Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

For the deniers. Our rivalry with Pitt went to Baltimore


Gorka

Recommended Posts

Can't believe I agree with a Gorka post... the end times must be drawing near... probably arriving Nov 3rd... or so...

 

But yeah... both teams have to be be good at the same time and play meaningful games to be true rivals. And that's rarely been the case between us and PTG. So ours just falls to the regional rivalry thing... kinda the lowest teir.

 

BLT? Who has battled for AFCN supremacy since 2000? There's your rivalry...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

Can't believe I agree with a Gorka post... the end times must be drawing near... probably arriving Nov 3rd... or so...

 

But yeah... both teams have to be be good at the same time and play meaningful games to be true rivals. And that's rarely been the case between us and PTG. So ours just falls to the regional rivalry thing... kinda the lowest teir.

 

BLT? Who has battled for AFCN supremacy since 2000? There's your rivalry...

I think the Steelers might be exposed this game. Jackson has been correlled this season and he might go off this game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and even more significantly Jackson has been corralled ... ;)

Lamar's always the X-factor in Raven's games, but I saw a good breakdown a couple days ago on NFL Live of the PTG WR Corps vs. BLT DBs matchup. Expectation being that BLTs' press, man coverage can upset the timing of PTGs' short passing game. And with Ben there's little fear of him running with DBs' backs turned to him.

So PTG pass-rush lane/depth discipline vs. BLT press-man... whichever breaks down the least should key the victory of what should be a great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Icecube said:

I think the Steelers might be exposed this game. Jackson has been correlled this season and he might go off this game. 

I'm still not convinced Lamar Jackson is a long term at answer at QB for them... Or anybody for that matter... Yes he has a nice skill set... But at some point.. His mojo has to run out.. He still throws like a girl.. Run first QB's normally don't last long.. Yes I know there are anomalies like Mike Vick and Steve Young.. But even they learned to win in the pocket...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steelers will win this game, they're the better team.

I'm in disagreement on the rivalry. Just because the Browns have stunk for so long doesn't mean the longest running series in the AFC isn't a rivalry. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

The Steelers will win this game, they're the better team.

I'm in disagreement on the rivalry. Just because the Browns have stunk for so long doesn't mean the longest running series in the AFC isn't a rivalry. 

I agree with you, but rivalries have come to be perceived in two ways.

Historically we will always be the main rivals to Pittsburgh,  arguably the best rivalry in the NFL....as is OSU and Mich in college, no matter how many times OSU beats their ass.

Others view a rivalry as a reflection of wins and losses.  I suppose in a perfect world a 50/50 win loss record would make for the perfect rivalry.

I started this thread based on the latter perception of a rivalry.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Can't believe I agree with a Gorka post... the end times must be drawing near... probably arriving Nov 3rd... or so...

 

But yeah... both teams have to be be good at the same time and play meaningful games to be true rivals. And that's rarely been the case between us and PTG. So ours just falls to the regional rivalry thing... kinda the lowest teir.

 

BLT? Who has battled for AFCN supremacy since 2000? There's your rivalry...

Not surprising you'd agree with me now because I just happen to be wrong. This thread was created to pander to those such as yourself with a skewed perception of a what a rivalry actually is.

A definition of a rivalry:

A rivalry is the state of two people or groups engaging in a lasting competitive relationship. Rivalry is the "against each other" spirit between two competing sides. The relationship itself may also be called "a rivalry", and each participant or side a rival to the other.

Nothing here about both competitors having to be good at the same time "to be true rivals"  is there Tour?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gorka said:

Not surprising you'd agree with me now because I just happen to be wrong. This thread was created to pander to those such as yourself with a skewed perception of a what a rivalry actually is.

A definition of a rivalry:

A rivalry is the state of two people or groups engaging in a lasting competitive relationship. Rivalry is the "against each other" spirit between two competing sides. The relationship itself may also be called "a rivalry", and each participant or side a rival to the other.

Nothing here about both competitors having to be good at the same time "to be true rivals"  is there Tour?

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, nickers said:

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

 

^ This. Holy shit, OMG this. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nickers said:

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

 

In the meantime we will settle on that old song "I don't want to work. I just want bang on de head all day!"😂

 CLEVELAND, OHIO - NOVEMBER 14: Defensive end Myles Garrett #95 of the Cleveland Browns hits Quarterback Mason Rudolph #2 of the Pittsburgh Steelers over the head with his helmet during the second half in the game at FirstEnergy Stadium on November 14, 2019 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

In the meantime we will settle on that old song "I don't want to work. I just want bang on de head all day!"😂

 CLEVELAND, OHIO - NOVEMBER 14: Defensive end Myles Garrett #95 of the Cleveland Browns hits Quarterback Mason Rudolph #2 of the Pittsburgh Steelers over the head with his helmet during the second half in the game at FirstEnergy Stadium on November 14, 2019 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Jason Miller/Getty Images)

How the hell you let someone beat you up with your own helmet.... 

Can you image having to tell your dad.... “Ya I started a fight, then the guy kicked my ass with my own helmet”

 

Hoping both teams come out of this game with major injuries to key players. Fuck em’ all.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nickers said:

The rivalry is still there with the 45 and older generation... It's lying dormant waiting for the Browns to get better and make it meaningful again...

 

Yep, the good old days where Turkey Jones lives on!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gorka said:

Not surprising you'd agree with me now because I just happen to be wrong. This thread was created to pander to those such as yourself with a skewed perception of a what a rivalry actually is.

A definition of a rivalry:

A rivalry is the state of two people or groups engaging in a lasting competitive relationship. Rivalry is the "against each other" spirit between two competing sides. The relationship itself may also be called "a rivalry", and each participant or side a rival to the other.

Nothing here about both competitors having to be good at the same time "to be true rivals"  is there Tour?

No, there's not... but then the term "true rivals" doesn't appear in your unattributed definition does it? 

Are true rivalries one-sided? Not in my book... also not in Webster's or Oxford's where "competitiveness" is a prominent criteria.

In my first reply I alluded to their being "tiers" in rivalries. "True" is one of the higher tiers. "Heated" sits atop the pyramid.

 

Ask Vagetron if he and his Steeler buds see us as a rival?

 

Then go "skew" yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bob806 said:

Just because the Browns have stunk for so long doesn't mean the longest running series in the AFC isn't a rivalry. 

Longest running what in the who?

There are at least a dozen former AFL teams in line to correct you, Bob...

 

That said the fact that the Browns and Steelers both made the jump to the AFC at the merger is testament to the existence of a rivalry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Longest running what in the who?

There are at least a dozen former AFL teams in line to correct you, Bob...

 

That said the fact that the Browns and Steelers both made the jump to the AFC at the merger is testament to the existence of a rivalry.

I swear I've heard on a number of occasions the Browns-Steelers series is the oldest in the AFC. 59-75-1 (135 games). No other teams in the AFC have met more, including the original AFL teams. So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough 🙁

For example, the Broncos & Raiders, both original AFL teams have met 119 times (64-53-2 in favor of the Raiders). Chiefs (Dallas Texans)-Raiders have met 120 times, Bills-Jets (NY Titans) 120 times, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

I swear I've heard on a number of occasions the Browns-Steelers series is the oldest in the AFC. 59-75-1 (135 games). No other teams in the AFC have met more, including the original AFL teams. So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough 🙁

For example, the Broncos & Raiders, both original AFL teams have met 119 times (64-53-2 in favor of the Raiders). Chiefs (Dallas Texans)-Raiders have met 120 times, Bills-Jets (NY Titans) 120 times, etc....

Technically you'd be correct, since both the Browns and Steelers are AFC teams NOW and their rivalry goes back to 1950, even though the first 20 seasons it was in the NFL. 

Jesus, is 59-75-1 the Browns record vs the Steelers now? They were something along the lines of 31-9 after the first 20 years vs Pittsburgh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

Technically you'd be correct, since both the Browns and Steelers are AFC teams NOW and their rivalry goes back to 1950, even though the first 20 seasons it was in the NFL. 

Jesus, is 59-75-1 the Browns record vs the Steelers now? They were something along the lines of 31-9 after the first 20 years vs Pittsburgh. 

Yep, it sucks. 

The Browns have only won 6 times in Pittsburgh since 1970. Ouch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

Yep, it sucks. 

The Browns have only won 6 times in Pittsburgh since 1970. Ouch.

50 years... 6 fucking wins. 

How completely one-sided has this rivalry become? 

Since the 1989 season, in which the Browns destroyed the Steelers 51-0 at Three Rivers, the Browns have had THREE winning seasons. (1994, 2002 and 2007).

The Browns went 0-8 vs the Steelers in those three winning seasons. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bob806 said:

So maybe you misinterpreted my comment or I wasn't clear enough 🙁

Neither... although it's not you, it's me... ;)

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

50 years... 6 fucking wins. 

How completely one-sided has this rivalry become? 

Since the 1989 season, in which the Browns destroyed the Steelers 51-0 at Three Rivers, the Browns have had THREE winning seasons. (1994, 2002 and 2007).

The Browns went 0-8 vs the Steelers in those three winning seasons. 

Jeezus. That is a brutal read. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2020 at 10:24 PM, Tour2ma said:

Neither... although it's not you, it's me... ;)

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

The last time I looked the league that both teams played in was the National Football League.  Yes, the Browns/Steelers rivalry predated the conception of the AFL or the AFC.  It is why it is the longest running rivalry between two teams currently a part of the AFC.   That is simply the way to look at it. 

Though, in a certain sense one could say that the Browns/Colts rivalry is actually longer because the Browns and Colts were rivals in the AAFC.  Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=50s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time....but if you take the "hiatus" approach that was taken when the Browns did not play for 3 years in the 90s you could say the Browns/Colts is a longer rivalry of current AFC  teams, although fewer games have been played than Browns/Steelers because the Browns and Colts have not been in the same division, not playing twice a year.  (but, as I said, the league does not take that approach.....it says the original Colts went defunct and that a new franchise came on board).  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

The last time I looked the league that both teams played in was the National Football League.  Yes, the Browns/Steelers rivalry predated the conception of the AFL or the AFC.  It is why it is the longest running rivalry between two teams currently a part of the AFC.   That is simply the way to look at it. 

Though, in a certain sense one could say that the Browns/Colts rivalry is actually longer because the Browns and Colts were rivals in the AAFC.  Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=60s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time....but if you take the "hiatus" approach that was taken when the Browns did not play for 3 years in the 90s you could say the Browns/Colts is a longer rival of current AFC  teams.  (but, as I said, the league does not take that approach.....it says the original Colts went defunct and that a new franchise came on board).  

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 😡.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Neither... although it's not you, it's me... ;)

I simply didn't think of NFL meetings counting in an AFC count, but did for AFL.

Logical? Maybe not, but just the way I saw it.

I get it. The NFL changes just like anything else.

When I was a kid, my Dad told me I could like any team I wanted except the Rams, Lions, & Giants. 

He hated listening to Pat Summerall, because he kicked a GW FG vs the Browns in a game back in 1958.Lol...I have the same angst towards Denver & Miami, must be hereditary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 😡.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

Do you mean OUR games against them.....or their games against each other?    I would say both propositions are true. Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis and Houston do not cry out "Natural rivalries" to me. The NFC South is much better in that regard IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Its just that the Colts AAFC franchise that merged into the NFL in 1950 went belly up a year or two later,  but then a new Colts franchise was revived in the mid=60s.   It was considered a new franchise at the time.... 

The "revived" Colts started up in 1953, and won NFL Titles in 1958 and 1959. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bob806 said:

I get it. The NFL changes just like anything else.

When I was a kid, my Dad told me I could like any team I wanted except the Rams, Lions, & Giants. 

He hated listening to Pat Summerall, because he kicked a GW FG vs the Browns in a game back in 1958.Lol...I have the same angst towards Denver & Miami, must be hereditary.

Some rivalries I always thought were phonied up.   Cowboys/Redskins.   Except for the obvious Old West connection....which is now gone with the Redskin name, isn't it.....Dallas vs. Washington just isn't  a natural rivalry.    Dallas/Houston...sure.    Washington/Baltimore?  Absolutely. 

Some natural rivalries have gone by the wayside.   Cleveland/Detroit in the 50s was IT.   and Detroit is actually closer than Pittsburgh (as the crow flies).

Many rivalries have not been allowed to nourish because of the NFC/AFC division.   Ergo....I have proposed that ...when the league goes to 17 games,  that 17th game should be designated as a perpetual rivalry game:

Jets v. Giants....every year

Ravens/WTF team....every year

Dallas/Houstion

Miami/Tampa

Cleveland/Detroit

Pittsburgh/Philly

Rams/Chargers now

(formerly  Raiders/49ers when both were in Bay area.....that could still possibly work)

And others.   A few teams may not have a natural rival from the other conference,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob806 said:

To hell with Tony Dungy for resting his regulars in 2007 😡.

Honestly though, I bet it's just me, but the games with the AFC South just don't have much excitement, no rivalry feel at all. 

I get what you mean... I tend to get more into Browns games vs old school NFC teams like the Eagles, Packers, Bears, etc than I do against the Panthers or Falcons. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

The "revived" Colts started up in 1953, and won NFL Titles in 1958 and 1959. 

OK...yea,  there you go.  I meant to say mid-50s above, not 60s.  Since edited.   I know the Colts played in 1950.....so they only "missed"  2 years:  51-52.  That is fewer than the Browns missed 96/97/98. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...