Talk:Cleveland Browns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Cleveland Browns is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] How many 50's championships?

In the "infobox" for the Browns, the following line appears:

League championships won: AAFC: 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949. NFL: 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964.

Yet the section "NFL Dominance follows AAFC Dominance" concludes with the clause:

...the Browns simply resumed their dominant position among pro football teams, ... capturing four championships during the 1950s.

So is there a missing championship in the infobox, or did the Browns only win three championships in the 50's?

— DLJessup 16:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retired numbers

There should be an explanatory note about #45 Don Fleming, ie, who was he and why is his number retired. Hanksummers (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Browns, so when I read the intro paragraph I thought that they were now a defunct team because the intro part makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the Browns returned in 1999 (something I had to find out by scrolling way down into the article). I would rewrite it myself, but as I said I know nothing about the Browns. Qutezuce 17:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Be my guest. For reference, you should also read the intro to Baltimore Ravens too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot

He looks suspiciously like one of the Snap, Crackle and Pop Elves. --Sliat 1981 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So does every post-war era elf character. What's your point? --Heavy (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Browns' unoffical mascot is an elf known as a Brownie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopShelf17 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Lerner

On the Browns sleeves, they wear an "AL". I believe this is a recognition of former owner Alfred Lerner, who is credited with bringing the Browns back to Cleveland in 1999. Does anyone know if I'm right?

It's actually in memorium of his death from cancer in October 2002.

This is already mentioned in the "Logo and uniforms" section of the article: "...to honor Al Lerner who died in 2002 after buying the resurrected team in 1999..." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform

During a sizable period after their 3 heartbreaking playoff losses in the eighties the Browns used only their away (white) jerseys, even for home games. As far as I know they are the only team to have done so. I'd like to see a mention of this and a fleshing out of it if anyone has some details or can source the specifics of it. It is a unique and interesting aspect of Browns history and it would be nice to see it mentioned if anyone has accurate information. Velophile (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

- I have reverted back to the version before the mention of the team colors being a tribute to the BGSU Falcons. Two reasons: first, I've heard several accounts of where the colors came from, and this is the first time in my 30 years of following the team that I've heard (or read) BGSU mentioned as the inspiration. Secondly, if in fact this is the case, well then we need to cite it. Legitimacy is gained only through proper channels, and Wikipedia standards require citations. This page is incredibly long, and it adding even more stuff to it -- particularly stuff without citations -- is taking us in the wrong direction. I am going to begin overhauling the page, citing what can be cited, removing what is fluff, opinion, or obvious speculation. Ryecatcher773 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bgsusports.com/mambo/content/view/200/70/

Interesting, but not necessarily the reason Paul Brown chose the colors. First off, what you said, and what this mention on the Falcons page says are two different things.

Here’s what you’re saying:

The team's colors, seal brown and orange, are inspired by those of Bowling Green State University. The Browns' first coach, Paul Brown, observed the BGSU football Falcons' color scheme and adopted it for his team of professional gridders. The Browns, for many of their seminal years, held training camp on the BGSU campus.

Here’s what the BGSU website says:

Legend has it that Leon Winslow, an industrial arts faculty member, got the idea from watching a women’s hat on a bus to nearby Toledo, Ohio. He liked the brown and orange color combination. So too, did former Cleveland Browns head coach Paul Brown. Following a trip to BGSU in the 1940s, Brown used the colors for his All-America Conference team.

Yes, they are saying says he liked the colors, but there also is nothing there mentioning Massillon Washington High School’s colors – which are also Orange (and today black instead of brown) which is where Brown coached for his hometown from 1932-1940. I don’t know where exactly I read it, and I will post it when I find it, but I seem to remember Brown being quoted that he chose the color brown for the uniforms because it hid the football better. The bottom line is, we do not know for sure why he chose those colors with 100% surety... but, I mean, his last name was Brown, the team was called ‘The Browns’, what color would you guess he'd want? Aqua? Ryecatcher773 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cleveland Browns' official colors are seal brown, burnt orange and white. See the Browns' offical web site.

[edit] Overhaul

I have begun to overhaul the article in the name of keeping it a bit more concise. As a lifelong Browns fan for 30 years, I understand that passions run high about our team. That being said, however, there is plenty of space that can be freed up. Links connecting names to their own histories (e.g. Chuck Noll has his own article, no need to take up Browns space talking about the Steelers) can eliminate some of this fluff. Also, opinions, overheated language and possessive claims made in print on Wikipedia (I deleted the words "our team") create neutrality issues. In any case, through removing what were mostly redundancies, the article went from 64 to 62 KBs already. If you want to weigh in on this, feel free. But let's talk about it first before we just go headlong into any conflicts. Ryecatcher773 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think you need a brief paragraph in the lead introduction section about the Art Modell-1995 relocation controversy. There are still users that come in here with the misconception that the current Browns are a 1999 expansion team, and not the fact that the Browns' franchise, colors, and history has been technically continuous since the 1940s. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that they are an expansion team. The colors and history are only a benefaction of legal technicality. Earnest Byner being traded for Mike Oliphant, regardless of how many degrees of separation you may try, has no connection to anyone currently on the roster. Meanwhile, Matt Stover was a drafted by the Giants and signed on as a free agent with the Browns in 1991, yet his career record shows he has only played for the same team since 1996 -- even though the Browns' entire roster moved to Baltimore in 1996. If you really want to avoid confusing people who have no previous idea of who the Browns are, or who Art Modell is for that matter, then do not put it in the opening paragraph. Save it for a subsection. It is an expansion team. We had an expansion draft. There are just some strange circumstances surrounding it, and the only reason we even got that was because the NFL was politicking to avoid bad press. Ryecatcher773 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns

The article is too long and in reality these are two different teams anyway. One was a team that moved to Baltimore to become the Baltimore Ravens and the other one is objectively speaking a new expansion team which used the same name and logo as the team that moved to Baltimore. I know that fans and the NFL spin it differently but that is the objective fact!

Regardless, there is also precedent for such a split when an article is overly long. Consider the AT&T article which was split up into American Telephone & Telegraph (1885-2005) and AT&T. And unlike the fantasy of the Cleveland Browns (1999-present) and Cleveland Browns (1949-1995) being a continuous entity, AT&T before and after 2005 merger was in objectively reality an actual continuous entity but it still was split anyway.

So I propose that the article be split into two just like the AT&T article. Who else writes in support? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nayra (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not completely against some kind of a split, but I think a wiser move may be what I have asked for previously -- a massive reduction in the amount of information given (and yes, it will probably take more work to do so). Look at the article as it is now, taking the uniform and logo section as an example: is it really that important to go into such detail about the socks and sleeve striping? No. A basic mention that the helmets began as white, and moved to orange is sufficient. We are not talking about the L.A. Kings here. The colors are orange and brown and pretty much have always been. The team is unique in the NFL in that it has no true logo. The article should resemble a basic entry about the team. Mention a few highlights and famous players and be done with it. Every season doesn't need to be mentioned in yearbook fashion -- this is, after all, Wikipedia, not a Browns website. What we need is a dedicated group of people to drastically reduce the size of the article. Ryecatcher773 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a split. Its not a "spin" by the NFL. The Browns of now are the same. The team was basically on hiatus and the the history, players, records, and all-time statistics of the Browns 1995 and before belong to the current franchise. It is the same team. The Baltimore Ravens were considered a brand new franchise. BrainyIowan 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a split. The two teams are separate. 70.61.100.232 02:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They are, but at the same time they aren't. But whatever, I've already moved enough stuff into a second article (Cleveland Browns Archives) that the article shouldn't be too long now. A split isn't needed. Ryecatcher773 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ravens were not considered a brand new franchise any more than the Carolina Hurricanse were a brand new franchise despite having moved from Hartford. The Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore. The original Cleveland Browns information should not even be on this page, it should be on the Baltimore Ravens page, and this page should be about the modern Cleveland Browns. This is like considering the Ottawa Senators that folded in 1935 (as the St. Louis Eagles) the same franchise as the one that exists now. I don't even understand why this is being debated. It is not the name of the team that defines its history, it is the franchise itself. The classic Browns are now the Ravens.74.108.86.3 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am totally oppose to such a split. The current organization, the NFL, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and even the Ravens officially consider the entire Browns history, players, records, and all-time statistics from 1946-present as continuous. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

They can consider it whatever they want. We all know what happened. If I moved from my house and a family of the same name moved in, we could all say it is the same family but it is oviously not. 74.108.86.3 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this article should be split in the same way that Chicago Bears was split before being promoted to featured article status:

History of the Chicago Bears	History of the Cleveland Browns
List of Chicago Bears players	List of Cleveland Browns players
Chicago Bears seasons	Cleveland Browns seasons
Chicago Bears statistics	Cleveland Browns statistics

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whoever keeps putting comments in about how there needs to be two different articles for the "Original" Cleveland Browns and New Cleveland Browns really need to check their "objective facts". The Cleveland Browns are THE Cleveland Browns. As previously stated, the history, records, and all-time statistics are owned by the Browns. We (the fans of the Cleveland Browns) took it to the Supreme Court. The NFL ensured that Cleveland would have it's team back, yes we are considered an expansion team ([[ == expansion ==]] NOT a new franchise!!!). If you're going to try to edit something or add your thoughts please at least be semi knowledgeable about the subject you try to challenge.

I agree. According to the NFL, which is the final authority on the matter, the Browns are considered to have suspended operations. The fact that their entire roster transplanted to Baltimore has nothing to do with it. When they left Cleveland, they ceased being the Browns. Primium mobile 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the NFL is not the final authority in this situation. In this case it is a propaganda machine, spin doctoring the news. One of the most revered & sucessful franchises the league's history not moving? Excuse me? That is pure 'spin'. Getting an expansion team is one thing, but to transfer the entire roster of players and front office personnel is an entirely different matter. This current version of the Browns is not the same team that Otto Graham, Jim Brown, Bernie Kosar, et al. played for. That team is now in Baltimore. Sure, we were given the "Browns" name, and colors as a salve to our wounded pride (not to mention a gawd awful ugly new stadium), but to insist that the current team and the past version of the team have a shared history is a fantasy bordering on irrationality.

By all means, split the article into two sections dealing with the original Browns from the AAFC through 1995 (which should be cross linked to the article on the Baltimore Ravens) and a post 1999 article dealing with the expantion team that currently has that same name Cleveland Browns. It's the only logical thing to do, it's the "Right" thing to do.Hx823 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, legally speaking, the NFL is the final authority. The Browns are a licensed property of the NFL, and it was by the NFL's good grace that football returned to the shores of Lake Erie in the first place. Anyone who wishes to question the NFL's ultimate authority on who plays and where should go talk to the citizens of Los Angeles. Second, the argument about Graham, Kosar et al. is as tired as it is silly: those guys never played home games in Baltimore. They played their home games as Browns in Cleveland, same as the current Browns Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow do. It's not a matter of the three years the team wasn't around. Cleveland is still Cleveland, the football team is still called the Browns, and the NFL's historical records count the two incarnations as one continuous entity. Your argument is an opinion so far as the NFL would be concerned, and opinions fall into the WP:NOT category.Needless to say, I oppose any split. Ryecatcher773 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The NFL may be, as you say, "the final authority", but that doesn't make them automatically right. It took lawsuits and treats of lawsuits to even get the "Browns" name and colors back to Cleveland. That doesn't sound like "on hiatus" to me. And I believe that one of the judges commented after the settlement that based on the cases presented, Art Modell would have lost and been forced to honor the contract with the Stadium corp. It has been conjectured that in that instance, Modell would have ended up selling the team (maybe to Bob Gries or Al Lerner) and they would have remained in Cleveland. So the name and the colors would have gone to Baltimore. And that's "on hiatus"? I think not! As far as the "historical records" from the NFL go, history is always written by the winner. The NFL won, the football fans of Cleveland lost. That's plain and simple. This part is probably going to get deleted but... using *your* logic, the two AHL Cleveland Barons and one NHL Barons hockey teams were all the same, just variations on the term "hiatus". Split the article!! (compromise-delete the whole thing, it will never be objective in the sense that is needed for *any* type of encyclopedia or reference material.Hx823 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Football League considers the pre- and post-hiatus Browns as one team. That is as objective as it can possibly be. Can you provide an objective reference that declares they are officially two different teams? If not, then all the split arguments boil down to point-of-view opinions about what defines a team, and as such they cannot be used in Wikipedia to justify edits. On the other hand, the article should include relevant, referenced facts about the hiatus because it is an important part of the team's history. Carboncopy 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How objective can the NFL be when they and Art Modell were facing lawsuits over the matter? They were going to be embarassed over the situation and needed to put a 'spin' on it hence the whole fantasy of placing the Browns "on hiatus" and then raising them from the dead three years later. A team is a group of people working for a common goal or objective. Until 1995, we has a group of people wearing orange and brown working toward the objective of winning football games and reaching the Super Bowl. For three years there was no group of people wearing orange and brown working toward the objective of winning football games and reaching the Super Bowl. No TEAM! No Continuity! To have anybody say that there is continuity there is just plain fantasy. Do they believe in the tooth fairy, too? They must.

You tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough and to enough people, it will be accepted as truth. THAT is what the NFL is doing.Hx823 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing by asking 'what was the NFL to do?' is speculating, and speculation is not a justification to bypass the fact of the matter, which is the law of the NFL. Are these the same Browns I watched as a kid? No... but according to the NFL, it's one continuous franchise. That's the long and the short of it. How we see it is irrelevant in those terms. Brady Quinn's eventual career numbers will appear on the same franchise list of numbers as Otto Graham, Frank Ryan and Bernie Kosar. It doesn't matter how objective the NFL is, and it certainly, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, doesn't matter what we feel is proper or true. The limit of the law (and in this case, the law is the NFL as it is their league, their liscensed property, and their authority that every team must bend a knee to) states it is one franchise. That's it. It's the NFL's decision. Study law long enough and you'll come to realize that while you might not feel comfortable with how the law is set up, or who makes the laws and for what reason, doesn't mean a hill of beans. The court must comply with what the lawmakers and the judge interprets whether or not the law has been adhered to --- and in this case, the NFL serves as Judge, Jury, Executioner and Legislative body. There are no 'objective facts' to check or to be considered. The fact is, the NFL made the ruling and that's how it is. See WP:NOT on POV and Original Thought if you have any questions as to why what the NFL says stands in an encyclopedia article.

And BTW, to whomever made the comment, the continuity argument regarding the NHL Barons and the two AHL Barons isn't even close to a comparison as the NHL Barons were never connected to the two either of the AHL Barons. The original AHL team ceased operations in 1973 as the Jacksonville Barons, and the new AHL team began in Kentucky. The NHL team, which began in Oakland and only took the name of the AHL team, merged with the Stars in 1978. They played in different leagues and shared no history -- and most importantly, there is no connection made by the governing bodies in either league. A better argument might have been for the two incarnations of the Ottawa Senators, but again, it goes by what the league wants. Ryecatcher773 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So you admit the NFL is not objective? Then why is the NFL supplying non-objective information for what is supposed to be an unbiased reference website? Isn't that the transmission of propaganda? And the whole argument about the Cleveland Barons was merely to illustrate the ridiculousness of the NFL's stand on this matter. You liken the NFL rulings to the law. Even laws can be changed or removed (re:the laws that permitted segregation in the south). Constitutional amendments can be repealed (look at Prohibition). Nothing man-made is ever, ever 100% etched in stone.76.241.139.243 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I liken the NFL Executives to the law. Because, they are the law as far as the NFL goes. What, you think the fans make the rules? Your argument about laws changing and the NFL not being an objective source is flawed in its reasoning: A) The NFL is a private entity, and an oligarchy at that. Laws in the public realm change because lawmakers change them... Example: we, as US citizens (i.e. members of a republic), have a legislative body that makes our laws based on what the people want. The NFL, being private, makes its rules and changes its rules when its board members feel like it. B) There are no unbiased sources -- only unbiased ways of presenting info on Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedic article). Our task is to cite facts, not give our opinions on how we view the facts. The NFL says the Browns are one continuous team from 1950-2007 (1946-1950 it was an AAFC team), then that's what they are. Period. The Ravens are, according to the NFL, an expansion team that started in 1996. Period. There is no need to split the article. The team was mothballed for 3 years, not three decades. The colors are the same, the NFL combines the records regardless of whether it makes sense to us, the stadium is in the same spot, they play in the same City of Cleveland, the same people watch them play and they are called the Cleveland Browns.It's a matter of how you want to look at it. We're both fans, right? I'm looking at the facts. You are looking at it as some kind of scam, which is your right, but not so far as changing the Wikipedia article goes. It's sufficient to point out in the article that the team went through a crisis of sorts in 1996... and I believe the article has a decent sized section that makes that abundantly clear. But, whatever. We are obviously not going to agree. Happy Thanksgiving anyway. Go Browns. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument to split the article has some merit. Obviously, the NFL did split some hairs when it allowed Art Modell to take his whole organization to Baltimore and give it a new name and colors, but call it an expansion team. But that's what the NFL officially says the Ravens are, and the current Browns are just a resumption of the old team. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to arbitrarily say the NFL made a bad decision, and adjust accordingly. The Ravens don't claim any of the Browns' past history; if anything, they claim the legacy of the old Baltimore Colts even though the Colts still exist in another city. I see both sides of the argument, but vote to leave this as it is. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the NFL did a lot of splitting (read: spin doctoring). But in an previous section, ryecatcher773 admits that this Browns team is an expansion team. And by the very definition of an expantion team, that means that there is no continuity bewtween these entities. Hence (just as an example) Braylon Edwards has not tied a TD reception record, but has set a new record for this expansion team. I also resent the implied comment that I am not looking at the facts in this matter. Now this matter with Baltimore/Indy Colts and the Cleveland/Baltimore Browns/Ravens; Indy should claim the legacy of the "Colts". The Ravens should claim the legacy from the first year of their existence as the Ravens and this Browns team should claim it's own legacy from 1999, this first year of its existence. The legacy of the first Cleveland football team to be named Browns ends in 1996. The article is way too long to begin with, so a bit of a compromise: split the article three ways, part one-early years (or first half of history 1946-1971), part two-later years (or 1972-1996), part three-current team (1999-present). I can't say go Browns, because they already have gone-to Baltimore!Hx823 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article is too long, certainly the hiatus is a logical place to split it. But if it is split, it should be done so because the length requires it, NOT because of a philosophical opinion about what constitutes a continuous NFL team. As far as the official People who record the official Records, the Cleveland Browns did not move nor lose claim to previous records. For Wikipedia to declare them to be two different teams would not agree with the official standing of the NFL, and would therefore be in error. Carboncopy (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have offered a compromise similar to this since the article is too long (among other things) to begin with. After all, if you subscribe to the theory that this is one contiguous franchise (which obviously, I do not), then it has been in existance for over 60 years and there is just too much history and detail to be encased in a single article. So on that basis alone, there is justification for splitting the article. And as you say, "The Hiatus" is the logical place to begin to split it.03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hx823 (talk • contribs)

Hold on a second Hx823... let's see if I have this right:

But in an previous section, ryecatcher773 admits that this Browns team is an expansion team. And by the very definition of an expantion team, that means that there is no continuity bewtween these entities.

You're saying that my own admission justifies the argument for splitting? You obviously must have mistaken me for a member of the NFL board of directors. Yes, of course I see this team for it being an expansion franchise, but so what? That's not an indictment that will stand long enough to finish a cup of coffee. It does not matter what I or you or anyone else outside the NFL Commissioner's office thinks. The fact of the matter, by decree of the governing body of the league, which is the absolute end all be all of this argument, is that the current Browns are NOT an expansion team. Period. Go to law school for a semester. If you haven't gotten it by the end of the first week, you'll surely understand come midterm that opinions mean nothing with regard to what is explicitly written in the letter of the law. The NFL says it's a continuation, then that's what it is. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The NFL was politicking to avoid bad press. Boy that sure sounds like spin doctoring to me. The same thing applies to the Colors and History (attributed to legal technicalities). Basically the NFL took a condesending attitude to the whole matter. Also, the whole tone of the previous post is close to being unprofessional not to mention not addresing other points made. And certainly lacking in an apology for implications made about me.Hx823 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The only points being made concern speculation and opinions, which have nothing to do with what goes into a Wikipedia article. It's not an expansion team according to the NFL. Case closed. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather high-handed and egotistical view there (unless, of course, you are CEO of WP. Then I supposed you would be entitled to it.). And again the compromise offer is ignored (you can't be protecting a little fifedom since all can edit WP) and no apology is offered. What am I to conclude from that? That you're ignoring me? No, you've responded to *some* of the points raised. And I am not certainly casting aspersions in your direction. I am trying to AGF with you, but you are making it difficult by ignoring points being made and an offer of compromise.Hx823 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my comment. The Hiatus is "one" logical place to split, but it is not necessarily the best. I think the best place to split would be 1970, or whenever the SuperBowl was first played. That is certainly a watershed moment in American pro football. For example, the Browns have always been pitied for never having won or played a SuperBowl--the long history of being a powerhouse for years before that--right up to the seasons on the threshold of the Superbowl era-- is forgotten. Might as well archive that. Carboncopy (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Carboncopy, if you'll note one of my previous postings, I offered a similar compromise with the small exception that part one would be 1946-1971 (rather than 1970, but I do see your point about the Super Bowl), part two would be 1972-1996 and part three would cover the current incarnation from 1999 to present (and beyond). Personally, I really think that is a fair compromise (but that is just IMHO).Hx823 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the team history on this page is unnecessary since there is an entire page called History of the Cleveland Browns. Removing redundant info would greatly reduce the length of this article. My personal opinion is that the suggestion to follow the example of the Chicago Bears articles makes the most sense (see above) and break off articles on different aspects of the team rather than the controversial nature of the continuity of the Browns since 1996. No matter what each of us personally believes, the Cleveland Browns are legally the same entity that has played in Cleveland since 1946. That is a fact and Wikipedia articles must reflect facts, not opinion. It is, however, also a fact that many fans both in and out of Cleveland do not consider them the same entity. The Baltimore Ravens page addresses this the best mentioning terms like "the Modell Organization" in an early paragraph while still acknowledging the legal fact that the Ravens are considered a 1996 expansion team. Everyone knows the Ravens weren't formed like a typical expansion team and that they were, in reality, the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, just as the Browns were "reborn" in 1999 by way of an expansion draft, just like a typical expansion team (Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, etc.). That said, there was a Cleveland Browns Trust (mentioned in this article, but I didn't see it in the separate History article) that existed from 1996-1999, something not seen in a typical franchise relocation. Was the NFL trying to save face? Probably, though they were also trying to avoid the dozens of legal suits filed by the city of Cleveland and fans over the move. Whatever their motives, the main parties that matter in this argument: the NFL, the Cleveland Browns, and even the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the Baltimore Ravens consider the Browns to be a continuous entity beginning in 1946 down to the present. We should look at other NFL team pages (particularly ones of older teams with longer histories) to see how their pages have been broken up and organized. Like I said, the suggestion regarding the Chicago Bears articles was the best I've seen. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The history section needs to be either drastically reduced (short summaries for each period) or eliminated completely (with a 'see this page' link) since the History of the Cleveland Browns page exists. That will really trim this page significantly. I will do what I can, but to any other editors please feel free to remove redundant info on this page and move necessary info to the history page.--JonRidinger (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this history section be edited to reflect the corrected wording (w/reference) of the currenty existing article dealing with the history of the Browns? At least until the cleanup and reduction of this article?Hx823 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Pats1 ^T/C 02:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be expanding the history section on this article at all. If anything, start trimming it. I'd say close to 90% of this section doesn't need to be here at all since it's already on the History of the Cleveland Browns page. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment was meant as an interim measure until the history section can be switched to that article and this one can be linked to it. I didn't want it to come across as a major rewrite or expansion of the article. Hx823 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you meant a major rewrite. I was just saying if you're going to go to the trouble of including the info, it would be better to spend the time trimming the history section down to small summaries of each era. The whole Ravens-Browns franchise argument belongs on the history page as a detail rather than a super-important fact in my opinion. The history section on this page should only include the most important facts about the team, like records that were set or changes made. Most of the history is already on the History of the Cleveland Browns page, so no real need for an interim measure. Check it out. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To Pats1: If you'll go to the article history of the Cleveland Browns, there is a couple of sentences detailing that many fans consider the "old" Browns and the "new" browns as two seperate franchises, but acknowledges that the "official" nfl position is that the Baltimore Ravens is an expansion team (that happened to draft the entire "old" Browns roster in an "expansion draft") and that the current browns are a continuation of the original team. This from the league that refuses to acknowledge any AAFC records from the teams that merged when that league went under. Hx823 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-I wouldn't say the NFL's had any good grace or that the team owes its existence to such a non-existent thing as the NFL's good grace. I would say that through the settlement of the City of Cleveland's breach of lease lawsuit against Modell et al, the League and the City agreed that the team's prior history from 1944-1995 would be attributed to the team that took the field in 1999, be that team an expansion team or a relocated one. I don't see any point in breaking the team's history up into two parts. Hanksummers (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)hanksummers

[edit] Section on Belichick

"The highlight of the season came from the television side of the season. Bill Belichick was the breakout star of "Browns Insider" which was co-hosted by Jim Mueller. Belichick explained such concepts as "Metcalf up the middle," the brilliance of drafting a fullback with the 11th pick in the draft (the third running back as top pick of the Browns in three of four years) and why the double tightend, one wide-receiver offensive set was unstoppable."

This sounds like it was written by a bitter fan. Can someone do a rewrite? I'm not well versed on this section of Browns history. BrainyIowan 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already started to clean this up... unfortunately, my time is limited to about ten minute intervals (I have a busy 10 month old son running around!)Ryecatcher773 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Key elements of this period (1991-1995) for Browns' fans in my mind (and as I recall) is the growing frustration stemming from AFC Championship losses in the 80's and continuing to grow stronger through the early 90's with losing seasons and earlier playoff defeats. This frustration ends up being focused toward Belichick. The fans' rapport with Kosar, despite his injuries and declining performance, was still far stronger than with anyone else in the organization. Fans saw him as the cornerstone of the team and the team's improving performances as an extension of his since 1986. So the outrage by the fans toward Belichick when he benched Kosar is worsened because the Browns were improving following 3 losing seasons, and because of the immediate circumstances behind his benching: Belichick benched Kosar after Kosar had changed two of Belichick's play calls while in the huddle -- plays which had decidedly positive results compared to what was expected based on the game up to that point. A strongly biased but factually correct recounting by a Cleveland fan[1]. I was suprised that these details weren't included in this article or Bernie Kosar because it is truly one of the most standout moments in the Kosar era of the Browns. It is alluded to in Bill Belichick in a way that just slightly favors Belichick and demonizes Clevelanders. Only Belichick's immense success with New England (which now outweighs Kosar's pro football record) allows Cleveland fans to re-examine their views on this period. Saulrand 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I have seen many people vandalising the article, replacing Browns with Clowns. I also have added this to my watchlist and this article is vandalised often. Should we put it up for protection?

-Domovoi 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that might be a good idea. Ryecatcher773 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

I added the unsourced tag as this article doesn't have inline references or cite it's sources well enough. See the Chicago Bears for a good example. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Premature

Does anybody else think that the Brady Quinn era begins is a little premature?

I don't think it's premature. In the eyes of the fans and the media, that is how this time will be defined.Chris Nelson 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to refer to this time as the Brady Quinn era is at least a year or two premature. It is idiotic to refer to this as an era when the player in question has not made any meaningful contributions except holding out during the preseason.Hx823 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i do agree that it is a new era starting this year, but as far as saying its the Brady Quinn era, i dont know about that, for he hasnt even played a down in the regular season...maybe, the derek anderson era, but thats a whole different storyFanofranz (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Browns-Broncos Rivalry?

Could this be included considering the teams postseason collisons during the late 80s (The Drive and The Fumble quickly come to mind). WAVY 10 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that there is some hatred between Browns fan and Broncos fans, but i dont think most people would recognize it, until you mentioned the drive or the fumble, unlike the browns and steelers or bengals Fanofranz (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founded in a year that no football was played

The infobox incorrectly states 1944, the first paragraph states that it was "founded" in '45 and the history section (most acurately IMHO) states 1946. Not a good job of providing clarity. Also nothing referenced. If we are to take the earliest possible date (even if it was a "paper team" then the Pittsburgh football team should have November 12, 1892 as its founding year, or at the very least 1932.

Also what is the justification for admitting AAFC titles, last I checked this was the NFL. Has the NFL officially recognized the AAFC? Hholt01 06:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is about the history of the Cleveland Browns. It is not about the history of the National Football League. Saying that something legitimate in the history of the team should be excluded because of non-recognition by the NFL is absurd. Your argument is completely irrelevent.Primium mobile 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Football Hame of Fame website lists the AAFC titles (click on the "Facts and Firsts" tab) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the date the team was founded, that should be the date initial owner Mickey McBride bought the franchise from the AAFC founder Arch Ward. According to Bill Levy's 1965 book, "Return to Glory: The Story of the Cleveland Browns" LC 65-23356 at page 41, "Formal announcement of the new league was made in Chicago on September 3, 1944, and the Cleveland franchise was awarded to McBride." ~~hanksummers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

"The 1995 season was a disaster on the field as well. After starting 3-1, the rumors of relocation and the eventual announcement cut the legs out from under the team. They finished 5-11, including a 1-6 record in the seven games after the announcement. When fans in the Dawg Pound became unruly during their final home game against the Cincinnati Bengals, action moving towards that end zone had to be moved to the opposite end of the field. The Browns won, the only game the team won after the news of the Browns' move got out."

On one hand it says that they won two games after the announcement (their record was 3-1 and then 5-11, 5-3=2) and on the other it says , "The Browns won, the only game the team won after the news of the Browns' move got out." - so which is it? Yonatan ^talk 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

They started 3-1 and finished 1-6 AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT. So to got to 5-11 they had to go 1-4 in between the start and the announcement, that is clear if you add it all up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.99.95 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Trivia Section

I am removing the trivia section (which is discouraged anyway), because the three items have little value beyond as nuggets of trivia. I don't see how to incorporate them into the article in any meaningful way - if somebody else can, please do so. --Chancemichaels 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Origin of team name

This article states the Browns were not named after Paul Brown, but rather the boxer Joe Louis, going further to state that the idea of the team being named after Paul Brown has just been a long rumor or myth. I can't find any source that backs this statement. As far as I've always known, the Browns were named after Paul Brown. Joe Louis had no ties to Cleveland (he worked in rival city Detroit when he was young). The Joe Louis article makes absolutely no mention of any connection either. Here's how the story is typically presented: "In 1945, Arthur McBride brought the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) team to Cleveland. He ran a newspaper contest to name the team and offered the winner a $1,000 war bond. Many entries suggested the name "Browns" after Head Coach Paul Brown, but Coach Brown felt it wasn't "proper" to name the team after himself. Instead, the winning suggestion was the Panthers. However, there was a semi-pro team called the Cleveland Panthers in the '20s, and the owner still had the rights to the name. So, Coach Brown reluctantly agreed to name the team the Browns." --Heavy 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cleveland Browns B logo.png

Image:Cleveland Browns B logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. --216.253.95.34 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wearing white at home

“

Until recently, when more NFL teams started to wear white at home at least once a season, the Browns were the only non-subtropical team north of the Mason-Dixon line to wear white at home on a regular basis.

”

Can someone explain what this means? Specifically, I'm wondering which subtropical teams are north of the Mason-Dixon line and wear (or have worn) white at home on a regular basis. -- timc talk 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as the title MTV Half-Hour Comedy Hour meant back in the early 90's. Besides the obvious ridiculousness of that sentence, Florida is the only sub-tropical state in the union that has NFL teams... why not just say: "the only team not from Florida" ...Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Browns 1950 Logo.PNG

Image:Browns 1950 Logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)