Recommended Posts

I'm not sure associating the Browns' brand/legacy/records with the current expansion team was the best thing for said brand in the long run. No one thinks of the undefeated AAFC run, the pre-SB NFL Championships, Jim Brown, or the 80s contenders when they think of the Cleveland Browns anymore. They think hapless coaching, mismanagement, the endless QB jersey, the Factory of Sadness, and 0-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I’d dispute that point. The Ravens have the makings for a good identity, but they’ve never really put all the pieces together the right way.

 

I agree with you there. The name is perfect, the colors are right, but the logos and uniforms have never come together the way they should. Matrix Bold numbers: not even once

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Wasn't the front office significantly overhauled between Cleveland and Baltimore? I know Belichick got fired, I assume many of his toadies followed him?

Belichick was fired a week after the move was approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Wasn't the front office significantly overhauled between Cleveland and Baltimore? I know Belichick got fired, I assume many of his toadies followed him?

 

Belichick went to the Patriots in 1996 as Parcells' DC. Maybe one or two guys followed him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

It absolutely matters, and player movement is a huge reason why. 

Let’s take a look at the greates Cleveland Brown of all time, Jim Brown. If you trace the “lineage” of who played alongside who long enough? Jim Brown connects with the Baltimore Ravens. Not the est. 1999 Browns. 

Jim Brown never played for the team that’s now in Cleveland. He did play for the organization that’s now in Baltimore, however. 

 

If you trace the lineage of who played alongside who long enough Jim Brown connects with anyone. You can connect him to Blake Bortles: Blake Bortles - Marcedes Lewis - David Garrard - Jimmy Smith - Andre Rison - the 1995 Cleveland Browns and so on and so forth. 

 

What matters is how the league chooses to define its own franchise lineage. 

 

Quote

Well I would disagree on that last point. It certainly affects the lineage. 

As for the dispersal draft? Yeah, it would be far more in-line with the official story the NFL wants to present as truth. If you blow up the 1995 Browns roster? Then you can absolutely make the argument that the Ravens that began play in 1996 were a different team. 

That didn’t happen though. They kept the same roster, more or less. They were the Browns. 

 

But they weren't the Browns because everyone at the time knew they were no longer the Browns. This what I'm saying. They were the Ravens stocked with mostly Browns players under the full agreement that they were all playing for a new franchise.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Further, what did “preserving” the Browns’ history and lineage in Cleveland accomplish? What was gained? 

 

If the point was to preserve the legacy of the original Browns in their traditional home? Well good job, idiots. The new Browns are the worst-run expansion team in any league I’ve ever seen.

Nothing about the Browns’ legacy was saved by granting this new group of idiots the keys to the Browns’ franchise. If anything? Constant losing and mismanagement since 1999 has tarnished the original Browns’ legacy. 

 

The Browns' crappy play since 99 is immaterial to the discussion.

 

Quote

Had the Baltimore Browns been allowed to exist as originally intended? The Browns’ lineage would include two Super Bowls. Now Jim Brown and co. are unfortunately tied to a suck-ass 90s expansion team. 

 

I'm gonna call Butterfly Effect on this one. :D I rather like the Ravens' identity save the awkward B on the left facing version of the logo.

 

Quote

History unfolded that way because the Browns team packed up their bags and started playing in a different city with a different name and different uniforms. 

 

That’s what happened, historically speaking. 

 

Historically speaking when everyone got to Baltimore they all knew at that time that they were no longer working for the same franchise. 

 

Quote

No, the NFL’s records weren’t re-written because the fiction that was the idea the Ravens weren’t the Browns was agreed to ahead of the 1996 season. That’s not rewriting the record books. What it is, however, is a rewriting of history via record book shenanigans.

 

Nobody is claiming the Ravens didn't come about because of the Browns. There's no fiction and there's no rewriting. Everything is written just as it happened. 

 

Quote

The NFL can insist that their records state that the Ravens weren’t the historical Browns and that the dumpsterfire 90s expansion team in Cleveland is all day long. That doesn’t change the actual events that happened, however. Where the actual team that was the Browns picked up and moved to Baltimore. 

 

Yeah the 96 Ravens came of the Browns. Nobody's arguing differently. The NFL records don't hide that a lot of the 96 Ravens were 1995 Cleveland Browns. It's no less valid an origin story than an expansion draft and it doesn't change the fact that everyone that mattered knew of the franchise splits at the time it was taking place. 

 

Quote

 

You seem hung up on the “well Modell left the Browns franchise certificate in Cleveland!” point, but I’m with @Ferdinand Cesarano on that. It was a bit of theatre used to avoid a baseless but potentially drawn-out lawsuit from the city of Cleveland. 

 

I care about how the league chooses to define their own franchises and whether everything was understood at the time it occurred. Everything in that regard is air-tight. I'm hung up on the fact that when the Browns moved to Baltimore everyone understood the agreement in place and nobody thought they were still working for the same franchise. Everyone also understood the Browns would play football again too. None of this was sprung on anyone after the fact. It may have been sprung on people who weren't paying attention and thought it was relocation as usual or think it should be, but as long as the record books keep the story straight what difference does it make? 

 

The validity of the agreement is a different discussion entirely. To me that's also immaterial and it doesn't matter if it was to avoid an attack from the Spaghetti Monster or whatever. It doesn't matter if it wasn't baseless. I don't care even if it was baseless. What matters is the agreement was set, agreed up by everyone, and the records were never altered or changed in real-time, which is how it happened. 

 

Quote

 

Modell may have left a piece of paper behind, but the Browns’ roster was transferred in its entirety to Baltimore.

I hold that the legacy of “who played with who” is more indicative of franchise continuity than a piece of paper is. 

 

 

 

If the piece of paper is how the league defines their franchise lineages and sticks to that then that's the only thing that's indicative of franchise continuity. I already addressed why I'm not concerned about "who played with who". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I just want to put my hand up and say "ep... ep... ep... ep. THE. TEAM. MOVED."  That's really the entire story.

 

The Hornets/Pelicans/Bobcats situation is a lot worse; but that never would have been possible if the NFL hadn't lowered the bar regarding what is considered acceptable.

Just wait until some NBA team moves to Seattle or some Major League Baseball team to Montreal.  We'll then see more of the ugly consequences of the assault on history that the NFL committed with the Browns.

 

 

lighten-up-francis-22862786.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

What matters is the agreement was set, agreed up by everyone, and the records were never altered or changed in real-time, which is how it happened. 

I never denied that this happened. I never denied that this is was a better way of doing things compared the NBA's botch-job.

I'm saying the fact that it happened at all was stupid and counter-factual, and that it only happened to appease Cleveland's undeserved pity-me complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So just to be clear, the Ravens’ entire franchise history (records, accomplishments, championships, etc.) “officially” started in 1996 correct? 

- - -

 And by that similar token, does that mean that Chris Paul was never a Hornet? Was he a pelican, even though he never wore their uniform? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Lighten up, Francis.


"Lighten up", my hairy ass.

Anyone who doesn't understand the problem in altering the records so that they no longer represent what actually happened is simply not grasping the gravity of the issue. 

 

 

58 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

What matters is the agreement was set, agreed up by everyone, and the records were never altered or changed in real-time, which is how it happened. 


The parties being informed of the league's decision before the team began play in Baltimore is of no relevance whatsoever.  The only important thing is that, when the record book shows the Ravens as having begun in 1996 rather than being part of the Browns' franchise history, the record book is showing a willful misstatement of the events of history.  The fact that everyone involved gave their consent to this lie does not mitigate its seriousness.

 

The issue is not the Browns or the NFL; the issue is people's attitudes towards objective reality.  Unfortunately, we no longer have to resort to hypotheticals in order to understand the consequences for society, as this current historical crisis clearly illustrates what happens when a respect for facts goes away.

The NFL didn't create the current disaster; it surely only reflected disturbing trends that were already present.  Still, this ugly Browns situation is emblematic of a serious problem that goes far beyond sports and has tragic implications for society as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

giphy.webp

 

So, what do we think the Jaguars and Titans will do with their uniforms?

 

I'm betting that 50% of us will think the Jags upgraded, 30% will believe they went lateral, 10% will say it was a downgrade, and 10% will just say that they want the 1990s uniforms back. As for the Titans, I'm guessing that 40% will like the look, another 40% will dislike it, and 20% will wish that they were still the Oilers. Sometimes, we're pretty predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ditka said:

 

I don't think this has happened before. 

 

I only researched for about 30 minutes, but the closest example I found was the 95 Cowboys who beat the last Kelly Eagles in the Divisional. They then played the Packers in the NFC championship the next week who had beaten the last Cherry Red 49ers the week before. It's indirect and not exactly what you were looking for, but that's as close as I could get. 

 

Teams that made the playoffs a season before major uniform changes:

2016 Lions

2006 Chargers 

2002 Falcons

1999 Rams

1996 Broncos

1995 49ers

1995 Eagles 

1971 Redskins

2012 Vikings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I never denied that this happened. I never denied that this is was a better way of doing things compared the NBA's botch-job.

I'm saying the fact that it happened at all was stupid and counter-factual, and that it only happened to appease Cleveland's undeserved pity-me complex.

 

My over-arching point is that I argue against "counter-factual" any time this comes up. What actually happened is what happened. As a matter of record the Browns went dormant for 3 years, an expansion franchise using mostly Browns players started in Baltimore in 1996, the Browns franchise ended a three year hiatus in 1999 with new players. That's as objective a reality as any other because those were the agreed upon terms of the move. Just because it differs from how some people think it should've been handled doesn't make it less real. 

 

Counter-factual would be "the 1996 Ravens shot out of Art Modell's butt one day and have won every Super Bowl since."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McCarthy said:

 Just because it differs from how some people think it should've been handled doesn't make it less real.

To me it's not "real" because the players, management, and owners of the Browns transferred over to Baltimore to become the Ravens. It's counter-factual to pretend that anything other than that happened, and it's counter-factual to claim that the Browns team that took the field in 1999 had any connection to the 1948-1995 team. The roster and ownership of the 1999 Ravens had more in common with the 1995 Browns than the 1999 Browns did shrug

 

I mean yeah. The record books say what they say, but in my opinion? The deal made and agreed to regarding the record book doesn't reflect what actually happened regarding the original Browns picking up and moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a diehard on the "Ravens = Browns" team, but I would do a complete 180 if they did a proper dispersal and expansion for the new Ravens. Players, coaches, and owners change, but it is the flow of these changes that define a franchise. It is borderline unfathomable to me that there are multiple people here who choose to follow the lineage of a piece of paper over literally the entire roster moving to Baltimore. It's being overstated here how cut-and-dry the whole deal was; it wasn't even decided that Cleveland would get an expansion team instead of a relocated team until two years after the move to Baltimore. Words have meaning, but the NFL itself has been inconsistent in this regard. Archive.org has a copy of an NFL website announcing the deal, and it says both that the Browns franchise will stay, and an "expansion franchise" is a possibility. It also says that Modell's NFL franchise will "relocate" to Baltimore. The description is a mess, just like the deal is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll follow the piece of paper over the roster that turns over every 10 years or so, yes. Players come and go. Players play for multiple teams. The players are not the franchise. 

 

31 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

To me it's not "real" because the players, management, and owners of the Browns transferred over to Baltimore to become the Ravens.

 

Just a large scale transaction, an expansion draft all taken from the same team. Plus a new coaching staff, draft picks, and assorted free agents. 

 

Quote

It's counter-factual to pretend that anything other than that happened,

 

What is counter-factual is ascribing how you think it should've gone down as the correct reality. Reality is reality. Nobody's pretending the Browns players didn't move to Baltimore. It's not counter-factual to say, though, that the franchise stayed in Cleveland because the franchise stayed in Cleveland. 

 

Quote

and it's counter-factual to claim that the Browns team that took the field in 1999 had any connection to the 1948-1995 team.

 

No connections except for sharing the same city, colors, name, and franchise rights granted by the NFL to be the continuation of the 48-95 team. 

 

Quote

The roster and ownership of the 1999 Ravens had more in common with the 1995 Browns than the 1999 Browns did shrug

 

 

It's no different than if a team were to completely overhaul their roster in an off-season. If, hypothetically, the Bengals and Cardinals were to trade entire rosters the 2018 Bengals would have more in common with the 2017 Cardinals than the 2017 Bengals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.