Like we said before the season started..........
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Build your team for speed & defense
Next: Joey Votto
From: John Kasupski on 29 Sep 2009 00:47 On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:11:47 -0400, "Bob Braun" <oxinfla(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"John Kasupski" <kc2hmz(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote in message >news:1f03c5pl01287q2lkb41kgkeqtboqjfsa9(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:23:15 -0700 (PDT), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>If not the Browns, who would the Cubs of the NFL be? >> >> Maybe the Detroit Lions? They actually won a game last Sunday...for the >> first >> time since December 2007. >> >> JK > >How many NFL teams have gone multiple generations without a title >appearance. I'm asking, because I really don't know. Well, here we go getting off topic again....but... Last Appearance in Super Bowl by Franchise Jets - 1968 Patriots - 2007 Bills - 1993 Dolphins - 1984 Ravens - 2000 Bengals - 1988 Steelers - 2008 Browns - NEVER (Last NFL Championship, 1964) Colts - 2006 Jaguars - NEVER (Created 1995) Texans - NEVER (Created 2002) Titans - 1999 Broncos - 1998 Chargers - 1994 Raiders - 2002 Chiefs - 1966 Giants - 2007 Eagles - 2004 Cowboys - 1995 Redskins - 1991 Vikings - 1976 Packers - 1997 Bears - 2006 Lions - NEVER (Last NFL Championship 1957) Saints - NEVER (Created 1967) Falcons - 1998 Panthers - 2003 Buccaneers - 2002 49ers - 1994 Cardinals - 2008 Seahawks - 2005 Rams - 2001 Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com's Super Bowl History page, and the individual team pages for those five teams who have who never played in a SB. >His original post hit me entirely wrong.............I was down $600 at the >time. I finished tonight +$200 for the weekend. I stand by my original contention that the Lions, not the Browns, are the NFL's Cubs. The Browns won an NFL championship in 1964, but the Lions' last NFL championship was 1957, before I was even born and when you were about a year old. Beyond that, well...the Saints have never won a championship of any kind other than the NFC South title in 2006, and they've been around since 1967. The other two teams who've never played in a SB haven't been around nearly as long. And (to get back to baseball) all of them are far from the Cubs' 100+ years of championship futility. JK Completely Useless Beyond September ....and Jesus said unto the Cubs, "Don't do anything until I get back!"
From: HTP on 29 Sep 2009 12:46 On Sep 27, 11:46 am, RJA <agentvau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 27, 1:57 am, "Bob Braun" <oxin...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > They may be the best team on paper, but they *are* the Cubs! > > And the Browns are the Cubs of the NFL. Not to get too deep into this, but one thing that sets the Cubs apart is that they actually try to put together a winning team. They are a major player in free agent markets, they have a huge fan base and potential revenue stream. They should win alot more than they do. I dont see the Browns as the NFL equivilent.
From: David Short on 29 Sep 2009 14:04 Bob Braun wrote: > "David Short" <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message >> john smith wrote: >>> Boy, has baseball changed for the worse... >> You think so? Really? >> >> Financially the game is in great shape. >> The spectre of PED's seems to have been banished from the playing field, >> if not the record book. >> Owners have come to the realization that they need to pay for top talent, >> but not for middling talent. I think that's the first step towards >> controlling costs. >> I think the game is as healthy as it's ever been in my lifetime. > > Look at the number of empty seats. Marty reported the attendance as 15,000 > and change in Pittsburgh the other day. The evening news had it as less > than 3,000. MLB refuses to report actual attendance, creatively switching > to 'tickets sold I don't know that it's historically unusual for teams like the Pirates or the reds to not draw at this time of year. The St. Louis Browns used to play to smaller crowds. > Look at the networks trying to wrangle out of their TV deals. I don't know that this is a bad thing for baseball. I know network TV represents money. The owner's don't seem to have a shortage. >Look at the poor play on the field. Help me out. > They have done nothing to level the playing field. Got to break up the Devil Rays? They've leveled the money playing field without holding the folks receiving the money accountable. That's a choice. > I don't think the sport is healthy at all. we differ. dfs
From: Bob Braun on 29 Sep 2009 14:55 "David Short" <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message news:h9ti48$9dp$1(a)posting.glorb.com... > Bob Braun wrote: >> "David Short" <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message >>> john smith wrote: >>>> Boy, has baseball changed for the worse... >>> You think so? Really? >>> >>> Financially the game is in great shape. >>> The spectre of PED's seems to have been banished from the playing field, >>> if not the record book. >>> Owners have come to the realization that they need to pay for top >>> talent, but not for middling talent. I think that's the first step >>> towards controlling costs. >>> I think the game is as healthy as it's ever been in my lifetime. >> >> Look at the number of empty seats. Marty reported the attendance as >> 15,000 and change in Pittsburgh the other day. The evening news had it >> as less than 3,000. MLB refuses to report actual attendance, creatively >> switching to 'tickets sold > > I don't know that it's historically unusual for teams like the Pirates or > the reds to not draw at this time of year. The St. Louis Browns used to > play to smaller crowds. This time of year? I have been looking at empty seats in MOST parks all year long. >> Look at the networks trying to wrangle out of their TV deals. > > I don't know that this is a bad thing for baseball. I know network TV > represents money. The owner's don't seem to have a shortage. They will, when TV money runs out. >>Look at the poor play on the field. > > Help me out. Can't hit a cut off man. Guys refuse to hit behind runners. Everybody swinging from the heels. BLATANT errors glossed over by official scorers. Yeah, I know, official scorers have been serving home cookin' for years. NOT anywhere near this magnitude. >> They have done nothing to level the playing field. > > Got to break up the Devil Rays? > They've leveled the money playing field without holding the folks > receiving the money accountable. That's a choice. The Rays went to the World Series last year. If it weren't for 'transplants' coming to cheer for opposing teams, they wouldn't have anybody at games. The only way this game is going to get well is proper revenue sharing and a salary cap. >> I don't think the sport is healthy at all. You can't just look at LA, Boston, New York and Chicago and call the game healthy. You must also consider Miami, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Washington, Oakland, Toronto etc. I wish they had to report actual turnstile count. What do the 20 somethings think about baseball? I have every single televised baseball game in my bar. I don't get many requests for a particular game, and when I do, it's NEVER a 20 something. 20 something girls come in groups to watch NFL games. UFC night, I have to turn people away by 10pm. This nothing wrong with differing! :)
From: David Short on 29 Sep 2009 16:15
Bob Braun wrote: > "David Short" <David.no.Short(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message >>> Look at the poor play on the field. >> Help me out. > Can't hit a cut off man. Guys refuse to hit behind runners. Everybody > swinging from the heels. BLATANT errors glossed over by official scorers. > Yeah, I know, official scorers have been serving home cookin' for years. > NOT anywhere near this magnitude. I don't know if there are more unscored blatant errors than there used to be. One of the problems of growing up watching the BRM was that everybody looks like pikers for the rest of your life. The numbers seem to imply that fielding has been getting better since the civil war. Everybody swinging from the heels is a difference, but I have to believe that if it wasn't creating more runs, managers wouldn't put up with it. Same thing with runners refusing to hit behind runners. If a manager WANTS players that do those things, they would put more of them on the rosters, guys would notice and we would see it everyplace. > You can't just look at LA, Boston, New York and Chicago and call the game > healthy. You must also consider Miami, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, > Pittsburgh, Washington, Oakland, Toronto etc. I wish they had to report > actual turnstile count. Again. There have been "franchises in trouble" for the history of the sport. > What do the 20 somethings think about baseball? I have every single > televised baseball game in my bar. I don't get many requests for a > particular game, and when I do, it's NEVER a 20 something. You got me there. I do have to agree. Nobody younger than me cares about baseball. All the good folks older than myself got turned off by the strike. dfs |