This is for all the crybaby Browns fans who want to compare AAFC championships to Super Bowl wins. Just because your team was good several generations ago, before football was nationally accepted as it is today, that doesn't mean you have a valid point. Just because guys like Jim Brown excelled against 5 foot 11, 200 pound players who were splitting time between the novelty that was football and their ACTUAL jobs, that doesn't guarantee he'd be a HOFer today. We never see Brown's off-games, only NFL Films highlights of him running over defenders. Ask future HOFers like LaDainian Tomlinson how hard it is to run on our D.
And this is not a knock on Jim Brown, merely a statement that his greatness is partially defined by the era he played in. I respect him greatly, though.
Until you win one (just one, I'm not asking for five) of these beauties, your argument is ignorant.
This is the Super Bowl XL trophy, the only win I've been fortunate enough to see in my lifetime.
Cool trophy.
9 comments:
That trophy has some serious class...you know what I'm referring to...
So to your beautiful mind, ignorance is defined as actually considering events that occurred in a broader perspective than our own limited frame of reference. Uh, OK then.
To your beautiful mind, you are respecting Jim Brown by insinuating that he may not be a Hall of Famer by modern standards, and by denigrating the players of his era. That's beyond insulting to thousands of hard-nosed players from previous eras. The commitment and sacrifice required of them in those days before the NFL became an over-hyped playground for pampered millionaires deserves true respect and admiration, not the snide condescension from the likes of you.
I do agree that everyone's greatness is partially defined by their era. Your argument is weak because of your blatant self-serving bias in favor of the only era when the Steelers thrived: that of the engineered entertainment extravaganza.
By any meaningful measure except TV audience, the Browns' initial 10-year dynasty and ensuing run of success through the '60s is superior to anything the Steelers have accomplished in their entire history. In fact, until you hired one of those former Browns players, your franchise had absolutely nothing to show for 40 years of efforts.
Ignorance of that which predates them and attraction to shiny objects: sure signs of the primitive birdbrain.
Keep up the juvenile insults and fail to look at the actual facts.
Here's who I was talking about.
Chris said...
Yeah, Jim Brown would have a lot of trouble with the current Stiller D. Riiiiight.
November 10, 2007 3:44 PM
That was another Browns fan on my THIS IS NOT BROWNS WEEK post. It wasn't against you, but you keep acting like a child. Ooooh...I'm a birdbrain.
The truth is, both of our teams have had significant eras of failure and success. The difference is that your success came eons ago, and the team was unable to build off that success. Our success also began generations ago, but the team has been able to continue a certain level of success for the past 35+ years. If your team was so excellent, why haven't they continued the momentum started in the 60s? I only have a fascination with shiny Lombardi trophies because my team has proved, through the eras, that they can win them. If your team wins one, I'll graciously accecpt that you've had some success in the past 50 years.
No, I'm not insulting the guys who played football back when Jim Brown played, merely stating the fact that the game, players and level of competition was completely different. Guys like Kamerion Wimbley would've been even larger freaks of nature in the 60s. And I have nothing but respect for guys like Ernie Stautner.
I just get perturbed when Browns fans continually dwell on the past as if it translates to modern success. Your baseball team has been in multiple playoffs since my team has even sniffed a winning season, but I'm not calling the Pirates greater because they won championships in the 60s and 70s and have HOFers from the 20s and 30s.
Before you talk ignorance, you should think about what you're saying.
I call scoreboard. Check that broader perspective...
I'll leave it at this, guys. Your own words show that you have no clear concept about nature and extent of the Browns' dynasty. You think the Steelers are better because their best years began 35 years ago rather than 60, players got bigger, and the championship game is now called a Super Bowl.
Compare the Browns from '46-'72 and the Steelers from '72-'05. Championships. Overall record. Hall of Famers. Percentage of winning seasons. Consecutive winning seasons.
All are indisputable facts that favor the Browns. You imply that the Steelers have been on some sort of championship run for 35 years. Your "certain level of success" includes seven losing seasons and 26 years between titles. The Browns didn't have their second losing season until their 29th season of play. That's dominance in any era.
And since...?
Did you not hear me? I know how good the Browns were in the past. I'm not disputing that. But to keep bringing up the records of the 40s-60s as if it means something today is ignorant bliss.
You talk dominance and HOFers. Your team has 15 HOFers, ours has 17. Our team sucked before the Steel Curtain dynasty, but we still have 6 HOFers from the era before that dynasty. How many do you have from the era in which your team sucked? We have 12 HOFers from our dynasty era (including those who were in both eras), nearly as many as you have all together. And that's not even including guys like LC Greenwood, who still hasn't been inducted because consensus says we have too many HOFers. Or guys who will be inducted like Dermontti Dawson, Greg Lloyd and Rod Woodson, who played in those 26 years between championships.
Sure, we waited 26 years between championships 4 and 5, but you haven't had any championships in 43. But defending a team you probably never saw firsthand is defining.
If you keep referring to the distant past, you will never understand the possibility of the present and future.
All right, this is definitely it, because it's useless to debate moving goalposts. Thanks for the touching philosophy lesson about the past, present, and future. But I think I'll pass on the notion that unless you see something firsthand, it might as well not exist.
The full accomplishments of Browns exceed those of the Steelers. Time is just an arbitrary construct, depending entirely on the meaning we attach to it. It's inherently subjective, unless we commit ourselves to honest reason. There is nothing about the Steelers' successes in Super Bowl IX or last Sunday that is per se more meaningful than the revolutionary developments and unsurpassed greatness that the Cleveland Browns brought to pro football from their very beginnings.
It's all in the past.
Here's a few numbers for you before you go.
57-55: All time record of the rivalry in favor of the Steelers.
5-24: Browns record at old Three Rivers Stadium:
3-16: Browns record against the Steelers since the expansion year of 1999.
0-16: Browns record in Pittsburgh from 1970-85.
14-32: Steelers record at old Cleveland stadium (that's for your own pleasure).
1-8: Browns record at Heinz Field.
8-1: Steelers record at new Cleveland Browns Stadium.
13: Number of head coaches the Browns have had since 1969. The Steelers have had Noll, Cowher and Tomlin.
2: Owners who disputed Modell's decision to move the team. One of those was Dan Rooney.
I'm not disputing how good the Browns were or what they gave to the NFL. Hell, myself and other Steelers fans were the first people to support the Browns and Browns fans when Modell decided to move the team. However, success in the 60s and contributions to the foundation of the sport doesn't make Cleveland the greater franchise. We haven't even begun to discuss Art Rooney, an architect of the NFL who was inducted into the HOF prior to the Steel Curtain dynasty. I'm not making up these numbers and facts.
Post a Comment