Why your team sucks

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2015, 07:54 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Nobody said there was no connection.  We simply said that the current Browns and not the Ravens are the owners of Browns history.  And that stands regardless of whatever connection exists between the Ravens and Browns.  

The first Ravens were connected to the old Browns, but only in the same way that Peyton Manning is connected to the Colts or John Fox is connected to the Panthers today.  

By the way, do you think that any of the 1990s Browns that became Ravens even knew the names of any of the 1950s Browns?

The Ravens were formed from the old Browns, and they brought everything to Baltimore, except for the name and history, which was only because of a lawsuit.

(08-18-2015, 08:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and I also provided evidence of you disagreeing with those facts.



You're trying to argue that the pre 1996 Browns and the post 1999 Browns have no connection other than their history, name, location, colors, and history. That's like saying that the 1955 Browns have no connection to the 1995 Browns other than the history, name, location, colors, and history...





This thread was about an article, not you trying to convince everyone that your opinions trump facts. 

False.

Everything that happened to the 1955 Browns somehow resulted in the Browns of 1995.  

But the 1955 Browns have no connection to the current Browns because their franchise left.

It's like a stream of electrical current which started with the Browns, straight-lined all the way up to 1996, then was redirected, not broken, into Baltimore, and then a new current was started, which is the Browns of current.  Nothing about that old current has anything to do with the new one, other than the name.

So it's not like that at all.