The OFFICIAL NFL 2012 Thread

[Eggman]

Juan Castillo out at Philly. I guess Reid had to do something.

Not sure how this move will help a below par and turnover happy offence mind.

 

[Brovion]

Well, to be pedantic, I think the current Browns are technically an expansion franchise, as the original "OLD" franchise moved to the Baltimore, and changed the name to the Ravens.

But obviously it's true that a franchise called the "Browns" have never played in a SB despite many many years of trying.

The official, league-sanctioned view is that when the old Browns left Cleveland the 'Cleveland Browns' ceased to exist and Modell had to leave behind all the records etc. The Baltimore Ravens were then treated as the new team and their records start from that point. The new Browns, whilst officially an expansion franchise, are deemed to be the successor to the 'old' Browns and assumed all their records, history etc. However there is a minority view that talks about the 'Modell Franchise' and counts the old Browns / new Ravens as one team, but that's like saying the MK Dons are the 'real' Wimbledon.

 

[Gritt23]

The official, league-sanctioned view is that when the old Browns left Cleveland the 'Cleveland Browns' ceased to exist and Modell had to leave behind all the records etc. The Baltimore Ravens were then treated as the new team and their records start from that point. The new Browns, whilst officially an expansion franchise, are deemed to be the successor to the 'old' Browns and assumed all their records, history etc. However there is a minority view that talks about the 'Modell Franchise' and counts the old Browns / new Ravens as one team, but that's like saying the MK Dons are the 'real' Wimbledon.

Oh excellent, I'm pleased with the official stance on that, it seems absolutely the right way to treat it. So effectively, the history of the "Browns" franchise just has a blank period of a few years between Modell taking the franchise away, and the League awarding Cleveland one of the expansion franchises.

 

[Stat Brother]

Howdy. This is the first time I've ventured onto an NFL thread as I, as of this season, am a new FALCONS fan.

Basically my gf's cousin now lives in Atlanta and I've been bombarded with Falcons and Georgia Bulldogs merchandise/clothes so I thought it would only be polite to follow them now.

It seems I've brought good luck to the Falcons! Can someone tell me me whether they are always this good or if something dramatic has changed to allow them to be 6 without loss?

I understand the RULES and enjoy watching it but have NO previous knowledge of players/history of the game. Really trying to get a better knowledge.

Your timing is pretty good for all things NFL.
They have made plenty of changes to speed up the game.
Plus as a spectacle defense (some would say) has been outlawed from the game.
The NFL are very concerned about protecting the players heads, introducing a whole string of rules and regs outlawing many physical tackles.
Alternatively the NFL are making these changes to create the 'show', using head trauma as the excuse.

Either way, 50 odd passes per game from the quarterbacks, and up and down scoring, makes a 6-3 score line less likely.

 

[Bladders]

Oh excellent, I'm pleased with the official stance on that, it seems absolutely the right way to treat it. So effectively, the history of the "Browns" franchise just has a blank period of a few years between Modell taking the franchise away, and the League awarding Cleveland one of the expansion franchises.

Yes that is how it is.

It's all a load of old bollocks though as this incarnation of the Browns has no link , DNA, what ever you want to call it to the Browns that left Cleveland back in the mid 90's, that's the Ravens. The current Ravens were built from that Cleveland that left, its draft picks, it free agency, it's front office etc.

The team currently in Cleveland is just a Browns tribute act, and not a very good one at that.

Just cause the Texans are in Houston doesn't mean they're the the new Oilers, the Oilers are in Tennessee.

Browns fans bury their head in the sand over this and think they can keep another teams history just cause their expansion team has the same name and uniforms.

 

[Bladders]

Your timing is pretty good for all things NFL.
They have made plenty of changes to speed up the game.
Plus as a spectacle defense (some would say) has been outlawed from the game.
The NFL are very concerned about protecting the players heads, introducing a whole string of rules and regs outlawing many physical tackles.
Alternatively the NFL are making these changes to create the 'show', using head trauma as the excuse.

Either way, 50 odd passes per game from the quarterbacks, and up and down scoring, makes a 6-3 score line less likely.

Wait till the heavy snow comes. I remember a game about 5 years back, think it was the Browns @ Bills. The snow was really thick and it was pretty windy, don't think either team threw the ball once.

Finished 0-3.

Love snow games.

 

[Stat Brother]

Wait till the heavy snow comes. I remember a game about 5 years back, think it was the Browns @ Bills. The snow was really thick and it was pretty windy, don't think either team threw the ball once.

Finished 0-3.

Love snow games.

In fairness 5 years ago the Browns and Bills could have played out a 3-0 in August.

But I do take your point.

 

[Bladders]

It was in Cleveland actually and finished 8-0. Was a hard watch this one.

 

[Gritt23]

Ah, now if we are talking bad weather games, how about this one from 1988. This was my first realisation that the NFL simply do not call games off (or abandon them) just because a bit of weather rolls in.

 

[Gritt23]

Vikings vs Steelers, then. 29th Sept 2013, Wembley.

From what RG has said it sounds like it is definitely a step towards a franchise in London.

 

[Stat Brother]

Vikings vs Steelers, then. 29th Sept 2013, Wembley.

From what RG has said it sounds like it is definitely a step towards a franchise in London.

It's been mooted all year.

And all the time Jacksonville couldn't fill Withdean RG has a ready made excuse to pull them across the pond.

 

[Brovion]

Yes that is how it is.

It's all a load of old bollocks though as this incarnation of the Browns has no link , DNA, what ever you want to call it to the Browns that left Cleveland back in the mid 90's, that's the Ravens. The current Ravens were built from that Cleveland that left, its draft picks, it free agency, it's front office etc.

The team currently in Cleveland is just a Browns tribute act, and not a very good one at that.

Just cause the Texans are in Houston doesn't mean they're the the new Oilers, the Oilers are in Tennessee.

Browns fans bury their head in the sand over this and think they can keep another teams history just cause their expansion team has the same name and uniforms.

No it isn't a load of old bollocks. Of course the Ravens took everything 'Brown' with them and just re-badged it in Baltimore - they then ceased to be the 'Cleveland Browns'. And you're quite right about the Oilers, indeed for every franchise move, but the Browns are different. The team in Cleveland IS the Cleveland Browns because the people of Cleveland fought tooth and nail for that to be the case.

And I see we've got a new owner, so perhaps the success of the 1940s and 1950s can be repeated.

 

[Bladders]

No it isn't a load of old bollocks. Of course the Ravens took everything 'Brown' with them and just re-badged it in Baltimore - they then ceased to be the 'Cleveland Browns'. And you're quite right about the Oilers, indeed for every franchise move, but the Browns are different. The team in Cleveland IS the Cleveland Browns because the people of Cleveland fought tooth and nail for that to be the case.

And I see we've got a new owner, so perhaps the success of the 1940s and 1950s can be repeated.

I refer you to the last line of my last post.

As for the new owner, massive Steelers fans isn't he? Good luck with that.

 

[Brovion]

I refer you to the last line of my last post.

As for the new owner, massive Steelers fans isn't he? Good luck with that.

The last line in your post is wrong; referring me to it doesn't make it accurate.

 

[Bladders]

The last line in your post is wrong; referring me to it doesn't make it accurate.

Ok, you keep believing.

Just cause the the NFL said the city can keep the history doesn't change the fact that it was still earned by the previous players and ownership of the team that is now the Ravens.

In American football the franchise is the team not the city.

 

[Brovion]

Ok, you keep believing.

Just cause the the NFL said the city can keep the history doesn't change the fact that it was still earned by the previous players and ownership of the team that is now the Ravens.

In American football the franchise is the team not the city.

Yes, and isn't it refreshing to see that usual rule broken? And by 'previous players' you're not surely saying the Ravens can claim the championships won by the Browns in the 40s and 50s? Yes it's a pity we couldn't have hung onto the team that was being built in 1996 but there you go, they all got transferred to the Ravens (even in American football players change teams).

I haven't read this thread, but you're not a Ravens fan by any chance are you? That will explain your jaundiced, and widely-unaccepted, view.

 

[Stat Brother]

In American football the franchise is the team not the city.

How many 'franchises' are there?

Obviously that statement doesn't hold up across the board, when talking about the likes of Green Bay, Chicago, 49ers, Miami.

 

[Brovion]

Ok, you keep believing.

Just cause the the NFL said the city can keep the history doesn't change the fact that it was still earned by the previous players and ownership of the team that is now the Ravens.

In American football the franchise is the team not the city.

Sorry, one more point. The Ravens franchise is deemed to be the 'new' one, so it didn't transfer from Cleveland to Baltimore.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

I haven't read this thread, but you're not a Ravens fan by any chance are you? That will explain your jaundiced, and widely-unaccepted, view.

Er, I think its obvious which team Bladders follows if you look at his avatar!?

As for the Browns, its never felt quite right to me since they came back - Ive not had the same affinity with this franchise as I did with the original, which is probably why I just enjoy watching the game now rather than being a "die hard" fan of one team. I like the Browns, but also have a soft spot for the Bucs & Packers (adopted them as soon as Modell moved out) But one thing is for sure - I will be booing the Squeelers, along with Bladders, at Wembley.....Hate that franchise!!

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

It was in Cleveland actually and finished 8-0. Was a hard watch this one.

Loved that game - Proper smashmouth football that day!!