• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The Official 2015/2016 NFL Thread

Johndicezx9 said:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2012/09/art_modell_timeline_controvers.html



Browns don't play again til '99.

Point is, to call them "the Browns", the Browns that won championships back in the day, isn't really true. A 4 year hiatus is a lifetime in pro sports. They are more like a really poorly run expansion team. Haven't they been through 2 owners since 99?
Click to expand...

:facepalm So I guess you don't think the Cardinals are the oldest franchise in football either?

CocoLoco said:
But Eldy's not talking about intent. What ended up happening is that the Browns' history and franchise stayed in the city of Cleveland. A new franchise, utilizing all of the old Browns' personnel, was established in Baltimore. This fact was settled and sealed thru the courts. You pretty much just provided additional support to Eldy's point.
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody heard reason. I was beginning to think I was taking crazy pills here.

[youtube]mbKBWtoH93Q[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
Eldritch said:
I'm glad somebody heard reason. I was beginning to think I was taking crazy pills here.
Click to expand...

Did you know the hapless Browns are an expansion team with a library (I stole that). :laughing

Cam Newton has been reviewing Broncos pass rush film the past couple of days. Cam is now scared. Very scared.
 
Eldritch said:
:facepalm So I guess you don't think the Cardinals are the oldest franchise in football either?
Click to expand...

For a guy who's been quite dismissive of all things football before the Super Bowl era you sure bring up a lot of ancient history that means absolutely nothing and makes no point whatsoevaaah to the current discussion about why the current Browns are a poorly managed expansion team! :laughing

Try your crazy pills with sugar.... :thumbup
 
Last edited:
Johndicezx9 said:
For a guy who's been quite dismissive of all things football before the Super Bowl era you sure bring up a lot of ancient history that means absolutely nothing and makes no point whatsoevaaah
Click to expand...

The point is....we need Jim Brown back supporting his old team in the Bay Area.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 11.07.27 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2016-01-27 at 11.07.27 PM.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 22
There really is no way to objectively compare players/teams from era to era. You can't compare players from pre-merger with those of post; there should be a cutoff at 1994 when free agency and the salary cap were instated; and another at around 2009 when all the rules regarding hitting (looking crossly at?) QB and defenseless players were added.
 
Re ranking: great, enough controversy and butthurt to last until Feb 7. Tongues, I command thee, wag. On THE Sports leader
 
Johndicezx9 said:
For a guy who's been quite dismissive of all things football before the Super Bowl era you sure bring up a lot of ancient history that means absolutely nothing and makes no point whatsoevaaah to the current discussion about why the current Browns are a poorly managed expansion team! :laughing

Try your crazy pills with sugar.... :thumbup
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I go on and on constantly about history before the Superbowl Era and am constantly dismissing the short sighted ignorance of children who say it is irrelevant. :dunno

Zerox said:
Gonna be 10-3.....ten sacks for Denver, three for Carolina. :p
Click to expand...

LOL, the difference is that after 3 sacks from Carolina, the QB for Denver will be a wheezing heap of Spaghetti-O's and Broken Sticks. :laughing
 
Last edited:
Bowling4Bikes said:
yeah sure who cares, but Marcus Allen #22 out of 49?

ridick-shit
Click to expand...

Reagan was gonna bomb Russia with that stuff... :x

Eldritch said:
What are you talking about? I go on and on constantly about history before the Superbowl Era and am constantly dismissing the short sighted ignorance of children who say it is irrelevant. :dunno
Click to expand...

To be fair, you do, but only when you want to puff your chest up about anything the Giants accomplished when there was 6 teams in the league... :laughing
 
Johndicezx9 said:
Reagan was gonna bomb Russia with that stuff... :x



To be fair, you do, but only when you want to puff your chest up about anything the Giants accomplished when there was 6 teams in the league... :laughing
Click to expand...

No, I talk about the Steelers, the Packers, the Bears, all that stuff. When have I ever once been dismissive about the history of the NFL? The only time I am ever dismissive, is when people cherry pick certain particular eras of team history to define a franchise rather then the whole picture of their entire history.
 
Eldritch said:
No, I talk about the Steelers, the Packers, the Bears, all that stuff. When have I ever once been dismissive about the history of the NFL? The only time I am ever dismissive, is when people cherry pick certain particular eras of team history to define a franchise rather then the whole picture of their entire history.
Click to expand...

There's nothing worth mentioning about concerning the steelers pre 1970.
 
elbacalao said:
There's nothing worth mentioning about concerning the steelers pre 1970.
Click to expand...

:laughing True, they were pretty much a disaster for the first 40 years, but still, there is a rich history there. The identity of a team is rooted in generational, geographical, culture. History, roots, tradition, grandfathers, and fathers, and sons, all wearing the same colors in the same places as members of the same tribe over decades. That history has value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top