Do the Browns ever wear brown?

[Lights Out]

And the fact is that the old Browns are the Ravens, regardless of the NFL's lame attempt to retcon all that drama out of their history. Therefore, Cujo is right.

[leopard88]

And the fact is that the old Browns are the Ravens, regardless of the NFL's lame attempt to retcon all that drama out of their history. Therefore, Cujo is right.

For the record, I don't know any Ravens fans (myself included) who try to lay any claim to the Browns championships.

[JohnnySeoul]

And the fact is that the old Browns are the Ravens, regardless of the NFL's lame attempt to retcon all that drama out of their history. Therefore, Cujo is right.

Thanks for proving my point.

So here's the breakdown on CCSLC:

1) "In my opinion" - The real Browns are now the Ravens.

2) Fact - The Ravens are a NFL expansion team and the city of Cleveland got to keep the real Browns.

There is no #3 and those that truly believe #1 is comically correct probably won't change their hard-headed beliefs (kinda like religion). No point in trolling anymore, Lights Out.

[axlrush]

And the fact is that the old Browns are the Ravens, regardless of the NFL's lame attempt to retcon all that drama out of their history. Therefore, Cujo is right.

Thanks for proving my point.

So here's the breakdown on CCSLC:

1) "In my opinion" - The real Browns are now the Ravens.

2) Fact - The Ravens are a NFL expansion team and the city of Cleveland got to keep the real Browns.

There is no #3 and those that truly believe #1 is comically correct probably won't change their hard-headed beliefs (kinda like religion). No point in trolling anymore, Lights Out.

I'm actually pretty shocked that people that think they know the NFL still don't understand the Browns move. To think the Ravens are the "old Browns" is pretty laughable.

[hawk36]

For the record, I don't know any Ravens fans (myself included) who try to lay any claim to the Browns championships.

Exactly. Can't understand why any fan would think they should lay any claim to any championship won by a their current team while it played in a different city. Seems odd. It was the original city's championship.

[ARTnSocal]

All those championships in the 40s and 50s belong to the BALTIMORE RAVENS -- or did Mr. Modell hand those trophys over to Cleveland when he took the franchise with him to Baltimore?

My God this is weak...

Certain individuals are just trolling to troll. They have nothing to back them up except their on personal point of view...regardless of facts.

>>>>>

The 4 straight AAFC Championships belong to Cleveland, not Baltimore, who had the Colts in that same league.

What's amazing is that when the NFL and 3 AAFC teams merged in 1950, the NFL took in Cleveland, SF, and Baltimore (who went bust after season 1) and Cleveland won the NFL title in their initial season upon the merger in 1950.

Cleveland beat Baltimore for the NFL Championship in 1964 .... does this mean that the Championship now belongs to Baltimore after all this time? Does this also mean that Indy rather than Baltimore lost the NFL championship in 1964? .......... Of course not, this whole thing is ridiculous.

The Baltimore Ravens are an expansion team stocked completely with Cleveland Browns players as the Cleveland Browns revamp. it's as if their players were waived and all picked up by the expansion Ravens.

The Cleveland Browns to this day go back to 1946 from their first four years in the AAFC, and who ceased operations for 3 seasons in '96, '97, '98 .... that's also official as far as the NFL is concerned.

It's just too bad that the Houston fans didn't make a big stink to the NFL about losing their team like Browns fans did. If they had the Houston Oilers would have returned in 2002 rather than the Houston Texans. Fans in Tennessee don't want anything to do with Oilers identity with their history, colors, records, or nickname and I consider it to be a big waste of a once great franchise who were a big part of the AFL and had lots of good memories and great players while in Houston.

My personal favorite was the AFC wildcard game in 1993 when they blew that 35-3 early 3rd qtr lead at Rich Stadium ... Still, they were the class of the AFL in the early years, had the Astrodome, Earl Campbell, Bum, and 'Love ya Blue' ... That's all Houston history, not Tennessee's, and now it's been wasted away into oblivion.

Tennessee takes the Jets original nickname which is still part of their history, and Houston in 2002 takes Kansas City's original nickname which is still part of the Chiefs history ..... Makes no sense to me.

[IceCap]

hawk, ART, you say these championships belong to cities as if the cities themselves won them. They did not. Teams playing out of the cities win those championships. That's an important distinction.

[John in KY]

hawk, ART, you say these championships belong to cities as if the cities themselves won them. They did not. Teams playing out of the cities win those championships. That's an important distinction.

Ice_Cap - that is the case for every team move EXCEPT the Browns-to-Ravens. Sorry, but the NFL was the one who mucked this up by caving in to the Cleveland fans instead of just letting the team become the Baltimore Browns. So we have the ultra-strange situation where there is an expansion team called the Baltimore Ravens that was originally owned by the former owners of the Cleveland Browns, staffed by the former staff of the Cleveland Browns, and the roster was the former roster of the Cleveland Browns. Meanwhile, in Cleveland the Browns went dormant from 1996 through 1998, and returned to play in 1999.

You can argue about what makes sense in the "real world", but what makes sense and what really happened are two different things. Should it have happened this way? I'm not sure. It would have made more sense for Cleveland to get a "clean" expansion franchise and for Baltimore to get the Browns. Why not - one city who had their team "stolen" at midnight "steals" a team from another city.

And in terms of the name "Texans" - you could argue that name should belong to the Indianapolis Colts because the Baltimore Colts NFL version that started in 1953, not AAFC version that folded in 1950, were known as the Dallas Texans in 1952 (and had their origins going back through the NY Yanks, Boston Yanks, Brooklyn Tigers/Dodgers, and all the way back to the Dayton Triangles with a couple of folds, mergers [Yanks and Tigers], and sessations along the way).

[IceCap]

hawk, ART, you say these championships belong to cities as if the cities themselves won them. They did not. Teams playing out of the cities win those championships. That's an important distinction.

Ice_Cap - that is the case for every team move EXCEPT the Browns-to-Ravens. Sorry, but the NFL was the one who mucked this up by caving in to the Cleveland fans instead of just letting the team become the Baltimore Browns. So we have the ultra-strange situation where there is an expansion team called the Baltimore Ravens that was originally owned by the former owners of the Cleveland Browns, staffed by the former staff of the Cleveland Browns, and the roster was the former roster of the Cleveland Browns. Meanwhile, in Cleveland the Browns went dormant from 1996 through 1998, and returned to play in 1999.

You can argue about what makes sense in the "real world", but what makes sense and what really happened are two different things. Should it have happened?

Oh, I agree. Part of the reason I tend to roll my eyes at Cleveland fans is because of the way they reacted when the Browns 1.0 left town. I get it, it sucked, but they acted like they were the first city to ever lose a sports team. Then they got a sweat-hart deal that screwed up how franchise relocation is supposed to work, and they still act like victims, when they probably made out of the whole thing better then any city to ever lose a team ever has. The NFL shouldn't have caved into the DAWGPOUND, but they did, and we're stuck with this situation where what happened and what's official are both equal parts right and wrong.

All I'm saying is that it's a little naive to say "hey that championship belongs to that city." Sorry, cities don't win championships, teams (which are private entities playing out of cities) win championships. That's an important distinction to keep in mind.

...and Houston in 2002 takes Kansas City's original nickname which is still part of the Chiefs history ..... Makes no sense to me.

Hold on. You say that a city has ownership over a team's legacy. Hence why you say it was right for the original Browns to leave their colours, history, and legacy in Cleveland, but you claim that the old Dallas Texans identity still belongs to the Chiefs? By your own argument the team should have given up all ownership of the Dallas Texans name and history once they left for Kansas City.

[ARTnSocal]

Oh, I agree. Part of the reason I tend to roll my eyes at Cleveland fans is because of the way they reacted when the Browns 1.0 left town. I get it, it sucked, but they acted like they were the first city to ever lose a sports team. Then they got a sweat-hart deal that screwed up how franchise relocation is supposed to work, and they still act like victims, when they probably made out of the whole thing better then any city to ever lose a team ever has. The NFL shouldn't have caved into the DAWGPOUND, but they did, and we're stuck with this situation where what happened and what's official are both equal parts right and wrong.

All I'm saying is that it's a little naive to say "hey that championship belongs to that city." Sorry, cities don't win championships, teams (which are private entities playing out of cities) win championships. That's an important distinction to keep in mind.

>>>>>>

"Roll your eyes at Cleveland fans" for the way they reacted when losing the Browns in the mid 90s?

Ice Cap, you just continue to amaze me at the drivel you write and believe.

I've been to Cleveland numerous times for Bills at Browns games at the old mistake by the lake stadium and they have among the best fans in all of the NFL in a group of some others cities, mostly all in the northeast and Midwest.

They accomplished what no other fans did from any city that had their team taken away when they were forever and overwhelmingly supporting the Browns at the box office in spite of having the worst stadium to watch an NFL game at that time. They organized a 'Save the Browns' group, went to the owners meeting in Atlanta, were incredibly organized and accomplished what no other franchises fans from another city even attempted. They had a 50 year history in both the AAFC and NFL that was absolutely phenomenal.

The NFL didn't want them to move. The NFL knew that was a great city to have an NFL franchise, all they needed was a legit stadium which was the main issue, but their hands were tied as they didn't wanna get into yet another legal fight in the courts by trying to stop Modell after what Al Davis' lawsuit did to the league (especially Mr Rozelle) during the 80s Raiders lawsuit when they moved to LA which BTW proved to be a major mistake on Al Davis' part. Oakland sold out throughout their time there thru 1981, but had no extra income from luxury suites which other franchised had which are and NFL teams profit that doesn't require sharing. So they move to a very run-down LA Coliseum in a gang-rich part of town and there's empty seats all over the place. They had great fans up there in Oakland, and a great home-field advantage back then.

In Atlanta the NFL and Browns supporters group came up with a great solution which the NFL got Modell to go along with, Cleveland came thru with the new stadium which was part of the agreement and the Browns live on.

Roll their eyes?? It's fans like that that all sports franchises and sports leagues could use.

[IceCap]

Ice Cap, you just continue to amaze me at the drivel you write and believe.

Well that was unprovoked. You're turning out to be a very productive member of the community.

"Roll your eyes at Cleveland fans" for the way they reacted when losing the Browns in the mid 90s?

I've been to Cleveland numerous times for Bills at Browns games at the old mistake by the lake stadium and they have among the best fans in all of the NFL in a group of some others cities, mostly all in the northeast and Midwest.

Good for you.

They accomplished what no other fans did from any city that had their team taken away when they were forever and overwhelmingly supporting the Browns at the box office in spite of having the worst stadium to watch an NFL game at that time. They organized a 'Save the Browns' group, went to the owners meeting in Atlanta, were incredibly organized and accomplished what no other franchises fans from another city even attempted. They had a 50 year history in both the AAFC and NFL that was absolutely phenomenal.

The NFL didn't want them to move. The NFL knew that was a great city to have an NFL franchise, all they needed was a legit stadium which was the main issue, but their hands were tied as they didn't wanna get into yet another legal fight in the courts by trying to stop Modell after what Al Davis' lawsuit did to the league (especially Mr Rozelle) during the 80s Raiders lawsuit when they moved to LA which BTW proved to be a major mistake on Al Davis' part. Oakland sold out throughout their time there thru 1981, but had no extra income from luxury suites which other franchised had which are and NFL teams profit that doesn't require sharing. So they move to a very run-down LA Coliseum in a gang-rich part of town and there's empty seats all over the place. They had great fans up there in Oakland, and a great home-field advantage back then.

In Atlanta the NFL and Browns supporters group came up with a great solution which the NFL got Modell to go along with, Cleveland came thru with the new stadium which was part of the agreement and the Browns live on.

Roll their eyes?? It's fans like that that all sports franchises and sports leagues could use.

Here's the thing. Cleveland acted like they were the first city to ever lose a professional sports team. I get it, losing a team sucks. To hold up the transaction and demand the NFL play fast and loose with history was downright silly though. Not only did they do that, but they continue to act like victims even after they got their sweathart deal.

Ask Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Montreal Expos, or Seattle SuperSonics fans how poor old Cleveland got robbed of the Browns. Los Angeles has lost two NFL teams, and since then the league has used the city as nothing but a bargaining chip to get better stadium funding out of local governments in their current locations. Baltimore lost their NFL team with no prospect of getting one back. Winnipeg lost their NHL team with the league seemingly determined never to return. Only after a decade and a half of waiting and false promises did either city get teams again. Meanwhile Cleveland, who was guaranteed a new team with the colours, history, records, and legacy of the old team in less then five years time, still has the gal to act like the greatest victims of franchise relocation. It's annoying and only serves to feed into the larger victim complex of that city's sports fans, made worse by LeBron James leaving. Frankly it's an attitude among Browns fans that's insulting to fans everywhere who have lost teams without the sweetheart deal Cleveland got.

Not only did the NFL play fast and loose with history, but the fact that they did and Cleveland still wants to complain about their supposed victimhood just leaves me, well, rolling my eyes.

[CS85]

Remember when this thread was about jerseys?

[IceCap]

I like the Browns jerseys. I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the newer, darker shade of brown.

[ARTnSocal]

Here's the thing. Cleveland acted like they were the first city to ever lose a professional sports team. I get it, losing a team sucks. To hold up the transaction and demand the NFL play fast and loose with history was downright silly though. Not only did they do that, but they continue to act like victims even after they got their sweathart deal.

Ask Hartford Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Montreal Expos, or Seattle SuperSonics fans how poor old Cleveland got robbed of the Browns. Los Angeles has lost two NFL teams, and since then the league has used the city as nothing but a bargaining chip to get better stadium funding out of local governments in their current locations. Baltimore lost their NFL team with no prospect of getting one back. Winnipeg lost their NHL team with the league seemingly determined never to return. Only after a decade and a half of waiting and false promises did either city get teams again. Meanwhile Cleveland, who was guaranteed a new team with the colours, history, records, and legacy of the old team in less then five years time, still has the gal to act like the greatest victims of franchise relocation. It's annoying and only serves to feed into the larger victim complex of that city's sports fans, made worse by LeBron James leaving. Frankly it's an attitude among Browns fans that's insulting to fans everywhere who have lost teams without the sweetheart deal Cleveland got.

Not only did the NFL play fast and loose with history, but the fact that they did and Cleveland still wants to complain about their supposed victimhood just leaves me, well, rolling my eyes.

>>>>>>>>

"Cleveland acted like they were the first city to ever lose a professional sports team." .... WTF???

No .... they acted like the first city to lose their team and actually organize their own group and attempt to do something about it, and they succeeded. You keep coming across as if you personally know all these thousands upon thousands of Cleveland Browns fans when the fact is you probably haven't met more than 20 of them in your whole miserable life, and the 20 you know you probably know most of them only by chatting with them on this board.

All those clubs you mentioned lost their teams either over attendance or stadium/arena issues. Cleveland's was strictly a stadium-issue whom Modell didn't make enough effort to and exhaust all avenues before moving 'em to Baltimore, and this is the same Art Modell who was against Al Davis moving the Raiders to LA and stood alongside Pete Rozelle.

Out of all those teams you mention above, not one of them ever supported their team in the high numbers that the Browns fans did up in Cleveland, in spite of having the worst stadium to watch an NFL game in.

You keep talking about this 'sweetheart' of a deal Cleveland got. What sweetheart of a deal? They were promised a team back by 1999 along with their name, colors, and team records and history, but only IF they could get their act together with various groups and build a brand new state-of-the-art stadium which met current NFL standards, which they did. That is a very hard mission to accomplish and in that amount of time. No other city who lost their team ever got a group together, dealt with the league on their own, or made any effort to try and accomplish what Browns-nation did.

Los Angeles was promised an expansion team in 2002, all they had to do was what was offered to Cleveland .... They couldn't get it done!!! Hence, Houston got what would have been LA's team.

You keep mentioning all this stuff about how Browns fans act, all this & that BS about Browns fans when you know nothing about them.... one would have to believe by the things you write that you've been to the new Cleveland Stadium, been introduced to them all, personally chatted with them all to come up with this frivolous accusation that they ALL complain and portray themselves as victims. Fact is, you're just some ******* from the sticks way up north who's not even located near a major city who really knows anything about the real world which mostly consists of anything south of Lake Erie. Your ideal evening out is probably going out to dinner at McDonalds and then attending a London Knights game.

Perhaps the Knights should move to Cleveland, call themselves the 'Barons', and let all of you just keep your nickname, colors, and team history and hopefully one day you'll get another team back.

[BBTV]

I like the Browns jerseys. I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the newer, darker shade of brown.

I don't like the darker brown. I'd like it more maybe if they somehow incorporated the gray from their facemask into the uniform somehow. Having the gray against the brown may make it look more distinctly brown as opposed to almost black. I wouldn't touch the single-color numbers - I think that's a feature that's way underrated and underused in today's NFL - but maybe work gray into the striping somehow. It really looks great on the helmet (only GFGS helmet I like) and I think they could use it more. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as the Giants and put them in flat gray pants, but on the other hand, that might actually work well for them.

[IceCap]

This is the only thing I'll comment on from ART's post.

Perhaps the Knights should move to Cleveland, call themselves the 'Barons', and let all of you just keep your nickname, colors, and team history and hopefully one day you'll get another team back.

I may live in London, but I didn't grow up here. I'm not a Knights fan. I grew up in Kitchener, I'm an OHL Rangers fan. Check out the signature. If you're going to play the "how would you feel if your team moved?" card, at least get the team right.

I like the Browns jerseys. I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the newer, darker shade of brown.

I don't like the darker brown. I'd like it more maybe if they somehow incorporated the gray from their facemask into the uniform somehow. Having the gray against the brown may make it look more distinctly brown as opposed to almost black. I wouldn't touch the single-color numbers - I think that's a feature that's way underrated and underused in today's NFL - but maybe work gray into the striping somehow. It really looks great on the helmet (only GFGS helmet I like) and I think they could use it more. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as the Giants and put them in flat gray pants, but on the other hand, that might actually work well for them.

I tend to agree with you about grey and the Browns scheme. It works so well in the realm of men's fashion. I wouldn't be opposed to injecting a little grey into the Browns' uniform from the neck down. Of course this means modernizing a classic, but with the way sleeve stripes are vanishing these days maybe a slight tweak to the Browns' overall look wouldn't be the worst thing.

[ESTONES6]

This is the only thing I'll comment on from ART's post.

Perhaps the Knights should move to Cleveland, call themselves the 'Barons', and let all of you just keep your nickname, colors, and team history and hopefully one day you'll get another team back.

I may live in London, but I didn't grow up here. I'm not a Knights fan. I grew up in Kitchener, I'm an OHL Rangers fan. Check out the signature. If you're going to play the "how would you feel if your team moved?" card, at least get the team right.

I like the Browns jerseys. I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the newer, darker shade of brown.

I don't like the darker brown. I'd like it more maybe if they somehow incorporated the gray from their facemask into the uniform somehow. Having the gray against the brown may make it look more distinctly brown as opposed to almost black. I wouldn't touch the single-color numbers - I think that's a feature that's way underrated and underused in today's NFL - but maybe work gray into the striping somehow. It really looks great on the helmet (only GFGS helmet I like) and I think they could use it more. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as the Giants and put them in flat gray pants, but on the other hand, that might actually work well for them.

I tend to agree with you about grey and the Browns scheme. It works so well in the realm of men's fashion. I wouldn't be opposed to injecting a little grey into the Browns' uniform from the neck down. Of course this means modernizing a classic, but with the way sleeve stripes are vanishing these days maybe a slight tweak to the Browns' overall look wouldn't be the worst thing.

I don't like the darker brown either. It's too close to black. I want to see ORANGE and BROWN. I don't want a light brown or anything like that, but I want it to be a solid, almost common brown. I think it works better with the orange.

As for the gray... by no means should it be part of the actual pants or jerseys. However, I think they gray facemask works great with the uniform. The Browns have a classic look when it comes to the colors and the stripes and even to the extent of not having a logo on the helmet. The gray facemask is a design from the past when all teams had gray facemasks. Because of that, the gray facemask works because it sort of completes the set of throwback/classic elements. It also works great with the Colts' look. Now, one example of it failing miserably is the Arizona Cardinals. The Cardinals may have the most modern designed uniforms in the league, yet they insist on having a gray, throwback style facemask. Whether it was their intention or not, its how it comes across.

Back to the Browns. The white facemask just looks bad. It looks like a cross between gumball plastic helmets and a grade school helmet. It just sticks out.

[infrared41]

I like the Browns jerseys. I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the newer, darker shade of brown.

I don't like the darker brown. I'd like it more maybe if they somehow incorporated the gray from their facemask into the uniform somehow. Having the gray against the brown may make it look more distinctly brown as opposed to almost black. I wouldn't touch the single-color numbers - I think that's a feature that's way underrated and underused in today's NFL - but maybe work gray into the striping somehow. It really looks great on the helmet (only GFGS helmet I like) and I think they could use it more. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as the Giants and put them in flat gray pants, but on the other hand, that might actually work well for them.

That's not a bad idea at all. I think it could look pretty cool if done right. With regard to the brown, I prefer the darker brown because, to me at least, it provides a better contrast with the orange in the stripes and helmet.

[ARTnSocal]

>>>>

I've always liked how Wyoming utilized the color brown, although I think they may have changed their uniforms this season.

Not sure when this was taken, but it looks damn nice ... IMO

Back in the days before HDTV, the Cleveland Browns used to look like they were wearing black jerseys. I could only partly realize it was brown when the TV network would alter to their more up-close camera that zoomed-in.

[hormone]

So why aren't they wearing the Brown jerseys at home? They go in phases when they wear white all the time to back to brown home, white away. If I were king, they'd be orange/brown/white home and orange/white/white road with the option of orange pants. Put the white mask back on the helmet and for the heck of it, put the <=B=> on each side of the helmet (ducks all the stones being thrown at me). As far as the Browns/Ravens, the best way for me to "imagine" it is that the Browns folded up shop. The Ravens were an expansion team. Browns players needed a place to play, so they hired all the ex-Browns. Years later, Cleveland re-opened their Browns program with all new guys since there's were long gone. If the Cleveland franchise was a different name, I'd say the old Browns became the Ravens.