@browns52 said:

he sure can't win the big one......but he beats the shit out of us all the time.......not saying much since its the cleblin clowns...

He's 3-1 vs the Browns as the starting QB.. 3-2 overall (wild cat  QB guy in the 12-9 Browns win in 2018). 

Winning record, yes. "Beating the shit out of us all the time," nope.

@gorka said:

There was once a time when we could have put up billboards like this.

we don't have a rivalry with anyone....we suck since we came back....where is joe turkey jones when you need him most...heheheheheeeeee...

@nickers said:

I'm still not convinced Lamar Jackson is a long term at answer at QB for them... Or anybody for that matter... Yes he has a nice skill set... But at some point.. His mojo has to run out.. He still throws like a girl.. Run first QB's normally don't last long.. Yes I know there are anomalies like Mike Vick and Steve Young.. But even they learned to win in the pocket...

he sure can't win the big one......but he beats the shit out of us all the time.......not saying much since its the cleblin clowns...

@nickers said:

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

True.

Also, Pittsburgh fans may see it as a divisional rivalry but in my experience not really one to get too excited over. There are lots of ideas of rivalry going around here, but it seems to me Browns fans think about Pittsburgh and being a big rival to that city/team a lot more than the reverse.

@hx214 said:

How the hell you let someone beat you up with your own helmet.... 

Can you image having to tell your dad.... “Ya I started a fight, then the guy kicked my ass with my own helmet”

Hoping both teams come out of this game with major injuries to key players. Fuck em’ all.

As always with the Spermsuckers vs. the Ratfuckers   I root for the meat wagon:

@the-gipper said:

Do you mean OUR games against them.....or their games against each other?    

Yes, the Browns vs the entire AFC South. Just not my cup of tea. The AFC West & AFC East opponents I'm ok with (except Den, hate those bastards).

Syntax not Sin Tax lol. 

@dutch-oven said:

The "revived" Colts started up in 1953, and won NFL Titles in 1958 and 1959. 

OK...yea,  there you go.  I meant to say mid-50s above, not 60s.  Since edited.   I know the Colts played in 1950.....so they only "missed"  2 years:  51-52.  That is fewer than the Browns missed 96/97/98. 

@bob806 said:

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 ?.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

I get what you mean... I tend to get more into Browns games vs old school NFC teams like the Eagles, Packers, Bears, etc than I do against the Panthers or Falcons. 

@bob806 said:

I get it. The NFL changes just like anything else.

When I was a kid, my Dad told me I could like any team I wanted except the Rams, Lions, & Giants. 

He hated listening to Pat Summerall, because he kicked a GW FG vs the Browns in a game back in 1958.Lol...I have the same angst towards Denver & Miami, must be hereditary.

Some rivalries I always thought were phonied up.   Cowboys/Redskins.   Except for the obvious Old West connection....which is now gone with the Redskin name, isn't it.....Dallas vs. Washington just isn't  a natural rivalry.    Dallas/Houston...sure.    Washington/Baltimore?  Absolutely. 

Some natural rivalries have gone by the wayside.   Cleveland/Detroit in the 50s was IT.   and Detroit is actually closer than Pittsburgh (as the crow flies).

Many rivalries have not been allowed to nourish because of the NFC/AFC division.   Ergo....I have proposed that ...when the league goes to 17 games,  that 17th game should be designated as a perpetual rivalry game:

Jets v. Giants....every year

Ravens/WTF team....every year

Dallas/Houstion

Miami/Tampa

Cleveland/Detroit

Pittsburgh/Philly

Rams/Chargers now

(formerly  Raiders/49ers when both were in Bay area.....that could still possibly work)

And others.   A few teams may not have a natural rival from the other conference,  

@the-gipper said:

Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=60s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time.... 

The "revived" Colts started up in 1953, and won NFL Titles in 1958 and 1959. 

@bob806 said:

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 ?.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

Do you mean OUR games against them.....or their games against each other?    I would say both propositions are true. Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis and Houston do not cry out "Natural rivalries" to me. The NFC South is much better in that regard IMO. 

@tour2ma said:

Neither... although it's not you, it's me...

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

I get it. The NFL changes just like anything else.

When I was a kid, my Dad told me I could like any team I wanted except the Rams, Lions, & Giants. 

He hated listening to Pat Summerall, because he kicked a GW FG vs the Browns in a game back in 1958.Lol...I have the same angst towards Denver & Miami, must be hereditary.

@the-gipper said:

The last time I looked the league that both teams played in was the National Football League.  Yes, the Browns/Steelers rivalry predated the conception of the AFL or the AFC.  It is why it is the longest running rivalry between two teams currently a part of the AFC.   That is simply the way to look at it. 

Though, in a certain sense one could say that the Browns/Colts rivalry is actually longer because the Browns and Colts were rivals in the AAFC.  Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=60s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time....but if you take the "hiatus" approach that was taken when the Browns did not play for 3 years in the 90s you could say the Browns/Colts is a longer rival of current AFC  teams.  (but, as I said, the league does not take that approach.....it says the original Colts went defunct and that a new franchise came on board).  

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 ?.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

@tour2ma said:

Neither... although it's not you, it's me...

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

The last time I looked the league that both teams played in was the National Football League.  Yes, the Browns/Steelers rivalry predated the conception of the AFL or the AFC.  It is why it is the longest running rivalry between two teams currently a part of the AFC.   That is simply the way to look at it. 

Though, in a certain sense one could say that the Browns/Colts rivalry is actually longer because the Browns and Colts were rivals in the AAFC.  Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=50s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time....but if you take the "hiatus" approach that was taken when the Browns did not play for 3 years in the 90s you could say the Browns/Colts is a longer rivalry of current AFC  teams, although fewer games have been played than Browns/Steelers because the Browns and Colts have not been in the same division, not playing twice a year.  (but, as I said, the league does not take that approach.....it says the original Colts went defunct and that a new franchise came on board).  

@d-bone said:

Jeezus. That is a brutal read. 

The tide has to turn at some point...

@dutch-oven said:

50 years... 6 fucking wins. 

How completely one-sided has this rivalry become? 

Since the 1989 season, in which the Browns destroyed the Steelers 51-0 at Three Rivers, the Browns have had THREE winning seasons. (1994, 2002 and 2007).

The Browns went 0-8 vs the Steelers in those three winning seasons. 

Jeezus. That is a brutal read. 

@bob806 said:

So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough ?

Neither... although it's not you, it's me...

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

@bob806 said:

Yep, it sucks. 

The Browns have only won 6 times in Pittsburgh since 1970. Ouch.

50 years... 6 fucking wins. 

How completely one-sided has this rivalry become? 

Since the 1989 season, in which the Browns destroyed the Steelers 51-0 at Three Rivers, the Browns have had THREE winning seasons. (1994, 2002 and 2007).

The Browns went 0-8 vs the Steelers in those three winning seasons. 

@dutch-oven said:

Technically you'd be correct, since both the Browns and Steelers are AFC teams NOW and their rivalry goes back to 1950, even though the first 20 seasons it was in the NFL. 

Jesus, is 59-75-1 the Browns record vs the Steelers now? They were something along the lines of 31-9 after the first 20 years vs Pittsburgh. 

Yep, it sucks. 

The Browns have only won 6 times in Pittsburgh since 1970. Ouch.

@bob806 said:

I swear I've heard on a number of occasions the Browns-Steelers series is the oldest in the AFC. 59-75-1 (135 games). No other teams in the AFC have met more, including the original AFL teams. So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough ?

For example, the Broncos & Raiders, both original AFL teams have met 119 times (64-53-2 in favor of the Raiders). Chiefs (Dallas Texans)-Raiders have met 120 times, Bills-Jets (NY Titans) 120 times, etc....

Technically you'd be correct, since both the Browns and Steelers are AFC teams NOW and their rivalry goes back to 1950, even though the first 20 seasons it was in the NFL. 

Jesus, is 59-75-1 the Browns record vs the Steelers now? They were something along the lines of 31-9 after the first 20 years vs Pittsburgh. 

@tour2ma said:

Longest running what in the who?

There are at least a dozen former AFL teams in line to correct you, Bob...

That said the fact that the Browns and Steelers both made the jump to the AFC at the merger is testament to the existence of a rivalry.

I swear I've heard on a number of occasions the Browns-Steelers series is the oldest in the AFC. 59-75-1 (135 games). No other teams in the AFC have met more, including the original AFL teams. So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough ?

For example, the Broncos & Raiders, both original AFL teams have met 119 times (64-53-2 in favor of the Raiders). Chiefs (Dallas Texans)-Raiders have met 120 times, Bills-Jets (NY Titans) 120 times, etc....

@bob806 said:

Just because the Browns have stunk for so long doesn't mean the longest running series in the AFC isn't a rivalry. 

Longest running what in the who?

There are at least a dozen former AFL teams in line to correct you, Bob...

That said the fact that the Browns and Steelers both made the jump to the AFC at the merger is testament to the existence of a rivalry.

@gorka said:

Not surprising you'd agree with me now because I just happen to be wrong. This thread was created to pander to those such as yourself with a skewed perception of a what a rivalry actually is.

A definition of a rivalry:

A rivalry is the state of two people or groups engaging in a lasting competitive relationship. Rivalry is the "against each other" spirit between two competing sides. The relationship itself may also be called "a rivalry", and each participant or side a rival to the other.

Nothing here about both competitors having to be good at the same time "to be true rivals"  is there Tour?

No, there's not... but then the term "true rivals" doesn't appear in your unattributed definition does it? 

Are true rivalries one-sided? Not in my book... also not in Webster's or Oxford's where "competitiveness" is a prominent criteria.

In my first reply I alluded to their being "tiers" in rivalries. "True" is one of the higher tiers. "Heated" sits atop the pyramid.

Ask Vagetron if he and his Steeler buds see us as a rival?

Then go "skew" yourself...

@nickers said:

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

Yep, the good old days where Turkey Jones lives on!