Why your team sucks

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

(08-17-2015, 06:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem is Brad disagrees with these facts.

No one is saying you can't argue the connection, but these two facts that you stated are the things Brad is trying to argue did not happen.

He said he agrees with me, and then you said I disagree with those facts.

I've said all along that, even if it's not legal because of the lawsuit, that there is a connection, and the connection is that the titles are the Ravens because there's a relationship that the Ravens are the former Browns that won the titles.  The new Browns have no connection to the old Browns, other than the name (you want to say history, too, but you just agreed that the Ravens spawned from the years of decisions that were the Browns).

End of thread.

(08-17-2015, 07:38 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: If he had expressed it that way I doubt that anyone would have had a problem with it.  But he didn't.  He specifically argued that the 'connection' you speak of gives the Ravens an exclusive claim to the old Browns' history.  Do you agree with that too?  

I said that a few times that the Ravens came from the Browns- players, coaches, personnel, etc.- and all of you stated that, just because they started a new franchise, there's no connection!