super bowl champions??

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on May 7, 2008 9:22 AM EDT

Looks like the browns are already the 2008-2009 superbowl champs go look at their blog dawgs by nature and on the top where their banner is states the are that sure of them selfs this year. Boy do i love being the under dog. Im not even sure they can win the north yet let alone the whole damn thing. They good on paper but paper dont mean nothing. So lets have a give those browns a pat on the back by already winning this coming super bowl. Congratulations

0 recs | Comment 52 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

To Quote Lee Flowers

“Paper Champions!”

When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen

by 5020 on May 7, 2008 9:54 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Paper Champions of the World !!!

* till next time wave those towels proud

by LiveinDCbutsteelerfanbyheart on May 7, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

That's a little weird

I don’t spend alot of time on that site, but I did notice they have a FanPost with alot of comments making fun of Ben and links that make fun of the Steelers. Browns fans seem to spend alot of negative energy on us, much more so than we spend on them.

That’s the one big difference between Browns fans and Steelers fans. I’ll give them credit for being just as passionate about their team as we are. But if you count the Steeler bashing on their site compared to little if any at all Browns bashing on our site, you will see a major difference in class. I hope the fans on our site never stoop to that level.

by maryrose on May 7, 2008 10:59 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

little brother syndrome

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

+1

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 7, 2008 11:29 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I went to undergrad in Berea, Ohio. I have spent a lot of time in Mansfield, Akron, and also Youngstown/Canfield. All places in Ohio, and they’re all packed w/ seemingly “new” Steelers fans. Heck, Butch Davis used to do his Tuesday TV show at a Damon’s on Bagley Road, and half the place would be Steelers fans. Now, a lot of them are people who rooted for Bernie (or their parents did) before our team was stolen from us. They wear their “Ward” jerseys w/ as much loyalty/knowledge as Snoop Dogg wears it.

In any event, there is no more obnoxious, self-righteous, fight-picking sports fan in the world than a Steelers fan in Ohio. Which happens to be the great majority of Steelers fans I (as a former Ohioan) have met. It’s a little like the new “Red Sox Nation” fans who turn up and invade away games in baseball… they’re people who have just signed up b/c of the recent Success (and also b/c, again, our team was stolen from us and we were set back 15 years). It was not like this at all in the 80s.

Now, of course all fanbases represent a wide spectrum, so it’s pointless to argue generally about differences in “class.” But no one knows humilty better than a Cleveland sports fan. I’d dare say I’ve never met someone who knows it less than a Steelers fan.

by kwoog on May 7, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Kwoog

When you feel that certain fans are obnoxious and self-righteous, you must realize two things. First, there are always those on the opposite side of you who feel the same way coming back. Second, those statements are as impossible to argue against as they are for you to prove in the first place. For those two reasons, I stay away from that kind of stuff.

What is quite quantifiable and non-generalistic is the fact that this site does not spend time ripping the Browns, mocking stupid things, referring to links which make fun of the Browns, etc. The Browns site, however, constantly contains material to that effect.

I am not speaking in absolutes. Of course there will be a jab here and there and we also criticize our own team quite often. But I would be shocked if you or anyone else could refute that the Browns site is much more negative toward us than we are of them. That is quantifiably true, sans inarguable generalization, and it has no answer.

by maryrose on May 7, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply reply 1 recs

Agree to disagree. I regularly read DawgsByNature, though I only started about 8 months ago. It has much less traffic than here, but I can’t think of much if any invective towards the Steelers that I’ve read there. In essense, “quantifiable” would mean you post examples of links/fanposts on DBN, not matching my generalization w/ a generalization.

by kwoog on May 7, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

hmm

I was unaware that we could have Super Bowl Champions who haven’t won a playoff game in 13 years. Guess we learn something new everyday.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 7, 2008 11:32 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Makes sense to me.

All they need to do is redefine the term “Super Bowl…”

by HinesField on May 7, 2008 12:13 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

lol

You weren’t aware that ‘winning the Super Bowl’ mean perenially missing the playoffs, burning through coaches and QBs, and getting excited about a singular 10 win season?

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

i was gonna post

but I have to “take the Browns to the Super Bowl”, if you know what I mean…...back in 10 minutes.

by TheMostViolentTeam on May 7, 2008 12:45 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Sorry To Bash

but my two favorite teams are the Steelers and whoever are playing the BrownRavens this week.
To me the Browns are in Baltimore and until this current crop in Cleveland can come up with a W against the Pittsburgh Steelers they and their fans are “ants at a picnic.” In fact that will be my new name for the team in Cleveland until they beat the Steelers. The Cleveland Ants. As in ant got no Super Bowl championships. (again sorry maryrose and anyone I offended by being PO at the preseason prognosticators)

When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen

by 5020 on May 7, 2008 12:51 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Fwiw, as soon as I saw that I posted on the main article that the banner should go. Obviously the Steelers are the favorites in the division, b/c as you all have said, “on paper” means nothing, certainly less in Football than any other sport…

by kwoog on May 7, 2008 1:03 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

kwoog

I’ve enjoyed your thoughts on the Browns here on the site. We’re quite welcoming of all fans here at Curtian, as I’m sure you’ve quickly discovered. As you correctly pointed out, it’s dumb to monolithically categorize fans as either ‘ignorant’, ‘classless’, ‘awesome’, or whatever. Hopefully our haven can teach you that we’re not as bad as you might want to believe.

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

For sure, almost all you guys are not the kinds of fans I’m talking about. There’s a lot of football knowledge on here. There’s a big difference between high pride in your team’s consistent winning tradition… and treating another team’s fans like second-class-citizens (in their own state/city, no less!). But I think that mostly just comes with the territory, after 5 years with no team and another 8 of futility.

But if the pundits are even half right, and the Browns are becoming stable and respectable, I want to know more about the team I consider our biggest rival (something I sure as heck didn’t want when we were getting stomped 42-0). So I’ll be around.

by kwoog on May 7, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

bueno

Just making sure :)

The Browns, if nothing else, should be very entertaining this year, on a number of levels. Offense, personalities, expectations, etc. I’m excited.

by Blitzburgh on May 7, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

If the last three

years have taught us anything, it’s once you make the playoffs, anything can happen. The Steelers were a loss away from elimination for eight straight games, the colts ended the regular season with an abysmal run D, and the Giants – well, did anyone outside NY give them a chance?

That said, just making the playoffs should be hard for the Browns. Outside of two games each, the AFCN all play the same schedule, and I’ll be shocked if we get two playoff teams.

by Desroko on May 7, 2008 3:24 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Steelers vs Browns

One difference. Steelers are battle tested. Browns are not. The Browns are a young team, they have very little experience, especially overcoming adversity. The Steelers have lots of experience. And last time I checked, Anderson is still there QB. Right there is why they won’t even make the playoffs let a lone the Super Bowl. And if Quinn starts? Might as well look towards next years top 10 draft pick.

Funny how everyone forgets that getting Shaun Rodgers made there secondary worse with the loss of Bodden.

Roethlisberger pretty much owns that state.

by jason97673 on May 7, 2008 5:06 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

I'm going to love the fact that

on Sunday of opening weekend all Steelers fans will become Cowboys fans for a day.

Beeeaaauuttiiful! Don’t worry, we’ll kick their asses.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 7, 2008 5:19 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

The beautiy of the divisonal system

You hate a team’s guts at least one week out of the year, and cheer them for three.

by Desroko on May 7, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Not I, Good Sir.

I have enough faith in the Browns’ ability to screw things up that I won’t need to cheer the Cowboys on.

by HinesField on May 7, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

what I love most

about the Browns situation is that alot of media “experts” and Browns fans alike, believe they have two solid QB’s. Anderson was very good last year, don’t get me wrong, but why is everyone assuming Brady Quinn is good. he played a few snaps in meaningless games. he’s barely proven anything more than Matt Ryan has at this point, and noone is saying Atlanta is gonna win 10 games this year, whereas Browns fans seem to think if Anderson gets injured Quinn will step right in with no problems. it’s somewhat comical how many people really believe this as well, not just Browns fans. Can someone tell me why people think Brady Quinn will be so good?

by TheMostViolentTeam on May 8, 2008 10:24 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

The answer, at least partly if not mostly, is that it’s a good “cockpit” to be sitting in (Phil Savage’s term). Great OLine (w/ a young Franchise LT), top-3 league receiver, top-3 TE, top-5 running back, etc etc etc.

The comparison to Ryan is apt, if you completely discredit a whole year of being on an NFL roster and practicing the system, which Quinn has. Of course no one knows for sure if he’ll be good, but can you name a better #2 QB in football, even considering his inexperience? It’s not like he’s been playing baseball for the last year.

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 10:46 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Better number 2

Batch, hands down

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

umm... yeah

Charlie Batch, Kurt Warner (or Matt Leinart whomever isn’t starting), Todd Collins, Sage Rosenfels (partly cause he’s got a sweet name).

Although to be fair I’d take just about any veteran worth his salt over an unproven Brady Quinn. I had very little respect for him coming out of college as he seemed to wilt in every game against good competition. He hasn’t shown anything yet in the NFL to prove otherwise. I think the ideal endgame for the browns is that Quinn doesn’t play a snap and gets traded next year for a 1st round pick. There’d probably be a team dumb enough to do it.

by Chicago Steeler on May 8, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Eh, the “big game” theory on college QBs has been roundly and thoroughly disproven.

Your stance of taking any veteran is somewhat understandable, but I doubt it’s the majority opinion of NFL personnel people regarding Quinn. To heck w/ backups, I’d venture that w/ a year under his belt 15% of teams would rather have him as their starter, let alone their backup. (If one agrees with most that he’d have been a top 10 pick this year… chi, balt, atl, nyj).

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 11:27 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

italics were supposed to stop after “starter”, whoops…

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Some would take that chance

but until he proves it on the field he’s just like every other unproven young QB.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 11:57 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Disproven?

Musta missed the proof on that. People sure looked at it as factor when drafting Vince Young. His performance against USC was what boosted him up the draft ladder. Great athletes perform the best in the big games. It’s what separates them from journeymen.

I won’t argue that some teams out there are desperate for QB help and would probably give Quinn a chance to start. But that list is very small because of how many teams drafted QBs this year that they’d like to test out before moving to someone else being unproven. Chicago would probably give him a chance at it, but God only knows if Lovie will let anyone other than Rex start coming out of camp.

by Chicago Steeler on May 8, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

"disproven"

ha, whoops, there’s your proff you’re talking with an idiot.

Generally, I think most teams in the NFL consider taking a quarterback to be much more about projection and not what they’ve done, statistically (whether individual, or team offense/record). Basically, they care more about how the prospect will grow up and be at 26 in a pro program than they do about what he did at 21 against a bunch of other 21 year olds in a “big game” for the college. It’s not meaningless, but less important than projection/skills, etc. Isn’t Ben an example? (I know nothing about his Miami career, other than how “big” a game could he have played in?)

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 1:50 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

True

I realize it’s not the most important factor for every QB but I do believe it’s a telling factor. It’s why people place importance on play at the Senior Bowl. You’re finally up against the most talent and how do you play in that pressure situation.

Ben had a ridiculously good record at Miami. I think he only lost 1 perhaps 2 games? Someone can correct me but I remember as he went 15 straight wins in the NFL that his over all streak including college was well over 30 games.

by Chicago Steeler on May 8, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Close

Actually he went 7-5 in 2001 and 2002. His Junior year he went 13-1 and had unbelievable numbers.

His numbers were much better than the other 2 QBs in Rivers and Manning. He is just another example of how small school players should be given as much consideration as the bigger school players.

by jason97673 on May 8, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Rivers

completed over 70% of his passes for nearly 4500 yards, 34 TDs and 7 INTs his senior year. The team finished 8-5, but it wasn’t because of him.

Ben’s overall W/L record is probably somewhat better than Rivers, but Rivers came into a team whose previous 3 years were 3-8, 3-8, and 6-6, IIRC. During his four years at NC State, he went 7-5, 8-4, 11-3, and 8-5. He was by far the best player on his college team during his time there. I think Eli’s W/L record was not as good.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Rivers

Had an outstanding Senior year which was better then Bens Junior year, but Ben had the better entire College career.

by jason97673 on May 8, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

It seems more like Ben

had a better single season in terms of W/L.

Rivers finished with over 13,000 yards, 95 TDs, and only 34 INTs. I believe he was second in career passing yards when he graduated. I would say it’s arguable which had a better overall career.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Top 5 Running Back

Did they just pull of a trade that I didn’t hear about b/c surely you’re not drinking so much Brown Kool-Aid that you actually think Jamal Lewis is in the top 5 backs in the NFL at this point in his career. If he’s in the top 5, I have to hear how you’d currently rank the RBs in the league.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on May 8, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Yeah,

and Edwards as a top-3 WR is pushing it too. Easily top-10, arguably top-5, not top-3. I’ll give you Winslow, though. He’s good.

by BadMaafala on May 8, 2008 1:17 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Yeah, sorry to be unclear, I meant AFC. I think he’s top 3 there, but that’s only based on one season.

The point isn’t my off the handle rankings, it was that as far as quarterbacking jobs go, it’s one of the cushiest you can imagine.

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I’ll agree that it’s a better offensive environment than someone like Alex Smith was given. As far as how his college career translates to the pro’s, I do think pressure games reveal a lot about a QB’s character. Sure, stats don’t translate very well, but it’s also no coincidence that Joe Montana led one of the great comebacks in college bowl history while he had the flu. I’m not saying Quinn will be a bad QB, but I he didn’t have any games that just blew me away, especially his senior year. Ben, btw, took a MAC team to a #10 ranking and crushed Louisville in his bowl game (21-33, 376YD, 4TD, 0INT). It’s not LSU, but it’s who he got to play.

by BadMaafala on May 8, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I was going AFC (league) and I went by rushing yards, of which Lewis had the 3rd most in the AFC (5th most in the NFL) last year. And that’s w/ missing two games.

by kwoog on May 8, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Because he outperformed both Anderson and Frye in the pre-season last year

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Agree

However I think it is a misconception that Anderson played well last year. He had one good statistic and that was touchdowns. All his other numbers were borderline bad. He threw 19 picks, had a 56 comp% and an 82 rating.

However I do agree with the part that most Browns fans think Quinn will step in and do just fine. I think that is comical. As we all know most QBs do not do very well there first year as starter.

I pretty much say that if Quinn is the starter they might as well pack there bags because they have no shot at the playoffs. And thats based on history.

by jason97673 on May 8, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Actually

I was hoping there would be a way that both teams lost.

by RickVa on May 8, 2008 3:26 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Was responding

to Terry’s comment above.

by RickVa on May 8, 2008 3:51 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

We'll find out about the Browns early.

By the second week we’ll know a lot. Cleveland opens against Dallas and Pittsburgh. Not at all pessimistic or disrepectful to say that they may be 0-2 at that point. Pittsburgh on the other hand opens against Houston. Under normal circumstances this could be a great situation for an upset. I’m sure the entire organization understands that this is a year where it is imperative that you win the games you are supposed to win. If the Steelers go into that second game 1-0 and the Browns 0-1, and the Steelers win, in Cleveland no less, the season won’t necessarily be over, but the Browns may come away sufficiently shaken that they could collapse.

by RickVa on May 8, 2008 4:01 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Agreed

I would have more confidence in the Steelers’ ability to rebound from a poor start than the Browns, just because these players are used to winning, whereas most of the Browns’ players are used to losing (except Stallworth, I guess, but noone is giving him the credit for NE’s run last year).

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 4:31 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I don’t think the Browns’ schedule is going to take them by surprise. If they don’t have a good season, it will because their schedule this year is a lot harder than last year, not because they lost 2 games early to 2 really good teams. They know that we have a tougher schedule and they will have ample opportunities to make up 2 games.

by BadMaafala on May 8, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I'm not saying

the Browns don’t know that they have a tough schedule. I’m just saying that a team/players with a lot of experience winning are more likely to be reselient than those with little experience winning. How often have we seen talented teams (Bengals last two years?) fall apart after faced with adversity?

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Good point

Winning is not always about talent. Do they have the mental toughness? Also the ability to ignore, even be contemptous of the press. The same people who are stroking their asses now will be writing them off and talking about what a bunch of chokers they are if they go 0-2. Not saying they can’t rebound, just asking; will they?

by RickVa on May 8, 2008 7:56 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

They may

but they have to do it first to prove it. Many of the Steelers’ players have already shown that resiliency.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on May 8, 2008 9:03 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

proof

Well, they proved something by recovering from an embarassment of an opening week last year. It’s not proof of anything this year, but it’s evidence. On the other hand, the Steelers haven’t shown that they can be consistent at any point in the last 2 years. If we play like we did last year, the Browns have about as good a chance to win the division as we do at about 7-9.

by BadMaafala on May 9, 2008 10:17 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs