Why your team sucks

[Se ky bengal]

(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.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2015, 07:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're full of shit!

It's the internet, bud. You realize everything you said is recorded, right?





So am I still "full of shit" when I say that you disagree with the fact that the Ravens are a new franchise and the Browns a continuation of the Browns franchise? Or are you going to shut up now?

[BmorePat87]

I want to start a GoFundMe account to finance getting Brad laid when he is in Vegas, but I'm afraid this will get me banned. I think it might help, though.

[Se ky bengal]

(08-17-2015, 09:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I want to start a GoFundMe account to finance getting Brad laid when he is in Vegas, but I'm afraid this will get me banned. I think it might help, though.

He's been worked up over in Jn about Andys manhood. 

[Bengaldor]

I'd like to watch Brad on Jeopardy. It would be a real hoot.

Alex: Humans need to consume this liquid to survive.

Brad: What is Kool-Aid?

Alex: Sorry the answer we were looking for was, What is water? What is H2O would have also been acceptable as it is the chemical formula for water.

Brad: Screw you Alex that is just a technicality because Kool-Aid has water in it. You are full of shit!

Alex: Sorry Brad the only acceptable answers are water or H2O.

Brad: Alex you are just out to get me and tarnish my name just like those guys on the Bengals message board.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 08:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The history did not go with the team because of the lawsuit.  It's a technicality.

The entire franchise- players, personnel, owner, etc.- went to Baltimore, so how would an expansion team, the new Browns, have a history with championships?

Everything that the old Browns did formed who the Ravens are, but nothing the old Browns did formed the new Browns (other than the name, location, other technicalities that have nothing to do with actual football on the field).

You would be referring to them as the Browns if there hadn't been a lawsuit.  Modell moved the entire franchise to Baltimore.

The old Browns (the new Ravens) EARNED those championships and that history, so you can't just start a new franchise and say that they get all the history just because they have the same name and location.

You keep outdoing your own ridiculousness. How could they possibly earn championships that were decided in the 1950's?  

The ONLY thing that they did to allign themselves with any of it was to sign with the Browns franchise. Literally the stroke of a pen. And it was the stroke of a pen (Modell's settlement) that made them a different franchise.

No one is saying that all the former Browns players couldn't still claim to have been part of that franchise while they were still Browns; we're just saying that the Ravens franchise could not. And certainly none of the Ravens players who never played for the Browns can.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2015, 10:22 PM)Bengaldor Wrote: I'd like to watch Brad on Jeopardy.  It would be a real hoot.

Alex: Humans need to consume this liquid to survive.

Brad: What is Kool-Aid?

Alex: Sorry the answer we were looking for was, What is water?  What is H2O would have also been acceptable as it is the chemical formula for water.

Brad: Screw you Alex that is just a technicality because Kool-Aid has water in it.  You are full of shit!

Alex:  Sorry Brad the only acceptable answers are water or H2O.

Brad:  Alex you are just out to get me and tarnish my name just like those guys on the Bengals message board.

This is why no one takes you seriously, Alex. You are always claiming victories. 

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 07:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're full of shit!

I specifically stated that everything the Ravens are now came from the original Browns, but my point is that the Browns just became the Ravens, so the entire history goes WITH THE TEAM THAT FORMED THE HISTORY.


The new Browns are a completely new franchise that has nothing to do with the old one, aside from the name and location.

Everything the previous Browns did shaped and formed who the Ravens are, but the new Browns were a completely new franchise.

(08-17-2015, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's the internet, bud. You realize everything you said is recorded, right?





So am I still "full of shit" when I say that you disagree with the fact that the Ravens are a new franchise and the Browns a continuation of the Browns franchise? Or are you going to shut up now?

Renaming them to avoid a lawsuit and starting an entirely new franchise are two different things!!

It's not as cut-and-dry as that:  The Ravens are a franchise of their own that was started off the Browns franchise.  They'd still be the Browns if Modell had his way, but he agreed to change the name as part of the settlement.  Everything about the Ravens stems from their history as the Browns, but nothing about the new Browns is a continuation of the old Browns, aside from name, uniform, and location, so, yes, you're full of shit.

He moved the entire franchise, but left the history, name, and location in Cleveland, so Cleveland had to start a new team.  

The franchise that left is the one that won the titles, they just didn't take the titles with them.  That's a fact.  Please try and refute it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2015, 11:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:  The Ravens are a franchise of their own 

Progress.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-17-2015, 09:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:  Or are you going to shut up now?

I'd like to place a wager on this.

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 11:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Progress.

(08-18-2015, 12:13 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I'd like to place a wager on this.

What connection does the current Browns franchise have to the titles other than the name, location, and a technicality?

How did the Browns that won the titles shape the Browns into the franchise that they are today?

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 11:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Renaming them to avoid a lawsuit and starting an entirely new franchise are two different things!!

It's not as cut-and-dry as that:  The Ravens are a franchise of their own that was started off the Browns franchise.  They'd still be the Browns if Modell had his way, but he agreed to change the name as part of the settlement.  Everything about the Ravens stems from their history as the Browns, but nothing about the new Browns is a continuation of the old Browns, aside from name, uniform, and location, so, yes, you're full of shit.

He moved the entire franchise, but left the history, name, and location in Cleveland, so Cleveland had to start a new team.  

The franchise that left is the one that won the titles, they just didn't take the titles with them.  That's a fact.  Please try and refute it.

I have already refuted it.  Several times.  

Again, you fail to grasp the difference between the team of people and the franchise.  They are not the same thing.  Let's try one more illustration to see if you can grasp it.  

If the McDonald's Corporation did not like the way that a particular owner was running one of their stores, it would be within their power to revoke that franchise from the owner,  fire the staff, and replace everybody.   The new staff and owner would now be a McDonald's, while the old staff and owner would cease to be McDonald's.   The new owner could take his old staff and create a new franchise - let's say Wendy's.  So the old group, while once McDonald's, is now Wendy's.  That is because - and this is the point you fail to grasp -  the franchise and the group of people who run it (even the owner!) are not synonymous.  The people (again, even the owners)  are granted the franchise by a larger corporate entity.  They are not the franchise itself, and the larger corporate entity always has the right to take the franchise back.  That's the way franchise works.  

So in this illustration, the NFL is the McDonald's  Corporation, Modell is the owner, the players and coaches are the staff, and the Browns are the store/franchise.  The circumstances behind the switch are different (mutual agreement rather than dissatisfaction), but the dynamic is the same.  One group of people are removed from the franchise and eventually replaced by another.  

Perhaps saying it out loud might help.  Repeat after me: the franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.   The franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.  The franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.

Got it?  

So, here's the deal: Modell agreed to start a new franchise.  He didn't just agree to change the name.  He agreed to stop being the owner of the Browns (McDonald's) and start being the owner of the Ravens (Wendy's), and he took his 'staff' with him.  They had negotiations.  Signed contracts.  The whole works.  You can't just say 'Well, he only agreed to change the name', because that's not what happened! He willfully surrendered McDonald's and took on Wendy's.

The group of people he took with him did, at one time, work for the franchise that won those championships.  That is the only connection they had because none of them had any personal role in that history - it happened before most of them were born!!   And when they became the Ravens, they stopped working for the organization that had won those championships. Simple as that. That's because (let's say it together again one more time): the franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.

[djs7685]

^ this is a fantastic post, but I'm not sure Brad is going to comprehend it very well.

You should probably lay out another analogy with things that Brad is interested in.

Next time, try it with badass, sexy, male Marines and Andy Dalton's penis and I'm sure he'll get it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-18-2015, 03:17 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: What connection does the current Browns franchise have to the titles other than the name, location, and a technicality?

How did the Browns that won the titles shape the Browns into the franchise that they are today?

the NFL declared that the Browns organization would be deactivated in 1996 for three years. It was reactivated in 1999 as an expansion team that would continue the franchise.

Before you argue something about teams, please see JS's very great post in which he distinguished between the two for you.

[Harmening]

How is this still having to be explained?
I think every page in this thread has a post with the explanation of what occurred.

Good Lord.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-18-2015, 08:44 AM)Harmening Wrote: How is this still having to be explained?  
I think every page in this thread has a post with the explanation of what occurred.  

Good Lord.

First time following Brad's posts?   

This is not a surprise to those of us familiar with him.  

[djs7685]

(08-18-2015, 08:49 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: First time following Brad's posts?   

This is not a surprise to those of us familiar with him.  

Oh we've all dealt with him before as well, but this is pretty much mindblowing.

This is one of the more cut and dry, factual events that he's argued like a lunatic. There isn't really room for opinion in what you guys are saying, yet he's still banging his head into the wall saying you're wrong. It's like he's arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

I've seen plenty of crazy from Brad, but this is near the top when it comes to something that I didn't honestly believe someone could try to argue after being proven wrong this many times.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-18-2015, 08:58 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Oh we've all dealt with him before as well, but this is pretty much mindblowing.

This is one of the more cut and dry, factual events that he's argued like a lunatic. There isn't really room for opinion in what you guys are saying, yet he's still banging his head into the wall saying you're wrong. It's like he's arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

I've seen plenty of crazy from Brad, but this is near the top when it comes to something that I didn't honestly believe someone could try to argue after being proven wrong this many times.

Be careful, or you'll get put back in the sig again.  

[*PhilHos*]

(08-17-2015, 11:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The franchise that left is the one that won the titles, they just didn't take the titles with them.  That's a fact.  Please try and refute it.

Easy. None of the Browns-turned-Ravens players, coaches, front office personnel, owner, or any other facet of the franchise was a part of the Browns that won the championships. 

Let's assume that the Bengals won one of their 2 Super Bowl appearances. How many of the people associated with today's Bengals would be able to claim they won a Super Bowl title or were a part of a championship winning franchise? None of the players or coaches (well, maybe Paul Alexander).

The championships the Browns won in the 50s have absolutely NO bearing on today's Browns or Ravens.It didn't lead to the Ravens Super Bowl any more than it lead to the Browns sucking for as long as they have.

There's also one thing you're forgetting: THE DISCONTINUATION OF THE BROWNS FRANCHISE IS A PART OF THEIR HISTORY. Why are you acting like it's not?

[Tiger Teeth]

Again, I submit this chart for you Brad. I don't see the word "Ravens" on there anywhere.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/playoffs.htm

I know, it's just a technicality.