Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Reviewing the New NFL Rules for the 2010-2011 Season

The NFL meetings took place last week and most of the proposed rule changes went through, including the overtime one that we discussed on here a little over a month ago.

I was pretty surprised by the amount of owners who supported the proposal. After all, if it's been an issue for many years now and it passed as easily as it did, then why wasn't a change made several years ago?

Originally, there were two reasons to be opposed to the new overtime rules:

  1. One felt an alternative system would still have been a better option.
  2. The new rules would only apply to playoff games.

Thankfully, it looks like we might not have a regular season/playoff game discrepancy after all. According to the Associated Press, several owners expect the discussions of implementing the rule for the regular season to be voted upon during the May meetings. If it passed by a majority vote of 28 to 4 for the playoffs, I don't see how it could be voted down for regular season games.

Here are the other rule changes that will take effect next season:

Star-divide

  • Defenseless Receiver Anyone Rule: If you know the "defenseless receiver" rule, then you should have no problem understanding this rule change. The amendment now includes all players, meaning you can't launch yourself into a running back above the shoulders.
  • Blowing the Play Dead When Losing a Helmet: This only applies to the ballcarrier. I remember this happening to Jeremy Shockey once I believe, and I thought it happened to a tight end on our team too. If a ballcarrier has the ball and their helmet comes off, the play is blown dead with the ball to be placed at the spot where the helmet came off. This rule doesn't apply to the nose tackles who lose their helmet every other play.
  • Protect the Long Snapper Even More: In the past, you couldn't line up directly over the long snapper on field goals or punts -- you could only lean in to the area next to their pads, and if you were too close, the referee would give you a little tap before the play started. Now, it sounds like defensive players will be even further away from the long snapper.
  • Dead Ball Personal Foul Penalty (End of Half): Imagine the first half is over, and the play is blown dead. Now imagine that Derek Anderson rushes in from the Cardinals bench to midfield and pushes a member of the opposing team to the ground. Now, a 15-yard penalty will be assessed at the start of the third quarter instead of the half just being over. If the game is subject to overtime, the same condition applies at the end of a fourth quarter.
  • "Reasonable Opportunity" for Muffed Punts: If a punt returner waives for a fair catch and then the ball bounces off of their shoulder pads slightly, the coverage team cannot attempt to rush in and recover the ball until it touches the ground. The punt returner has first dibs on maintaining possession.
  • Jerry Jones Scoreboard Rule: This applies to any videoboard or wires that are above the field of play. If the football strikes it on a pass, punt, etc, the play is canceled and re-started with no time taken off the clock. If it is in question as to whether or not the ball was interfered with, the referee can announce that he is reviewing the play, even if it is not within the two-minute warning. If the referee doesn't want to bother checking, coaches may also choose to throw the challenge flag.
  • 10 Second Screwoff Runoff Rule: This one sounds like an unfair one to me. The rule states that if there is a booth review within the final minute of a half and the clock was running at the time of the challenge, there will be a 10-second runoff (teams can take a timeout to negate the loss of time).

    Here's a scenario where I see this being a problem. Imagine the Browns are losing 21-20 with 19 seconds left in the game and no timeouts left, and we are 35 yards away from the end zone on a windy day. Jake Delhomme fires a pass over the middle to Benjamin Watson, who makes a diving catch in the middle of the field. The clock at the time of the catch reads about 10 seconds, and our unit rushes back to the line in hopes to spike the ball with about 2 seconds left. But wait...(whistle blows)...the officials want to review the play to see if it was indeed a catch. They review the play and say this...

    "After reviewing the play, the ruling on the field stands." (Browns fans cheer) "We will now runoff 10 seconds off the game clock. The game is over." Even I might participate in some bottle throwing then.

    Unless the rule wasn't fully explained, I see this potentially being a huge problem in a situation like this. Don't say these scenarios rarely happen either; they happen all the time, sometimes in the most critical of games.
  • Indianapolis Colts Rule: NOTE: THIS ONE IS NOT A RULE, AND IT IS MERELY UNDER CONSIDERATION. When the schedule gets made, Roger Goodell wants to look into ensuring that all Week 16 and Week 17 games have some competitive incentive (i.e. being division games) in hopes to reduce so many teams from resting their players (thereby making it easier for the other teams to win).

Feel free to leave your own comments regarding the rule changes, especially if you feel I have misinterpreted any of the rules.

Comment 90 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I like the Indy rule idea, the runoff rule seems awful, and I doubt that they would make a rule with such a horrible consequence. But then again nothing would really surprise me after all the times they’ve gypped us on things that should have stood and could/would have won us a game.

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 28, 2010 5:39 PM EDT reply actions  

The 10 second runoff is completely ignorant.WOW

by ronbo714 on Mar 28, 2010 5:51 PM EDT reply actions  

The runoff rule is so stupid! I really don’t understand the point of that. In a situation like you mentioned, that’s a difference between a win and a loss. The defenseless rule and blowing the play dead when a helmet is lost are good rules to ensure safety but they don’t interfere with the game too much.

I also like the Indy rule. This hasn’t happened to the Browns, but I don’t want to watch 2 weeks of backups playing.

by emily522 on Mar 28, 2010 6:30 PM EDT reply actions  

actually that kept the browns out of the playoffs in ’07

I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

by notthatnoise on Mar 28, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, 4 picks to a shitty Cincinnati team kept the Browns out of the playoffs in ’07.

One picture is worth 128K words.

by StuckInPa on Mar 28, 2010 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

All games should be created equal no matter when they occur in the season when there are only 16 games. The fact is that Tennessee had a likely loss gift-wrapped as a win to them. The Titans finished the season with the same record as the Browns, but did not deserve to be in over the Browns, no matter how poorly Anderson played in the Cincinnati game. A road win is tough against any team particularly within the division.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 28, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

You are right Roger, we won three out of four at the end of 07 and 10-6 will usually get you in the playoffs

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I can really see both sides, because the picks in Cincy shouldn’t have happened, and neither should have the Titans win. But if we want to be picky, we should have been 11-5. I’m sure you remember KWII being pushed out of bounds in the endzone in Arizona prior to the new rule.

One picture is worth 128K words.

by StuckInPa on Mar 28, 2010 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes that one and then the time out rule was also changed in a game we should have won in Oakland.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 28, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Doesn’t matter. We had control of our own playoff future and we didn’t capitalize.

You can’t blame other teams when we didn’t take care of business. Sure, I would like the proposed change, and I would love to get to the playoffs. But you gotta TCB.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 28, 2010 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

We did take care of business. We won 10 games, so did Tennessee. When they happened is irrelevant in my opinion.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 28, 2010 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with you. We played 16 games against teams playing their best. Tennessee got a free one at the end.

by BuenosAires_Dawg on Mar 29, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorgi can go to hell. His suckyness kept us from the playoffs.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 29, 2010 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I blame that asshole Dungy.

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 29, 2010 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

I still blame the play calling in the Cincy game.

by JustBob on Mar 30, 2010 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

If we won 11, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s TCB. Having the same record as another team still leaves some things to chance. If you want in the playoffs, win the games.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 29, 2010 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree about leaving it to chance, if we had won 16 we would have been the number 1 seed, but alas we didn’t. The only point I am trying to make is that in a season with a small number of regular season games, ties are bound to occur frequently. If you were to take an impartial objective observer to take a look and determine if the tiebreaking were fair, I suspect he would conclude that in a scenario where there is only 16 games, allowing the fairness of just 1 game to be called into question would make the tiebreaking system very unfair.

Removing my emotion from the situation, I think it is a big problem that the NFL acknowledges and is even trying to deal with.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 29, 2010 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, we did lose to Cincy at the end and blew our chance, but the games against Oakland and Arizona were our demise. Total ream jobs.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 29, 2010 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions  

Obviously ties are bound to happen and do (almost?) every year. In that situation there is no way to have the teams in question in direct control of their fate and I would argue that doing so would be the only way to have fair outcome.

Is it fair that the Titans got an easy win against Indy’s 2nd stringers? Fair, yes—the Titans played by the rules. The Titans didn’t have control over the Colts’ lineups. Did it live up to the integrity with which you would like teams to play the game? No. And it doesn’t feel right.

Would it have been fair if someone made the playoffs because the beat the Colts the one week Peyton suffered an injury and had to sit out?

Was it fair that no push-out call was made when Kellen caught that TD pass at the end of the ARI game? No.

Would it have been fair that we got to play a horrible SF team in week 17 when TEN might have faced the Colts’ starters?

Is SoS fair in determining tiebreakers? It is certainly out of the team’s control. And having really good teams or really bad teams beat up on one another could drastically alter SoS.

Is using division records fair when we play in the AFC North with two perennial SB contenders and a third team that fluctuates between 11 and 5 wins? It would be a lot easier for ARI to have a winning record in their division. Or SD.

Is it fair that we get to play the Lions and Raiders almost every year?

The only thing that I think would be fair would be head to head matchups, and that seems implausible. I don’t think there is a fair solution on the table, which is why nothing has passed yet. I bet even if something does pass it won’t be much better.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 29, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

The disctinction I am making is between a schedule of only 16 games in which each game should be played at the fullest integrity. Injuries happen, and there are plenty of other circumstances which will never allow for an absolutely perfectly fair tiebreak putting the two teams on the same level.

But that is not the point. The point is to make sure that each of the 16 games are played with integrity, the rest is just the breaks.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 29, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think you can do that and integrity ≠ fairness. I think we’ve done this at least once before here.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 30, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes. When the game happened back in 2007, I was making the same points. No one will ever convince me that a game in week 1 should mean less than a game in week 17 which is why despite the tragic loss to the Bengals, I think we got hosed.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 30, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

This

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 31, 2010 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

We lost, the titans won, all games meaning the same, I would probably be willing to bet that the Indy team team the titans played were still better than the Raiders team we lost to in week 3. Also obviously the Colts packed it in the last game but in their first meeting the Colts only won by 2.

They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best

About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback

by Villeslgr on Mar 31, 2010 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure if you remember watching that last game, but Sorgi was incompetent at QB and the Colts still had a chance to win the game on the last drive. It was the most pathetic NFL game I have ever seen.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 31, 2010 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Should be equal in value, aren’t equal in value, probably impossible to make equal in value.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 31, 2010 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yep. Moreover we had a terrible strength of schedule that year. I’m pretty sure that even if we had made the playoffs we would have been exposed instantly.

"Smokescreen."

by jaws. on Mar 29, 2010 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, 4 picksthrown by Derek Anderson to a shitty Cincinnati team kept the Browns out of the playoffs in ’07

Just clarifying Why we didn’t make the playoffs.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 28, 2010 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

D.A. did suck at the end of that year, or the defence’s had him figured out by them, but we did win two O.T. games that year and the crazy home game vs Cincy-kinda is what it is

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

yep…thats true…

I would like someone to figure out how many games he won…then figure out how many he lost. He did win us a couple nice games, but at least 2 of the 6 losses I can think of off the top of my head, he lost…

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 28, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a DA fan-our opponents qb rating was better than his that year.

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah. we didn’t have a great defense that year.

He might have won a few games, but I believe he lost at least 2…

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 28, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

He also won us a lot of games as well. Also, remember that one of the those six losses, he didn’t start (the first one to Pitt). DA was 10-5 as our starter that year. (Happy to see him go, but he doesn’t deserve the only blame for our failure to make the playoffs — there were a lot of factors and DA was part of the reason we were in contention.)

by TheDriveStillHurts on Mar 29, 2010 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

yes. I do agree with that. He did win us games, more than he lost and we would not have been in contention without him…

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 29, 2010 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

Any NFL caliber QB (this excludes Brady Quinn) could have done as good or better a job than DA. He was surrounded by amazing weapons. Braylon was catching almost everything thrown at him. KWII wasn’t injured (I don’t think) and Joe Jurevicius is one of the most sure handed WRs to wear a Browns uniform. It was also the season we drafted God’s gift to the Browns, Joe Thomas. And don’t forget that Jamal Lewis easily ran for 1,000 yards that season. The credit for our winning season should not go to DA.

One picture is worth 128K words.

by StuckInPa on Mar 30, 2010 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions  

I agree…with all the weapons, he was a solid QB but nothing better than just good…I totally agree that a competent starting caliber QB could have done the same…If you put marc bulger in there, we might have made the playoffs.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 30, 2010 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions  

Amazing is a stretch especially with the benefit of hindsight, but it was the best trio we have had of offensive targets.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 30, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

I don’t think amazing is a stretch at all, even if it was for just a year.. They made a crap QB look like a pro-bowler. That is no small feat. You saw what happened once they left.

One picture is worth 128K words.

by StuckInPa on Mar 30, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Only Joe J was missing in 2008 (and we added Stallworth) and you saw what happened with the same offensive players.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 30, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

All those players missed a lot of time so I guess there wasn’t time to build the chemistry. In fact I kept fooling myself into thinking that “it’ll be alright when player X” comes back.

by skipkirk on Mar 30, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

I call it crashing back to reality since none of them have been able to come close to what they did in 2007 since then.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 30, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

and rufio could be right, the offensive system may have accentuated their actual talents.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 30, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

It did, and I am sure not having a gameplan for a first year OC, as well as a first year OC’s naivete (and therefore fortitude) probably helped too. I thought Chud reeled it back a little in year two, or at least didn’t surprise DCs as much in year 2.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 31, 2010 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions  

It wasn’t the same group of players, we traded Braylonwithhands for Normalbraylon.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 31, 2010 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Braylon has since proven that 2007 was the exception to the rule of him sucking.

by Roger Dorn on Mar 31, 2010 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

He still had the most drops in the league that year I think.

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 31, 2010 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right, we got Normalbraylon back after 2007. It was like he was a different (much better) player in 2007. If a QB had 2007 Braylon to throw to and then the real Braylon showed up the next year, I’d expect to see the QB take a step back.

I am really not trying to counter your point. More making fun of Edwards.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 31, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

That offense itself was also very good.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 30, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

2007 was a smokescreen.

They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best

About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback

by Villeslgr on Mar 31, 2010 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

10 Second Screwoff Runoff Rule:

Agree.

When you look at how trigger happy some of these officiating crews are with the reviews in the last two minutes, I really see this one becoming a pain in the ass.

Also, I didn’t like the onside kick rule in the new overtime. If you are the receiving team and the opponent tries and gets an onside kick, it turns into a sudden death game. I would be onside kicking like a Mofo. You don’t get it, they still have to score a TD to win.

by Bernie19Kosar on Mar 28, 2010 6:52 PM EDT reply actions  

I honestly think it will just eliminate any reviews with <10 seconds left, except on scoring plays. How would you like to be the ref who blows the whistle to review and ends the game? I don’t think any ref would do that. The rule clearly needs adjustments.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 28, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I already expressed my opinion about the 10 Second Screwoff rule.
What a load of crap. They must want people to riot.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 8:54 PM EDT reply actions  

This run off rule would make it easy for the ref’s to bet on a game-not that happens in pro sports. However,
I am sure this rule will be adjusted to make sense. The comish hates bad press and this will blow up in his face

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 8:54 PM EDT reply actions  

This runoff rule is crap. I can’t imagine we actually begin the season with it in place. Bottlegate 2, here we come.

One picture is worth 128K words.

by StuckInPa on Mar 28, 2010 9:43 PM EDT reply actions  

I just saw this on John Clayton’s blog from before the meetings. It offers a little different spin to the rule than what I interpreted from the Associated Press:

Also, inside the last minute of a game or half, the committee has proposed having a 10-second runoff if a replay call is reversed on a play in which there should have been a running clock. Link

This would mean that if our catch was originally ruled a completion, there would be no runoff because the clock was already running from the original ruling. However, we could still get screwed a little if the pass was called incomplete on the field, then they review it and rule it as a completion — since the clock wasn’t running initially after the “incompletion” call, a reversal would seem to call for the runoff and end the game if it were under 10 seconds on the clock.

The rule, if true in this sense, makes it a little more bearable only if you assume that it would’ve taken the average team exactly 10 seconds to execute a spike.

Either way, it seems like such an unnecessary rule with little incentive to improving the game that I don’t see how it was approved…

Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.

by Chris Pokorny on Mar 28, 2010 10:00 PM EDT reply actions  

I don’t like it Chris. Nothing good can come from it.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

You’re still being penalized for a missed call by an official.

It is better, but it still sucks.

Anyone want to take odds that this will kill the Browns at least once this season?

by Bernie19Kosar on Mar 28, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

seems like they should just make the runoff only 4-6 seconds and then start the clock with you at the line.

"Smokescreen."

by jaws. on Mar 29, 2010 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I like Holmgren’s shirt. I wonder where he bought it?

Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Mar 28, 2010 10:16 PM EDT reply actions  

the local ‘Big and Tall’ store.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Put-In-Bay, got one just like it

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

WTF is “Put in Bay”?

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

A very cool party island in lake erie, about 50 miles nw of Cleveland

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Wow dude.

But just saying, rarely do you coime out of PIB a saint… very rarely.

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 28, 2010 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Only if you can leave before dark

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

“Wow dude”?

I’m not from there, fatty.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

How don’t you know about it though man? It’s legendary.

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 28, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

fatty?

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Mar 28, 2010 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Alluding to my Facebook picture I’d assume.

I don’t think I’m fat personally.

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 28, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’ve been to Cleveland about 12 times and haven’t heard of it. I’ll ask my dad about it tomorrow.
And you’re not fat, bro. Just messin’ with ya.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 29, 2010 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Really? Is this the third grade?

by Bernie19Kosar on Mar 29, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

didn’t you know?

I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

by notthatnoise on Mar 29, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

I really hope this isn’t a Family Guy reference, cause the Surfin Bird episode was THE WORST episode they ever made, and this is coming from a show that likes to drag out stupid stuff like: Ssssssssss aaaaaahhhhhh, sssssss aaaaaahhhhh…..

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 29, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hated it the too, but now every time I hear a prelude to that joke I laugh my ass off.

Actively seeking inspiration for a new handle

by danvail on Mar 29, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

I cringe.

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 29, 2010 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 29, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

/cringe

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 29, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

It wasn’t.

I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.

by notthatnoise on Mar 31, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

cool haha

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 31, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

I already said It was a joke. No reason to drag it out longer.

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 29, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

PIB has a cool Browns backer party every year in June with retired players, bone lady ect. Lot of fun, I think the
place is the Skyway

by badrat on Mar 28, 2010 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seriously? It’s a nice shirt.

Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.

by golanbatrac on Mar 28, 2010 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Damn you beat me to it! Soon as I saw that shirt I figured it had to be Tommy Bahama.

They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best

About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback

by Villeslgr on Mar 28, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

same place Frank Costanza buys his shirts.

I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.

by bross09 on Mar 28, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s cruise wear!!

If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.

by Brownie's Year on Mar 28, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Only Joe Thomas could pull that shirt off.

Literally and figuratively.

"Spartans never die Jorge. They're just missing in action."

by SpecialBrownie on Mar 28, 2010 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

This made me laugh.

For the love of Joe Thomas.....

by North Coast Flea on Mar 28, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

i think i actually have that hawaiian shirt……or something close to it…

by sleepy042 on Mar 29, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.

Community Guidelines
Send us a Scoop

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / @# / !@
Small
Top 5 Bubble Players
Small
All-time NFL mock draft on MtD
Buddhathomas_small
Cleveland Browns 2012 Prediction - A Sailor's Perspective
000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / !^ / !@
Cribbs_small
2012 Rookie Predictions
Nfl_u_okoye_200_small
A look of the 2012 Browns O-line
000_0505_small
Kardiac Assessment % / ( / !@
00000021_small
browns Q for 12 who are they
Gray_cat_thinking_small
That time of year again.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

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

free hit counter javascript


Executive Editor

Dbn_small Chris Pokorny

Minions

Funny-good-times-11_small Bernie19Kosar

Rufiohookgrin01_small rufio

Hadenward-new2_small Jon @ DBN

Moderators

N3tdgy_medium_small Brownie's Year

Polar_cap_of_mars_planet_small notthatnoise