This The Year the Browns Surpass the Steelers? Peter King Thinks So

by Blitzburgh on May 6, 2008 2:34 PM EDT Comment 55 comments

Just a small blurb here while I tie up some things at work and continue writing a piece on Mewelde Moore:

Peter King has ranked all 32 teams in his latest MMQ column. New England and Indy, #1 and #2, followed by Jacksonville, Dallas and San Diego to round out the top 5. I'm intrigued by his high regard for Jacksonville, and similarly with Carolina, who he put in his top 10.

Guess who else earned a spot in his top 10. The Cleveland Browns!

How can a draftless team improve? Because this team had its draft in free-agency. A couple of things worry me, as they should every Browns fan. Will Shaun Rogers be a player for half the season and an unproductive blob the other half? I don't know. And will Kellen Winslow hold out or do something Chad Johnson-ish to ruin the great karma of the NFL's new national TV darlings?
This team has five prime-time games for the first time since Paul Brown prowled the sidelines and Jim Brown was a runner, not a protester. "I think our guys will like it,'' said GM Phil Savage. "I think they'll take to the challenge.''

Nice words and maybe even true ones. But Cleveland's opponents -- like Dallas on opening day -- will think they're going to have to play really well to beat the Browns. In other words, Cleveland's not going to catch anyone by surprise. The pressure's on. I think leader types such as Willie McGinest and Jamal Lewis, who have been there before, will help keep heads on straight.

Pittsburgh trails only slightly in King's mind. At number 12, he had this to say about the team:

This has nothing to do with the toughest schedule any of us has ever seen -- all 10 non-division foes were .500 or better last year -- because if it did, the Steelers would be slightly lower. I worry about the Pittsburgh offensive line, and I worry about the pass-rush. Both areas broke down while the Steelers lost four of their last five (two to Jacksonville at home) in the last month of the season.
But I think they'll be at least as good as they were last year, all things considered. Ben Roethlisberger (32-to-11 touchdown-to-interception differential) was terrific last year, and he could be better with a big target, rookie Limas Sweed, roaming down the seam on third downs. And a Parker-Mendenhall-Davenport rushing trifecta means the Steelers should have a run-pass percentage more like 55-45 than the 51-49 of 2007. A dominant running game has always been a Steelers staple, and it has to return for Pittsburgh to control the ball against the best teams in the league, most of whom the Steelers will face this year.

Not a terrible assesment in such limited space, but there's several likely errors in his prognosis:

1) Davenport will surely be playing somewhere besides Pittsburgh won't he?

2) I'm not so sure we'll try to run the ball much more this year. Maybe a bit more to accommodate our two #1-type RBs.

3) I know it's nice to dream about Limas Sweed being a difference maker this year, but in all likelihood, that won't be the case. Instead, why don't we find a way to get Heath Miller the ball more in the seam? By the way, having seen Sweed play lots, his value is along the sidelines anyway, at least more so than over the middle and in the windows between LBs and Safeties

Anyway, as we've discussed, the prospect of a renewed rivalry between the Browns and Steelers would likely be welcomed by both fanbases. Count Peter King amongst the growing legion of columnists that believe the Browns are the best in the AFC North. I'm not buying it just yet.

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

typical national opinion

My biggest problem with blow-hards like King is that he tries to act like he knows everything about every team. This the exact reason why the national opinion of Steelers football is “three yards in a cloud of dust.” Did he just cut and paste his 2005 preview and insert new names? Does it take a F*ing genius to realize that the Steelers haven’t been a power running team in two years? This is nothing more than lazy ass writing/research on his part. This is exactly why my Sports Illustrated stays in the bathroom instead of on the coffee table.

You’re exactly right Blitz, there’s no way in hell Davenport is still on this team by the end of camp (I’m kind of surprised he’s still here now).

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous. The Browns have lost to the Steelers 9 straight times. The Steelers still have a much better defense than the Browns, even with them trading their draft for a couple of d-linemen. The Steelers also have a much much better QB who has never lost to the Browns and at least one better RB. Sure they have Edwards and Winslow, but their receivers as a whole (Edwards, Stallworth, Winslow) are not better than the Steelers (Holmes, Ward, Miller) and the Steelers have much better depth behind those starters. So I don’t see it. Not gonna happen.

by Cols714 on May 6, 2008 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reality Check

It’s o.k. to be a homer but seriously…

(Edwards, Stallworth, Winslow) are not better than the Steelers (Holmes, Ward, Miller) ...you really said that? That would be false.

Also the Browns offensive line is better than the Steelers. Defensively, I’ll take Pittsburgh. Special Teams would go to Cleveland.

I can see Cleveland splitting the series with Pittsburgh this year. That might be enough for them to take the division. If you can’t feel the tide beginning to turn…you better wake up quick.

by flipstone on May 6, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WR/TE

It’s close in my opinion. Braylon is better than Holmes right now, but I think in time Holmes can be just as good if not better. Stallworth is a spare part as far as I’m concerned. His last two teams have cut him loose and now CLE considers him a #2. No person in thier right mind would take Stallworth over Ward. Winslow is a more dynamic TE but if Pittsburgh utilizied their TE’s like CLE did, I think Miller could do the same type of things. If you add in #3 WR, it’s no contest.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WR/TE

I’m saying Edwards is better than Ward, Stallworth is better than Holmes and Winslow is better than Miller….and Jurevicius is better than anyone else on your bench.

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stallworth vs. Holmes

If you really believe that you need to check the stats. I was comparing Holmes to Edwards b/c those are both the #1 receivers on their respective teams. How a guy cut by his last two teams can be considered better than a 3rd year player who led the league in yards per reception last year is ludicrous. Jurevicius wouldn’t make this team.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 7, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jurevicius wouldn’t make this team???

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Browns are the sexy pick this year

Like it or not. Anytime a team goes from 4-12 to 10-6 people are going to assume they will continue to improve. Standard procedure. Same as jacksonville, for that matter, one step higher.

But this is the NFL, unlike any other commodity. When teams like the Bears and Saints jumped into the NFC Finals they too were the sexy pick a year later. Look what happened to them. If you are not sound from a foundation standpoint, you will drop as quickly as you rose.

I’m not saying the Browns will fall. That remains to be seen. But they had the meekest schedule in the league last season, and this year, while not as strong as the Steelers schedule, it’s a whole new ballgame for them.

We’ll see, of course, but until the first game, the Browns are going to be everyone’s sexy pick this year. We better get used to it.

by maryrose on May 6, 2008 3:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I’ve come to terms with everyone picking the Browns for the North. Everyone has to have ‘sexy’ pick to stand out from the crowd (ie 49ers last year) but the smart money is still on Pittsburgh. Go check the betting lines and let me know if anyone finds a single one that puts the Browns ahead of the Steelers. Truth is the smart money is almost 1:1 on the Steelers winning the North while the Browns are 2:1. I’ll stick behind the guys that only make money if they’re right.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smart Money

Smart Money was also on Indy to defeat the Chargers in the Playoffs and for New England to win the Superbowl.

by flipstone on May 6, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

smart money

When I said ‘smart money’ I was only stating that ‘vegas betting lines’ have the Steelers as the favorite.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

mo money

Oh yeah…and “money” was on the Cowboys to beat the Giants in the playoffs last year as well.

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So because those upsets occur

that means that the Browns will win the SB? That may not be what you mean, but your posts imply that sort of faulty logic.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 7, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Bet

No SB for the Browns…but if you read the ENTIRE post string I was responding to the fact that cgolden says that the Steelers will win the Division because Las Vegas and “the money” says they will.

I was simply showing a few of the millions of examples of how the “Vegas Money” does not know squat on a CONSISTANT basis….remember Buster Douglas??? That should say enough.

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, and now everyone but Vegas

is picking the Browns to go the SB. So does that really help your argument? All those examples that you site are of teams or people that everyone favored to win. They had their egos stroked so much they were set up for the fall.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 7, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vegas isn't right on a consistent basis?

Are you kidding me? You cite some of the biggest upsets in sports history and that’s your argument. There’s a reason that the “house always wins in the end.” There will be upsets, there’s no doubt about that, but if you’re saying that Peter King, or any other columnist/journalist/broadcaster has a better track record predicting the outcome of sporting event than book makers, then you’re crazy.

I will absolutely stand by the statement that Vegas betting lines are “smart money” compared to what Peter King says in a column and if you don’t agree then I guess bet on Buster Douglas every single time b/c he was the model of a “CONSISTANT basis.”

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 7, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well to be fair...

...the reason the “house always wins in the end” is because they set (and adjust) the betting lines in a way such that the payouts will be the same for the house no matter what happens, then they keep their 10%.

Last season was a great example. I don’t think anyone who was handicapping games based on reality would have given the Patriots a 14 point spread over the Jaguars, a 14 point spread over the Chargers and a 12 point spread over the Giants. The spreads weren’t based on reality—they’re just based on the betters’ perceptions of it (i.e. that the Patriots are this magical, unstoppable force).

by HinesField on May 7, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea

Vegas just sets lines based on what they think equal numbers of bettors will take. If it’s 50/50, they win.

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glad everyone's on their bandwagon

That put’s extra pressure on them, and if they stumble, which young teams with a ton of new FA’s often do, you could see a meltdown a la Cincy. And, I can’t remember a team loading up on FA’s and then winning. In fact, every team that I remember doing that were talked up before the season and fell flat.

That said, I’m always nervous going into any season or game, regardless of the opponent, because the NFL is full of good teams and great players. So, I wouldn’t be shocked if the Browns step up this year. I would be pretty surprised, though.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 6, 2008 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For what it’s worth, the Browns dipped into FA for exactly one player who will have an impact: Stalworth. NFL FA’s are castoffs, and their teams get nothing back in return for them. This exposes the fact that they have lesser value. Williams is the epitome of the opposite: a franchised defensive tackle who was so valued by his team that they guaranteed him top 5 money at his position. Rogers was still signed for 3 seasons, so again, that move is not FA.

That being said, anyone who favors my Browns in the AFC North hasn’t been watching football very long… certainly not in the last 10 years. You’ve first got to beat the bully in order to be favored against him.

by kwoog on May 6, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, so not FA's

trades. I still can’t think of a team that traded for several players and won.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 6, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, we traded for two players. If we hadn’t made those trades we would have used them on inferior Dlinman/players and then we’d still have just about the worst Dline in football… instead of one w/ the potential to be top 10-15.

by kwoog on May 7, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Washington Redskins

The Resdskins frequently traded away most of their draft choices during the 1980’s and won several Superbowls with that formula. Eventully after doing that year after year they got old as a team. Cleveland has done this as a one year infusion of proven talent….picking up players that were superior to anyone skillwise that they could have picked in the draft and have not jeopardized their 2009 draft pool.

by flipstone on May 6, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted their starting lineup ages elsewhere, but they currently have an incredibly young team. Sacrificing this one draft (lookout for Beau Bell) is not going to condemn them to being an old team. Especially when considering they will most likely have two first rounders next year, or at least one and two second rounders-plus…

by kwoog on May 6, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe you're thinking of the Redskins of the 70s

who only made it to one SB, which they lost to Miami. In the 80s, the ‘skins GM was known for trading back and stockpiling picks to load up on young players and see who panned out. I’m pretty certain I remember hearing Joe Gibbs say that the GM would trade back as often as he could and sometimes they would wonder if they were ever going to pick. Maybe Skin Patrol can clear this up, if he stops by again.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 6, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wrong

No I’m referring to the 1980’s where they won 2 Superbowls defeating Miami in 1983 and blowing out Denver by 30+ points in 1988. If you followed football you would know the history and know how Washington traded off draft choices frequently in order to bring in FA’s.

Kiper gave Cleveland the highest draft grade in the AFC North this year and was quoted as saying that Cleveland understands how to manipulate the draft.

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Kiper's a genius

I love listening to him, but I wouldn’t want him as a GM

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 7, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok smart guy

Take a look at the Redskins drafts of the 80s at this link:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=5110&type=team

I see few first round picks, but plenty of multiple picks in other rounds, which indicates that the they were trading back and gaining picks, not trading picks for FA’s

I do follow football history pretty well, and I know that when George Allenn was the ‘skins coach in the 70s, he traded all of his draft picks for veterans. But, in the 80s, when Gibbs was their coach, they were known for trading down and stockpiling picks, and THAT is when they won their 3 SBs.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 7, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More info

Alright, to show that I can be fair, here’s an article that supports you:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-170.html

But, this article says that they often traded their first round pick in the 80s for a solid veteran, while still trading down or in some way stockpiling draft picks in later rounds. That still doesn’t fit either what the Browns did this year or your description of them trading all of their picks for veterans.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 7, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yo wolfpack, wrote you an email

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Browns 10 wins last year

Included one winning team, Seattle, who was soft as church music to begin with. Their others wins were against an 8-8 team, two 7-win teams, three 5-win teams, a 4-win team, a 3-win team and a 1-win team.

All told, the composite wins of the teams they beat last year was 55, an average of 5.5 wins per team. Folks, that’s pathetic.

Again, I am not saying the Browns aren’t going to be good. You can only beat the teams you play. At some point they are going to beat us. But those 10 wins last year were against bad teams. The NFL is often deceptive that way. Just ask the Saints, Bears and Ravens.

by maryrose on May 6, 2008 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Better record

Don’t forget that the Browns had a better record last year then the Steelers…

Browns 10-6

Steelers 10-7

Truth hurts…but the Steelers 2008-09 schedule hurts worse.

by flipstone on May 6, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1

...and the Steelers played that extra game because they beat the Clowns twice and DA crapped his pants. Worst. Argument. Ever.

by BadMaafala on May 6, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

funny

You have to admit this is funny though? right?

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that makes perfect since

You’re seriously making the argument that the Browns had a better record b/c they didn’t go to the post season? Talk about a losing mentality.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

facts

No I’m just saying that STATISTICALLY and FACTUALLY that when the 2007-2008 season ended last year the Browns had a better overall record then the Steelers percentage wise…that’s all. Sorry if that is too hard to understand.

by flipstone on May 7, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No you're very true

I’m sure Browns players were glad they didn’t win the division and go to the playoffs. Gotta love the fear of failure.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 7, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

King is a Pats fan

King praises the Pats for looking long term and not drafting O-linemen despite their collapse in the SB, but he worries about the Steeler O-line. He is not worried about the lack of production out of Richard Seymore but is concerned about the lack of pass rush in Pittsburgh. Either he has more faith in NE coaching (and who, exactly, is Dante Scarnecchia?) or he has a fan’s blind faith. Either way, he is not only ignorant of the Steelers, as someone else pointed out, but highly inconsistent in his “analysis.” Not sure why he gets paid to comment on any NFL team outside of Foxborough…

BTW, I like the Steelers as underdogs. It worked well in the ‘05 playoffs and will serve them equally well this year. Barring injuries, this team will positively surprise fans and pundits alike.

by ec on May 6, 2008 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

and who, exactly, is Dante Scarnecchia?)

Good question

by Blitzburgh on May 6, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Piling on

Amen to all that’s been said. I might compare them to the Jets from last year. I’m not saying that they don’t have the talent to compete, but I do think that many on their team are likely to become overly enamored with their press clippings and not understand two basic facts: First, their schedule plus heightened expectations can mean that they could be much better than last year and still not do as well. Second, the other teams in the division, especially the Steelers have not stood pat. Frankly, I’m a little more concerned with the Ravens.

by RickVa on May 6, 2008 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

AFC North

The Bengals and Ravens have done nothing so far this off-season to give me any reason to believe that they will be a factor in the North this year. They are both pathetic. I think it’s a toss-up between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. In fact…based on scheduling I could see the division winner being anywhere from 10-6 to 8-8 this year…but still one of the better teams in the League overall.

Speaking of schedules…it’s amazing how New England will be on pace again to go 16-0 this year. They play absolutely no one during the regular season.

by flipstone on May 6, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

King's an idiot

We should keep an eye on the context of the article: Jacksonville is the third best team in the league. Garrard played well against the Steelers. Derrick Harvey (at DE) could be like Demarcus Ware (at OLB) as a rookie. Carolina will be a top 10 team. Cleveland will win the AFC north.

It fits in with the rest of the article, anyway.

by BadMaafala on May 6, 2008 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

good point

I got so wrapped up in ripping King that I forgot to rant on another thing that bugs the hell out of me: Why is Carolina always a darkhorse candidate every year? They’ve had two winning seasons in the last 10 seasons but every training camp we hear all the “well if the Panthers can stay healthy” crap.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 6, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree with cgolden

most commentators/analyst/writers say the same thing over and over…power running, run the ball and play good “d”...blah…blah…blah

they all forget, if it wasn’t for Big Ben and the passing game…pass for the lead and run to keep it…we would not have made it to the Super Bowl

I get so frustrated when I hear the “experts” spew the same old crap…they all just copy each other…instead of actually researching it

hey “experts”...when will you realize, different team…different era…different players…different philosophy…

As an aside, I find it very interesting that in our 1995 trip to SB also was spear headed by our PASSING attack…Neil and the 5 receiver sets…not our running game…I bet the “experts” forgot that as well…

by SteelerMike on May 6, 2008 3:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

back of the cereal box

maybe the ingredients, the nutritional value stats- I read it when eating a bowl of cereal because it is there and something to do. Same with King’s articles, its there and the pull of “rankings” regardless of who or what is tough to resist.
But online, there are so many better articles to read, with more information and more analysis.
Such as this upcoming promised piece of Mewelde Moore- the forgotten Steeler.

by vherub on May 6, 2008 4:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I typically dont read his articles for the reasons you stated. And I typically dont bother wasting anyones time with a critique of mainstream media’s articles. I am glad though that some Browns fans saw this and jumped in.

by Blitzburgh on May 6, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

What I like about King is his insider status. He does get to talk to a lot of players and coaches and gets a lot of info from them. But when it comes to anything analytical the only SI columnist worth his salt is Dr. Z. Although they did pick up some old GM to write some stuff before the draft that was pretty solid.

by Chicago Steeler on May 7, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

King is a

nut. Other than his inside info which he saves for the TV broadcasts, I don’t have a clue why his is allowed to write articles expect for humor. Last year he was basically ready to throw Big Ben into the wood chipper after one bad season. The year before that Big Ben was going to be the next Farve. He grabs the biggest popular press clippings and writes on a curve.

So I agree that’s why he of course picked the Browns, the new fad pick to win the AFC North. I read another article from another writer before the draft, that already picked the Browns to go 12-4 this year based on FA. Now the schedule of when we played people wasn’t out, but who we played was. 12-4 come on.

by SteelBuckeye on May 6, 2008 6:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why he's allowed to write? Easy.

You don’t make a career as a sportwriter by being a sports expert. You make a career by making wild guesses, blowing minor events out of proportion, and jumping on every bandwagon possible. (Really, is there ANY justification for Tony Kornheiser’s continued existence?)

You do the first because, for that one-in-fifty occassion you happen to be write, you get to mention constantly about what a visionary you happened to have been. You do the second because, quite frankly, you need to fill your weekly column somehow. You do the third because it’s easy and people like reading it (Sports Illustrated isn’t exactly a bastion of free-thinking intellectualism).

But then again, what do I know. I’m just a blogger, after all…

by HinesField on May 6, 2008 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right on

People like Easterbrook and King are paid for entertainment, not knowledge of sports. There are good, knowledgable writers out there who take pride in their writing and content, but they aren’t always the ones who get the most hits/angry emails.

by BadMaafala on May 6, 2008 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh, this is almost as bad as draft talk.

It’s all wild speculation based on nothing but looking at a team on paper. If that’s going to be our analysis, let’s consider the following two arguments:
1. The Steelers are, fundamentally, the same team as last year. Same strengths, many of the same weaknesses. And I liked those Steelers.
2. The Browns are one of the youngest teams in the NFL and last year was essentially their first year as a team. This year brings a boatload of new people and a really hard schedule. Are they going to integrate quickly and step up? No one knows, but I think we’ll see on Week 1.

Basically, we know what to expect from the Steelers; we’ve all seen it before. At this point, though, even the Browns don’t know what to expect from the Browns.

by HinesField on May 6, 2008 8:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great point.

by BadMaafala on May 6, 2008 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

<——

by Bereadawg on May 6, 2008 9:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Its great for both teams...

Renewed rivalry and better talent on both sides of the ball means the teams are only going to get stronger. If we are playing better competition we will increase accordingly, if we play scrubs all year…thats what we’ll get. I’m a firm believer in that. I feel like we frequently play to the level of our competition. (a la Cardinals last year)
But I will say this, Braylon Edwards is a SOLID WR. While Ward is a more complete blocking WR, Braylon is the WAY more dangerous one. We need to have Heath more inovled ALL year, rather than the first 6 games. When heath becomes more involved, Ward is more useful. Ward on a double-team is non-existant.

by Mikey on May 7, 2008 8:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Browns

definitely have some good players (Edwards, Stallworth, DA) and some cagey veterans (McGinest, Lewis) and are much improved. They appear on paper to be the Steelers challegers for the Division. Agree with Hines that it’s all on paper and we have to wait to see how it pans out on the turf.

Bottom line Browns fans; to be the man you got to beat the man. Win a freakin’ game against Pittsburgh sometime this decade and we can talk about who is the better team. Until then, enjoy BTSC and suck it up! Can’t wait for Latrobe. Is it July yet? Here We Go Steelers!

When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen

by 5020 on May 7, 2008 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs