL franchise. OUR NFL franchise stayed right here.

    Not sure how you could have missed that fact.

    Its like a house. You...the owner may move from that house, and you may take some of your furnishings with you....but the house was not moved just because you moved.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

    Well, that is a tough negotiation. Only Cleveland among NFL teams has been able to keep its franchise intact.

    OldBrownsFanO OldBrownsFan wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    What are you missing? Everything apparently...like the facts.

    Our team did not move to Baltimore. Art Modell moved to Baltimore....was given a new NFL franchise. OUR NFL franchise stayed right here.

    Not sure how you could have missed that fact.

    Its like a house. You...the owner may move from that house, and you may take some of your furnishings with you....but the house was not moved just because you moved.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

    Well, that is a tough negotiation. Only Cleveland among NFL teams has been able to keep its franchise intact.

    I see your point Gip and you are right but it still seems like word semantics. In 99 weren't we really no more or less than any other expansion team (except the NFL didn't give us as good of deal as they did Carolina and Jacksonville)?. You are right due to grass roots fans in Cleveland who did work out a great negotiation they kept the franchise here. But in reality we had an established NFL team that moved and were replaced with an expansion team. It is hard for me not to see the Browns from 99 on as anything but the new Browns.

  • DieHardBrownsFanD DieHardBrownsFan wrote on last edited by

    Browns players all moved to Baltimore along with coaching staff, equipment etc. We had a vacant stadium and after huge pressure the NFL gave us 'an expansion' team. They named it the Browns.

  • @the-gipper said:

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    Where am I missing it? We did get another team. Our team moved to Baltimore but I agree that once they moved they were no longer our team they were Baltimore's. And we got another team (fortunately) to replace them and (fortunately) able to keep the Browns name.

    What are you missing? Everything apparently...like the facts.

    Our team did not move to Baltimore. Art Modell moved to Baltimore....was given a new NFL franchise. OUR NFL franchise stayed right here.

    Not sure how you could have missed that fact.

    Its like a house. You...the owner may move from that house, and you may take some of your furnishings with you....but the house was not moved just because you moved.

    Oakland may not get another team but who knows? At least for all the loyalty the NFL shows to fans they could do that much and leave the team name and colors for the fans behind when teams move to other cities.

    Well, that is a tough negotiation. Only Cleveland among NFL teams has been able to keep its franchise intact.

    I see your point Gip and you are right but it still seems like word semantics. In 99 weren't we really no more or less than any other expansion team (except the NFL didn't give us as good of deal as they did Carolina and Jacksonville)?. You are right due to grass roots fans in Cleveland who did work out a great negotiation they kept the franchise here. But in reality we had an established NFL team that moved and were replaced with an expansion team. It is hard for me not to see the Browns from 99 on as anything but the new Browns.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    I see your point Gip and you are right but it still seems like word semantics. In 99 weren't we really no more or less than any other expansion team (except the NFL didn't give us as good of deal as they did Carolina and Jacksonville)?. You are right due to grass roots fans in Cleveland who did work out a great negotiation they kept the franchise here. But in reality we had an established NFL team that moved and were replaced with an expansion team. It is hard for me not to see the Browns from 99 on as anything but the new Browns.

    It is the same franchise. It went through an expansion process to simply replenish the roster. Every team goes through roster changes. The 49ers won the Super Bowl the year before, but for much of the last decade they have sucked as bad or worse than the Browns. They actually even moved away to a different city 45 miles from where they were.

    So their situation is no different really than the Browns. The problem with the Browns has been bad ownership/management.

    Assume for a moment that in lieu of "moving" the Browns stayed here....with Al Lerner buying the team. You still would have had Al, then Randy owning the team, and I don't know if anything would have been different. Randy was capable of making the same bad decisions whether his Dad had gotten the team through purchase from Modell, or the way it was done.

  • Browns players all moved to Baltimore along with coaching staff, equipment etc. We had a vacant stadium and after huge pressure the NFL gave us 'an expansion' team. They named it the Browns.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @diehardbrownsfan said:

    Browns players all moved to Baltimore along with coaching staff, equipment etc. We had a vacant stadium and after huge pressure the NFL gave us 'an expansion' team. They named it the Browns.

    No. See above. The franchise was always the Browns. They just used an expansion like process to replenish the roster.

    All they did, as I said, was sell the franchise to a new owner. Not much different than when Randy sold it to Haslam.

    Players and coaches are fungible.

    My example of the house sale is a pretty good analogy.

    You move from your house, you don't move the house. You move some furniture, you don't move the house. Maybe the house is vacant for a while while you find a new buyer and they take some time to move in. It is still the same house. The foundation, the walls, the roof are all still in place.

    The new buyers brought in some new furniture and appliances (players, coaches, equipment).

    That is all that happened.

  • Z Zombo wrote on last edited by

    @ghoolie said:

    Oakland? Look who's talking. What, don't you like Baltimore?

    Listen, Dickfuck, I don't know where you are going with this Baltimore thing, and frankly, I don't give a shit.

    Here are the Professional sports teams I root for: The Cleveland Browns, the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Cleveland Indians.

    Do you notice some sort of trend there?

    I root for Cleveland, Ohio.

    Baltimore can blow me. Oakland can lick my balls. And Vegas can eat my ass.

    The Vegas Raiders are not the Oakland Raiders.

    No, they're not. They are a much gayer version. Oakland is a tough city, Vegas has no soul. It's a place for soulless fucks to run to when they can't hang anymore. You should buy a condo there.

    Best Climate in the USA..

    Really? So you've never been to Hawaii? San Diego? Key West? Frying your fat ass in the desert in 115 temps is what works for you? Good ... that's your choice. Embrace it. Make it your own. Live in Vegas. Root for Vegas. I'm gonna live on the Beach and root for Cleveland. And sleep like a baby because I never gave up.

    Florida? LMAO. Zomblow dates a lot of hot women in Naples. He takes them home and pulls on their tits until the wrinkles come out.

    I get more pussy at 52 than you got at 25. Naples is stocked with MILFs 35-50, divorced. Hubby stayed up North, they live down here on his alimony, and I'm banging all of them.

    Maybe if you lose 100 pounds you wouldn't have to pay for a handjob in Vegas like you do now, some rancid barfly in memphis might actually touch your dick.

    Zombo

  • @diehardbrownsfan said:

    Browns players all moved to Baltimore along with coaching staff, equipment etc. We had a vacant stadium and after huge pressure the NFL gave us 'an expansion' team. They named it the Browns.

    No. See above. The franchise was always the Browns. They just used an expansion like process to replenish the roster.

    All they did, as I said, was sell the franchise to a new owner. Not much different than when Randy sold it to Haslam.

    Players and coaches are fungible.

    My example of the house sale is a pretty good analogy.

    You move from your house, you don't move the house. You move some furniture, you don't move the house. Maybe the house is vacant for a while while you find a new buyer and they take some time to move in. It is still the same house. The foundation, the walls, the roof are all still in place.

    The new buyers brought in some new furniture and appliances (players, coaches, equipment).

    That is all that happened.

    StinkHoleS StinkHole wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    No. See above. The franchise was always the Browns. They just used an expansion like process to replenish the roster.

    All they did, as I said, was sell the franchise to a new owner. Not much different than when Randy sold it to Haslam.

    Players and coaches are fungible.

    My example of the house sale is a pretty good analogy.

    You move from your house, you don't move the house. You move some furniture, you don't move the house. Maybe the house is vacant for a while while you find a new buyer and they take some time to move in. It is still the same house. The foundation, the walls, the roof are all still in place.

    The new buyers brought in some new furniture and appliances (players, coaches, equipment).

    That is all that happened.

    But what if Modell had taken the name and colors, which he very well could have, then I don't think you could apply your analogy.

    You would have still had the franchise (house) in place, but the colors and name would be different. So with that couldnt you say regardless of whether the new team in Cleveland is named the Browns or the Bishops, the real Browns moved to Baltimore?

    Ive heard browns fans say they wished Modell had taken the name and colors. The regimes that have been in control since 99 have dragged the name and colors through poop, turning this franchise into the greatest laughingstock in the modern era. Although Modell decided to give up the name and colors, fans have said in hindsight that the powers that be should have left the great tradition of the Cleveland Browns die and rest in peace and let the shitshow since 99 be attached to another name and colors... not the Cleveland Browns.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @ghoolie said:

    Gipper, don't be a jack off, You can't win this fucking idiotic argument.

    I have already won....because this is NOT an argument. This is NOT a matter of opinion which can be arguable. These are hard cold facts that are inarguable.

    If the team didn't move, why the fuck did they not play in Cleveland in 1996?

    Because they took a hiatus. They weren't the first team to do so. Both the Rams and Steelers did the same in their histories.

    A football team is made up of players. All the Browns players moved to Baltimore.

    Players are NOT a team. Players are fungible commodities. They come and go like grain in a silo.

    Wanna bet how many of the current Raider players actually still play for the Raiders when they finally move to Vegas in 2020? I will wager that you may be able to count at most 10 or fewer.

    Can you name for us the Browns roster in 1996? If there were no players in 1996, where were they? Please, tell us who the 1996, 97, and 98 Browns team consisted of.

    They were on hiatus. The Browns in those years simply didn't play.

    I mean....they hardly play now....so why is taking a few years off in the 90s matter. They may as wel have taken off the last 3-4 years. Fair to say?