|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Can't really argue with where they put us....though I might put us behind Houston but ahead of Buffalo. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/06/01/decade/3.html30. Cleveland Regular season: 52-92, .361 Playoff wins/record: 0-1 Super Bowls won/appeared: 0 Playoff seasons: 1 Winning seasons: 2 Losing seasons: 7 Truth be known, would Browns fans say the 10 years since Cleveland returned to the NFL were more enjoyable than the three seasons (1996-98) they did without Browns football of any kind? Think about it. Cleveland went undefeated for three years, but has averaged 10.6 losses since resuming play in 1999. I think it's a tough call. 31. Houston Regular season: 40-72, .357 Playoff wins/record: 0 Super Bowls won/appeared: 0 Playoff seasons: 0 Winning seasons: 0 Losing seasons: 5 The Texans are the only NFL team not playing with a full decade in this particular exercise, having debuted as an expansion team in 2002. But in seven full seasons, they've posted five losing records and a pair of 8-8s the past two years. Then again, the Oilers lasted 37 seasons in Houston without ever making a Super Bowl trip, so there's still three decades to play with if you're the Texans. 32. Detroit Regular season: 40-104, .278 Playoff wins/record: 0 Super Bowls won/appeared: 0 Playoff seasons: 0 Winning seasons: 1 Losing seasons: 8 Who knew that when Bobby Ross and Gary Moeller combined to coach the Lions to a 9-7, third-place finish in the NFC Central in 2000 -- losing their final game at home against the 5-11 Bears on Christmas Eve to narrowly miss the playoffs -- it would represent the high-water mark of NFL football in Detroit this decade? Apparently Matt Millen was one of those who didn't know.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I will say that I don't think there's any debate that New England and Pittsburgh should get the top slots. As much as I can't stand the Steelers, there is no denying how dominant they have been.
I will also say that I don't necessarily disagree with our ranking. But, there could be arguments for teams like Oakland and Cinci to be ranked lower (they're 24 and 27, respectively). Yeah, Oakland went to a Super Bowl, but my Lord, how terrible have they been since then? Cinci went to the playoffs, and then what, total mediocrity bordering on the comical?
Like I said, I can't really argue that we're in the wrong spot. But, there are arguments to other teams perhaps being at least as bad.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Yeah... once you get below 16th in any of these polls, is it really worth arguing about where your team "belongs?"  I will answer his question, however: THIS Browns fan has CERTAINLY enjoyed the last 10 years more than the three we didn't have a team. Sure, they've stunk more often than not, but I'd still much rather have a team to cheer on than not. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Cincy with their off-field stuff could definitely be there....
I don't think there is much argument for Oakland though...between getting screwed out of a playoff win that could have changed their decade (Tuck Rule) and making the Superbowl another year, they were flat out better overall.
Put it this way, the difference between St. Louis rise and fall isn't much different than Oaklands (other than Dyson's arm being a yard short).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yeah, I see what you're saying about the Raiders. I guess I was a little jaded considering how awful they've been these past few years.
But that's probably what put them where they were. Another year like these past couple years and I could see them dropping even more.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Any coincidence that Houston and us are both expansion teams?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
You say "are" like you are talking in the present. You couldn't possibly be saying that the Browns are still an expansion team...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
pretty sure that he was referring to being expansion teams for this decade...since the list is about the entire decade, callling the Browns and Texans expansion teams seems accurate.
however, while Houston has slowly built up their team to consistent mediocrity with some hopes of continuing an upward trend; we obviously have not done so yet.
stupid jacksonville and carolina for having so much early success that they changed the rules for expansion....
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Oh, well I gathered my assumption from statements that he has made in the recent past...such as... "Whether you bring Cowher in here or not, we're an expansion team bro. - It's gonna take another 3 years at a minimum. - That's if we're lucky." "We may be the called the Cleveland Browns but all we are is an expansion team." "We're an expansion team with history." "In case anybody didn't notice, the Cleveland Browns, in their current form, are an expansion team" That was during and after this past season he said those things....however, BEFORE the season started, he said.. "The Browns are starting to shed their expansion label, and will once again rule the division." I can't wait to find out whether or not the Browns are an expansion team this year or not. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I would have to agree with you,...the days of "expansion" expired about 3-4 years into this thing, especially with having made the playoffs.
The Texans have been around long enough to not be called expansion also.
It is what it is. Very poor top level management. This did not happen in Jacksonville and Carolina. (Baltimore, for example, was NOT an expansion team.)
When you go from 10-6 to 4-10 (or whatever it was), that is not an "expansion" lingering effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Exactly, thank you.
Anyways, back on subject, I would say this list is dead on, when you take into account all of the factors involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Oh, well I gathered my assumption from statements that he has made in the recent past...such as...
"Whether you bring Cowher in here or not, we're an expansion team bro. - It's gonna take another 3 years at a minimum. - That's if we're lucky."
"We may be the called the Cleveland Browns but all we are is an expansion team."
"We're an expansion team with history."
"In case anybody didn't notice, the Cleveland Browns, in their current form, are an expansion team"
That was during and after this past season he said those things....however, BEFORE the season started, he said..
"The Browns are starting to shed their expansion label, and will once again rule the division."
I can't wait to find out whether or not the Browns are an expansion team this year or not.
Do you keep track of everything everybody says? 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Haha, RememberMuni is notorious for constantly saying that the Browns are still an expansion team. All you gotta do is us the search feature and type "expansion". Guess who authored at least 80% of those posts? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I would have to agree with you,...the days of "expansion" expired about 3-4 years into this thing, especially with having made the playoffs.
The Texans have been around long enough to not be called expansion also.
It is what it is. Very poor top level management. This did not happen in Jacksonville and Carolina. (Baltimore, for example, was NOT an expansion team.)
When you go from 10-6 to 4-10 (or whatever it was), that is not an "expansion" lingering effect.
it is COMPLETELY unfair to compair the situations in Carolina and JAX to Houston and us. the success of the Panthers and Jaguars made the owners change the rules for how an expansion team could be built that severely handicapped how quickly we could be built. we coupled that handicap by having an incompetent FO, but even Houston who had a decent FO took years instead of a quick ascent under the current rules.
that said, I agree that we are no longer an expansion team now, just that it could be stated when referencing the entire decade.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371 |
We've actually won 12 more games than Detroit this decade? I'm shocked, I thought the number was much smaller.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
that's how bad Millen was....
noone else was anywhere close to competition for #32
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
I would have to agree with you,...the days of "expansion" expired about 3-4 years into this thing, especially with having made the playoffs.
The Texans have been around long enough to not be called expansion also.
It is what it is. Very poor top level management. This did not happen in Jacksonville and Carolina. (Baltimore, for example, was NOT an expansion team.)
When you go from 10-6 to 4-10 (or whatever it was), that is not an "expansion" lingering effect.
it is COMPLETELY unfair to compair the situations in Carolina and JAX to Houston and us. the success of the Panthers and Jaguars made the owners change the rules for how an expansion team could be built that severely handicapped how quickly we could be built. we coupled that handicap by having an incompetent FO, but even Houston who had a decent FO took years instead of a quick ascent under the current rules.
that said, I agree that we are no longer an expansion team now, just that it could be stated when referencing the entire decade.
A good analysis; Houston is still not "good." But they are close.
It is what it is. At least it's not as bad as Detroit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53 |
What exactly changed between Jax/Car and Us/Hou, and why?
I made this in 2005 ![[Linked Image from i17.photobucket.com]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b53/hwfstyles/future1.jpg) Three down, One to get rid of...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
1. The biggest change was in the free agency rules. Remember in 1995 free agency was just beginning and teams hadn't yet put in place a bunch of the rules to prevent them from losing their best talent. Teams also were still figuring out how to evaluate which players to keep and to let go with the salary cap. By 1999, more teams were figuring it out and there were less free agents. 2. Again, teams were getting smarter with the salary cap and free agency and saw the expansion draft as a way to try to get rid of onerous contracts. That meant a lot of the guys on our list had horrid contracts. Smart move by other teams. 3. Also, the expansion draft rules changed....less players were made available and more restrictions on how many from a team you could pick. Here were the rules we had to abide by: http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/index.nsf/Documents/1999-draft-expQuote:
The new Cleveland Browns, set to begin play in 1999, can select 30 to 42 players and are required to use 38 percent of their projected $60 million cap in the draft. Restricted Free Agents (RFAs) do not count toward either.
Rules and Eligibility Requirements
Of the five players, each of the 30 clubs can expose only one who was placed on injured reserve after the start of the 1998 season and only one who has 10 or more years of free agency experience.
Players must not be a punter or a kicker.
Teams have the option to remove one player from the list for each taken and can lose a maximum of two. (This is not mandatory.)
And here were the rules in 1995:
http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/index.nsf/Documents/1995-draft-exp
Quote:
1995 Carolina / Jacksonville Expansion Draft
The expansion draft was designed to give the new NFL franchises, Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars, a stock of experienced NFL players from which to begin building their teams. Each existing NFL team were required to pick 6 players who are "unprotected".
The expansion teams had to pick a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 42 players. Each time an expansion team selected a player from a team, that team then protected one of its remaining players on its expansion list. Each NFL team could therefore lose no more than 3 players.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53 |
SO it's like, Jax/Car, take whoever you want, Cleveland, heres some scraps, have fun? Lame...
I thought it had more to do with extra draft picks etc...
Did Bmore get extra picks in their first draft? that allowed them to get BOTH ray and ogden? or was that something else?
I made this in 2005 Three down, One to get rid of...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
So the Browns are really the newest team in the league?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 53 |
Quote:
So the Browns are really the newest team in the league?
We stay fresh by starting over ever 3-4 years...
I made this in 2005 Three down, One to get rid of...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558 |
Also in their 1st regular draft (1995) Jax and Carolina both got 2 picks in every round including the first, in the 1999 draft we only received extra picks in rnds 2 to 7. In their 2nd regular draft (1996) they received extra picks in rnds 2 to 7, in the 2000 draft we only received extra picks in rnds 3 to 7. So we were given a 1st and 2nd rnd pick less to start up with then Jax and Carolina.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
So can Browns fans right a petition to get those extra picks back in next years draft??!!!  Who's gonna start the website? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558 |
All i can say is it would have been nice to have had Antoine Winfield and Shaun Alexander on our team, 2 guys we could have had with those picks.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836
Steeler
|
|
Steeler
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,836 |
Quote:
Quote:
So the Browns are really the newest team in the league?
We stay fresh by starting over ever 3-4 years...
OMG, best post EVER.
I hope the Riddler sees this so that he can add it to his collection.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum SI's NFL teams of the decade
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
