(08-18-2015, 04:53 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: michaelsean, this is BFritz21.  BFritz21, this is michaelsean.  Now that that's out of the way......

I try not to bash conservatives in P&R and Bengals fans in smack, but geeze.  

So...have they posted the Steelers or Bengals or Ravens yet?

I love reading these articles.

(08-18-2015, 07:05 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So...have they posted the Steelers or Bengals or Ravens yet?

I love reading these articles.

Not yet. They're going off the draft order. The author took a break for a week and just posted the 49ers write up today.

(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!

(08-18-2015, 07:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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.

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!

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?

(08-18-2015, 07:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He said he agrees with me, and then you said I disagree with those facts.

and I also provided evidence of you disagreeing with those facts.

Quote: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).

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...

Quote:End of thread.

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

(08-18-2015, 07:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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. 

No they aren't. Not a single member of the 1996 Ravens was a member of any of the championship Browns teams.

Why is that hard for someone to understand?

(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.

(08-18-2015, 08:20 PM)Harmening Wrote: Why is that hard for someone to understand?

Please explain this:  if those titles belong to the Browns, then how did those titles shape the current Browns?  

(08-18-2015, 08:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please explain this:  if those titles belong to the Browns, then how did those titles shape the current Browns?  

In the same way those titles shaped the current Ravens: they had absolutely NO effect on the team's performance.

Explain "shape".

(08-18-2015, 08:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

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

Please explain to me how what Dave Jones did in 1955 had anymore impact on anything Modell did in 1995 than what Haslam has done in 2015. 

there has never been a greater need for a down vote button. never.

(08-18-2015, 08:53 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Please explain this:  if those titles belong to the Browns, then how did those titles shape the current Browns?  

Can anyone EVER explain anything to you?  The answer is obviously NO.

You are not seriously this dense, right?  Please tell us all that you have been screwing with us this whole time, no matter what the subject.

(08-18-2015, 09:31 PM)Harmening Wrote: Can anyone EVER explain anything to you?  The answer is obviously NO.

You are not seriously this dense, right?  Please tell us all that you have been screwing with us this whole time, no matter what the subject.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's screwing around.  He thinks he's right, and about 10 other people are wrong.

(08-18-2015, 09:45 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Unfortunately, I don't think he's screwing around.  He thinks he's right, and about 10 other people are wrong.

10?

(08-18-2015, 09:47 PM)Harmening Wrote: 10?

Or 5, I lost count.

(08-18-2015, 09:49 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Or 5, I lost count.

lol, I think he means "10?" as in, that's really low.

(08-18-2015, 09:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, I think he means "10?" as in, that's really low.

Oh.  Well it seems like half the board has been trying to tell him he's wrong.  But I know it's alot.