A "Brownie" For Your Thoughts - Which Cleveland Franchise Has It The Worst?
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 27, 2009 9:14 PM EST
38 comments
Happy Black Friday everyone! I hope your Turkey Day was fun; mine was. Today on "Brownie Thoughts" we'll be looking at a dreary subject. Sorry to add insult to injury to the Browns' season but this is a pretty interesting point to the Cleveland Curse. So bear with me.
Now, when I ask what franchise has it the worst, I mean in terms of playoff appearances, championship appearances and championship titles, which is ultimately what every fan base wants for it's said franchise. We'll look at the Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Browns and Cleveland Indians. After I give postseason specs and championship specs, etc. I will announce which franchise I think has it the worst. This post will be short, sweet and to the point.
1. The Cleveland Cavaliers - In their history, the Cavaliers have made it to the postseason 17 times. For the past 6 seasons, the Cavaliers have become a powerhouse in the NBA, mainly due to acquiring LeBron James. The Cavaliers won the East Conference Championship but lost in the Finals in the 06' - 07' season. In their most recent postseason, the Cavaliers made it to the East Conference Finals, after going into the postseason as the #1 seed and sweeping the first two rounds, only to lose to the Orlando Magic in six games. Even with one of the most prolific players in NBA history in LeBron James, the Cavaliers still can't claim a title. Ouch.
2. The Cleveland Indians - In their history, the Indians have made it to the postseason 10 times. The Indians have a total of two World Series wins, but both occurred before the 1950s. After 1950, the Indians made it to the World Series a total of three times, only to lose in all of them. In their most recent postseason in 2007, the Indians lost a heartbreaking series to their arch rivals, the Boston Red Sox. The Indians have recently hired a new manager. Hopefully it equates to winning a World Series.
3. The Cleveland Browns - In their Super Bowl era history, the Browns have made it to the postseason 13 times. Now, I understand that we're proud of our many AAFC and pre Super Bowl era championships, but for all intents and purposes, Super Bowl era playoff bouts are all I care about. The Browns have never made it to a Super Bowl in their 13 tries. The two most notable playoff games were the AFC Conference Championship games against the Denver Broncos in the late 1980s. John Elway has forever been since then wrtten into Browns' Infamy. Both games were so notable, both were titled. The 1987 game is referred to as "The Drive" because of a late fourth quarter drive by the Broncos that sealed their Super Bowl bout. The 1988 game was referred to as "The Fumble" because running back Earnest Byner lost a fumble trying to score a game - tying touchdown at the 3 yard line with 1:12 left in regulation. Such is the fate of the Browns...
Now what do I think. Obviously, I'm a Browns fan. I have been all my life. It's the only sport I really know crap about or really care about until one of the other franchises makes it to the postseason. But in all honesty, I think the Cleveland Cavaliers have it the worst. At least at present, the Cavaliers have the most chance of winning a Championship out of any of the three. They've come so close to victory so many times recently only to come up short. The other two franchises, well, I expect them to go down the crap shoot, so I feel numb when I see a losing record, not remorse or sadness. And that's why I think the Cavaliers have the worst part of the curse; something bitter sweet tastes a lot worse than nothing at all.
Hope you guys enjoyed this round of "Brownie Thoughts!" Tune in next week, same Dawg time, same Dawg channel.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ah, you beat me to it. At least I commented on his argument /sarc
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Nov 28, 2009 12:23 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Thank you? Where I’m from you just run it into the phrase “intensive purposes.” We have no time for and.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
But does the phrase “for all intesive purposes” make any sense?
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 28, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
No, it probably doesn’t in this context, but it was just an honest error — that, for some reason, is being defended as a colloquialism.
by Western Reserve on Nov 28, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
It isn’t the original phrase. And it is only used mistakenly. But I’ve always thought it makes some sense.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 28, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
I always thought it had some meaning at least also. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have made the mistake.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting choice. That Cavs team of the late ‘80s and early ’90s came so close, if not for Jordan, and the ’07-’08 Cavs would have won it if not for Garnett going to Boston. In all those seasons the Cavs had everything aligned and patiently put together the pieces only for another team to swoop in and take everything.
The Indians had that happen once (in ’97) and the Browns had it happen a couple times, but they fell in the same era (not different eras like the Cavs).
It’s hard for me to separate the pain, though.
And grammatically speaking, the correct phrase “For all intents and purposes”.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Nov 28, 2009 12:22 AM EST via mobile reply actions
The Indians had it stolen from them more thank once. The 54 and 95 teams are two of the best teams in baseball history. Yet, neither pulled out the World title. Then, the ’07 team had everything aligned, had the best record in baseball (tied) and were up 3-1 versus Boston after beating the Yankees in the first round.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 28, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I like the point you make. The team with the best chances has the farthest to fall. I’m not sure who my vote would be for. The Browns can’t really count as of right now. To me they don’t disappoint because I have no expectations of them. The Indians seem to disappoint in the years they are supposed to be good, and come through when they are not. The Cavs have been great to watch in the LBJ era.
At least the Cavs are a winner. End even though half the teams make the playoffs, it’s still nice to get to the post season. So I have a hard time saying they have it “the worst.” The Indians get my vote. Every other year, the media makes the Tribe the “hot” pick. Then they stink it up. At least in the 90’s we were a powerhouse every year. They were fun to watch. This year felt like “Major League.” Who are these guys? Don’t watch them for a week and you have to look up half the team. Trade away or just plain lose our best talent. Argh!
So I guess I take the Indians based on potential vs result. The Cavs mostly live up to their potential, (except for tonight, I’ve seen 1st graders play better). The Browns have no potential.
I think the Indians have it the worst.
Just because they opperate in the worst system in all of sports.
yeah this is what i think. with the browns and cavs you can always have optimism because those teams have salary caps and every season you have a legitimate shot at being good. the indians however have to deal with teams that have payrolls almost 4 times as high as their own, so they don’t really even have a chance most years, and they would need an incredible amount of luck in order to stay competitive for more than 2 or 3 years.
by notthatnoise on Nov 28, 2009 9:58 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree.
The Twins win division titles with a small market mentality. The White Sox won the World Series with not a huge payroll. The Marlins won the World Series in 2003 against the hated and bloated Yankees payroll. The Cardinals won the World Series with a modest payroll in 2006.
Sure it is easier with a cash flow. Just have to been smart, draft well, trade well and sign the right free agents. Indians traded two studs of pitchers and the jury is out if they will get rewarded.
The Browns have it worse in this town IMO. The last ten years they have been marginally competitive.
Sure it is easier with a cash flow. Just have to been smart, draft well, trade well and sign the right free agents.
The Yankees won the WS with 4 homegrown position players. The use money to fill in all other areas. That cannot be done in the NFL. The NFL places a premium on resources. In the NFL to be succesful, a team needs to draft well, and manage their money well. If a team doesn’t do one of those well, it struggles. There is no wiggle room.
Look at the good teams in the NFL. They all draft well. Colts always seem to find players for thier scheme and fill in for injuries every season. Who was the last major FA they signed? Same goes for NE. Granted the Pats traded for Moss and Welker but they used the same resources that everyone else has.
The only major FA to make a major difference in the last 10 years of the NFL is Drew Brees. That was because the Chargers were in a funky position. Baseball on the other hand is shaped every season by the 5 wealthiest teams in the league. Who do they want? Who do they pay for?
Yes there have been great stories of small market clubs winning, but it is usually only for a season or two and those teams are destroyed and sold to the highest bidder. For example the 2003 Marlins had these players on the roster;
A.J Burnett, Yankee. Josh Beckett, Red Sox. Mike Lowell, Yankee. Derek Lee, Cubs. Alex Gonzalez, Red Sox. Luis Castillo, Mets. Juan Pierre, Dodgers. Miguel Cabrera, Tigers. Brad Penny, Red Sox.
In fact, there are 0 players left on the Marlins from that WS team. Yet somehow the major talent has all gone to the big fish. The only reason is because of money.
IMO, there is nothing fair about the MLB. The Browns have the same amount of money to spend as the Cowboys and their brand new eleventy-billion dollar stadium has to spend.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 28, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
It is a great argument
Since 2001 the Yankees continued to spend after there failure against the D-Backs. They made Free agent signings that never made them a team, just individuals: Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Javier Vasquez, Jason Giambi, Ruben Sierra, Carl Pavano, Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright and so on. But the core was always Posada, Jeter, Pettitte, Rivera, Cano. And you could argue the Yanks would never have won a World Series without the finest closer ever in Rivera..
Another example is Philly with the Phillies, they draft Rollins, Howard, Utley and Hamels and they are basically a mid market team. It can be done.
I do agree baseball is the least fair of all major sports. I am a free market guy, I believe players should be able to go to whatever city they want to play in. This is their work, there life. It should be there choice.
That being said I love the parity, the competive leagues.
The baseball union, will never go away. The only way is if the owners force a lock out that would last for 2 years minimum, and that is hardly likely.
That’s a bad argument. Just because they made poor free agent signings in the past doesn’t mean that they aren’t helped immensely by their ability to sign free agents. Last offseason the Yankees signed the top three players on the market — do you really think they would have won the World Series without them? What other team could have afforded to sign Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira in one year? They system is immensely unfair. Just because the Yankees have made poor decisions with their money in the past doesn’t mean it’s less unfair.
And of course you need to draft and develop players well, but the big market teams can afford to keep the great players they develop while the smaller market teams cannot. The Indians are a perfect example — they’ve had many great players over the last 12 years leave, either via free agency or trade before they reach free agency, because they couldn’t afford to resign them. Do you think the Indians would have been able to keep Jeter, Rivera, and Posada all these years? Of course not.
By the way, the suggestion that the Phillies are “basically a mid-market team” is a joke. Philly is the 5th largest city in the US and the second largest city with only one MLB team. How is that a mid-market team?
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 29, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
You may not care about all the pre-Super Bowl era championships the Browns won but I’m guessing that many other Browns fans would be to differ.
I was born in the 90s and while I greatly appreciate what the Browns accomplished in the pre – Super Bowl era, I’m more interested in them being able to win the current form of a championship
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
its not a different form of championship really, its just called something different. and why don’t you care about those championships? do they not count? you included the indians world series victories even though they occurred before the browns championships, what is the criteria for a title mattering?
I was also born in the 90’s, and i think those titles count.
by notthatnoise on Nov 28, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
wow that sounds kind of snarky, to be clear i’m not trying to antagonize you or anything, i genuinely want to know why you don’t care about those victories.
by notthatnoise on Nov 28, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
Baseball never had a championship change in the Indians history. Football championships and Baseball championships are different.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
all that changed was the name though. if they had called it the american series in 1948 and changed it to world series in 1950 would the indians championships count?
by notthatnoise on Nov 28, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Well why are most stats curbed to the Post Super Bowl era? Some are and some aren’t, I wrote my article to be Post Super Bowl era curbed.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Because once they started calling it the “Super Bowl” many people in the media forgot there was football before the Super Bowl. But that doesn’t mean it’s any less important. If you’re going to ignore any Browns championship before 1967 then you should ignore any Indians championship before that date, too.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 29, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
I was born early 80’s and its hard for me to imagine how anyone after me became a Browns fan…
Many of the Yankees claimed Series titles and most of OSU’s national championships are pre-Super Bowl, so if other sports count same era championships than pro football should be no different. And since the Browns dominated in the first year of NFL play, we can make a case for our AAFL titles to ourselves as well.
It is the same “form” of championship. They just gave it a fancy (corny) name and added a few teams 40 some years ago for Super Bowl I. The Browns were the Champions of the NFL 4 times. And probably the best professional football team in the country for 4 other seasons (when they dominated the AAFC).
This dynasty is unmatched in Cleveland Sports. The Cleveland Rams won the NFL title in 45. They left, the Browns came and won the AAFC four straight years. They joined the NFL and won the NFL title in 1950. The best team in all of football was in Cleveland from EVERY year from 1945 through 1950.
It is hard to say a team with so much success in its past has it worse than a team that’s only been around for 40 years and absolutely sucked for about 25 of them, and a team that had one of the longest stretches of incompetence in American professional sports history. When you add to the Indians struggles of the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s to the current inequities of the the MLB system, I’d say they probably have it worst.
Now, if the question is which team has the most work to do to get into contention, I’d say its the Browns. Though in the NFL all that work can be done pretty quickly.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 28, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you for stating everything so I don’t have to make a huge update.
If it makes anyone feel better, I now agree with Kels.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 28, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
agree. there are 2 main reasons i value our pre-SB championships:
1. it’s all we have. if we’ve won championships, who cares when it was and what it was called. those are the championships we have.
2. our most hated foe, the steelers, have the most SB titles. and their fans, many of which are the biggest jackass fans in sports, take every chance they have to remind anyone in ear shot of that fact. they have no pre-SB championships, as i recall. therefore they don’t like to recognize pre-SB championships. as i see it, they’re only 2 chamionships ahead of us.
I was born in the mid 70’s and the old championships count in my mind for a few reasons:
1) They were great teams. Jim Brown and Otto Graham (among others) are still on the all time greats list
2) My family passed down the tradition of rooting for those teams. My grandmother (and her siblings) was all about the Browns and its because they were so great in the 40’s – 60’s. I can’t think of her without thinking of Cleveland and the Browns are a big symbol of the city in my memories
3) The Browns were innovators in the early years, switching leagues and conferences. Most people still give it up to Paul Brown as the coach who “Changed the Game.” Basically, the pre super bowl Browns did a ton to bring about the super bowl era
While it doesn’t matter a whole lot now, I think the past success that the Browns have had makes them third in this particular discussion. The Cavaliers have had some rough breaks, but the Indians with their many 2nd place finishes in the pre-playoff era down to a couple of strikes deciding the WS in the 90’s have to be the ‘cursiest’ team in Cleveland. Thats not to mention the collapse against Boston and the fact that their former roster propelled at least 2 teams to the playoffs this year and contributed to the playoff runs of other teams . . .
I wondered if someone would mention the Barons. When the Phils won their WS, the media was talking about how long it had been since Philadelphia had won a championship. . . . that they had the longest drought of any city with all 4 major sports. Not to take anything away from the Cleveland hockey community, but I thought to myself – Its only Philly cause the Barons didn’t make it.
ESPN’s Adam Shefter is reporting Cedric Benson is inactive. This may be a bad thing for the Browns.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
woops, wrong thread.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Nov 29, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
