Comments on: A last and loving look back at the Browns draft

By: alan t.

alan t. — Fri, 01 May 2009 04:05:14 +0000

Again, why are you arguing semantics? They indeed were playoff games. The very dictionary definition of "playoff" is "any final competition to determine a championship."

Belichick turned out to be 100% correct about Kosar's "diminishing skills," and Modell turned out to be 100% correct in firing Brown. The players were sick of his crap, including Jim Brown.

By: George South

George South — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:17:06 +0000

there was no playoff only a championship game, the top two teams…..that's all that happened in the post season……and a runner up bowl for the 2nd place teams………Uncle Art said in the paper the reason he got rid of Paul Brown was that as long as paul brown was around the team would "never be his"………..kosar was dumped in an argument with Bellichik, when kosar pasted bill in the mouth……fired the next day

By: alan t.

alan t. — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:48:36 +0000

Oh, two more things … what do you think the postseason is? It's the PLAYOFFS. What, do you want to argue semantics? Hell, on the Browns' own website, they even refer to the 1950s postseason games as the PLAYOFFS … Second, standing room only in an 86,000 seat stadium??? … since when? In the 1950s, they averaged from less than 40,000, gradually getting closer to 60,000 as it went into the 1960s … In 1956, they were selling 20,000-25,000 … From 1956 until 1964, they didn't win one single game after the regular season ended, and only appeared in two postseason games TOTAL … there is a reason Brown was eventually fired, albeit it was handled about as well as dumping Bernie Kosar … Hell, if 86,000 people paid for tickets every game after Modell bought the franchise, then he probably wouldn't have moved it … and yeah, if it makes you more secure with the actual facts, I'm old and I have the basketball-sized prostate to prove it.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:18:35 +0000

Uh … no, YOU said he was mediocre. I wrote his PLAYOFF record was mediocre. Learn how to read.

By: George South

George South — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:44:38 +0000

Alan T says: Paul Brown was mediocre????????
Back then to be in the championship game you had to be the top 2 teams in the league…one from the east and one from the west….no playoff games…..only the best two teams in all of football……….there was a runner-up bowl for the two teams in 2nd place……one from the east…..one from the west…..so we had a championship game and a runner-up bowl, after a whole season of play only the best 4 teams in all of football played after the regular season was over…….Paul Brown's Cleveland Browns never placed lower than 2nd place in the history of the franchise until Uncle Art came to town and bought the team……the 1964 team that Uncle Art won the championship with………..was the team Paul Brown left him………the cleveland browns owned the cowboys and the steelers(check the records)…….the cleveland browns were the winningest team in football……until 2 or 3 years of mike phipps( under Uncle Art)……….So alan t. how mediocre is that????? Playoff record????? there were no playoffs……year after year no lower than 2nd place….5,6 7, players going to the pro bowl year after year….If there had been a Super Bowl there would be 9 or 10 rings on the fingers of the browns, what is that, BOTH HANDS???????? standing room only in a 86,000 seat stadium watching the winningest team in football……MEDIOCRE??????????? I wuz there, you must have been sucking on a baby bottle….if you were even born yet…………….

By: bltinfla

bltinfla — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:36:16 +0000

"Imagine Philadelphia trading Donovan McNabb for Dave Wohlabaugh and a bunch of other guys. That does not provide a lot of sizzle."

I am sure the Chargers would take that for Ryan Leaf, or the Redskins (I think) for Heath Shuler, or the Texans for David Carr or the Lions for Joey Harrington, or the Bengals for Akili Smith, the list can go on and on. The one thing these guys have in common, nobody even heard of them until a couple of months before their respective drafts. A month before the draft they are superstars.

This is unlike Peyton Manning, McNab and many others who made names for themselves over a 3 or 4 year college career. But it does generate "sizzle"

To me it's the Jets who were conned.

By: cliff

cliff — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:58:21 +0000

They're still gonna stink. Go Steelers.

By: cuervo

cuervo — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:02:50 +0000

Why doesn't any of these sports writers, or fans acknowledge the extreme difficulty of trading out of any of the first 5 picks of the first round? Instead, they write that the Browns didn't receive enough for that #5. Which team really had the leverage…think about it?
The Browns did a great job of picking up additional picks and reducing their overall risk. The Jets put all their eggs in one very high risk basket.

By: paulbip

paulbip — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:10 +0000

Mack is the perfect anchor for the offense. You need a solid center to control the NT.

By: Hy Jones

Hy Jones — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:09:22 +0000

BJ Raji would have looked good for the Browns at #5. Perfect anchor for Mangini's 34 defense.