But didn't Cleveland go without a team for a few years? Then the current Browns would only date to when that team began.
The league officially recognizes the 1950-95 Browns as the same franchise as the 1999-present version. The only other way to do it would be to consider the 1950-95 version to be a defunct team and keep their records separate from the 1999-present Browns.
Browns got them a good coach. I hope he actually gets himself a DC there. Hope we make a nice hire to replace him. Theres plenty of options.
The reality is the Browns today were reconstructed as an expansion team in 99. They brought in entirely new management and had to start from scratch as far as the roster was concerned not much different than the Houston Texans. The Ravens in 1996 were not an expansion team they were the moved Cleveland Browns.
That's surprising because they are certainly different franchises. Different owners, different everything except name. I really wonder how they get away with that. Would they still lump all the Browns records in if the new team called themselves the Mudders? Seems they would have to as they couldn't possible use only the name or the city they are in as the reason to do it. Politics at its finest.
That was the deal Cleveland kept the team identity, the Ravens kept the players and management and than the Browns restarted as an expansion team with ownership of their history, logo's, etc. That's how Vinny became the Ravens QB.
Yeah, the Ravens certainly were not an expansion team and are not recognized as such. On 2/9/96, the league and the city of Cleveland reached an agreement. According to the agreement, the city retained the Browns name, logo, colors, history, playing records, trophies, and memorabilia and a committed to build a new stadium for a reactivated Browns franchise to begin play no later than the 1999 season. Also, Art Modell was allowed to move his team to Baltimore and rename it. I saw no problem with what Br4dw4y5ux posted because the old Browns are recognized as the same franchise as the new Browns. I also saw no problem with the way you want to go about recognizing the Browns. The whole thing is screwed up.
Wait..if the Ravens are not considered an expansion team and the Browns are not considered an expansion team then do they share the records? I know they don't but why not? How can you not be an expansion team and yet not have a history?
Successful based on what? We haven't won a thing and don't say the playoffs. That a measure of disappointment not success.
I don't support Favre for what he [didn't] accomplish this season. When we acquired him, I thought it was a risk worth taking because he proved he could stay on the field, as well as both get to a SB and win it -- which is more than what your little towel-boy Pennington has proven in his career. Now that Favre is clearly done, i hope he retires and we can rid ourselves of limited QB play we've had to suffer the past 6 years.
That's true, using your criteria. A fart smells better than a steaming pile of shit, but I'm not satisfied getting a whiff of either of them.
The Browns of 1999 through the present date are an expansion team. There was a 1999 NFL Expansion Draft. Jim Pyne was the first pick. Expansion team is not really the best terminology, however. Reactivated franchise is a better title.
I agree with you. The last time I was excited about the Jets was when Parcells was the coach and Testaverde was the quarterback.
It was a total screw up and the pathetic thing about it is the city only agreed to build the stadium because they were pissed at Modell for having the balls to move the team for not rebuilding the stadium. If they did that, Modell doesn't move the team they might have won a few SB's. If Modell hadn't screwed the Browns and BB he might still be the HC? It was a terrible stand off between the city and Modell and Modell was right.
It's a disappointment to make the Playoffs every other year, or every 2 years, knowing that advancing is virtually impossible when your QB and O have to face a good Defense.
