[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Evan702

And the Rams haven't been to the playoffs since 2004, yet they just successfully relocated and they're almost certainly farther away from a return to the postseason than are the Raiders. Again, recent on-field performance is a poor rationale either for or against a relocation. Moreover, unlike Oakland, St. Louis was very willing to work with the team on a new stadium.

As for the Browns, they have never won a Super Bowl, hell they've never even been to a Super Bowl. As you point out, they were a franchise that just couldn't get over the hump. That, to me, says that their entire NFL existence has been a failure. And when you choose an arbitrary number like 14 that does seem a bit like cherry picking. You expand that out just a few seasons and you have three straight division titles for Oakland, two AFC championship game appearances and a Super Bowl appearance.

Put another way, between the NFL history of each of these two franchises, which one do you think that Browns fans would rather have?

As a true sports fan I would much rather have the Cleveland Browns as opposed to the Oakland Raiders , because they were a winner over a longer period of time. Winning the Super Bowl is great I give you that , i can also grant you that "but" going to the playoffs" almost every year is also pretty dog gone good.

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

As a true sports fan I would much rather have the Cleveland Browns as opposed to the Oakland Raiders , because they were a winner over a longer period of time. Winning the Super Bowl is great I give you that , i can also grant you that "but" going to the playoffs" almost every year is also pretty dog gone good.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't follow your logic. How can the Browns be a "winner" over a longer period of time when they've never won the Super Bowl? And going to the playoffs almost every year? The Browns have been to the postseason TWICE in the last quarter century+.

All time regular season winning percentage: Raiders .528, Browns .505
All time postseason winning percentage: Raiders .581, Browns .355
Since the NFL-AFL merger:

Playoff Appearances-Raiders 18, Browns 11
Division titles-Raiders 12, Browns 5
AFC conference championships-Raiders 4, Browns 0
Super Bowl victories-Raiders 3, Browns 0

I don't see where you're coming from.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by Evan702

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't follow your logic. How can the Browns be a "winner" over a longer period of time when they've never won the Super Bowl? And going to the playoffs almost every year? The Browns have been to the postseason TWICE in the last quarter century+.

All time regular season winning percentage: Raiders .528, Browns .505
All time postseason winning percentage: Raiders .581, Browns .355
Since the NFL-AFL merger:

Playoff Appearances-Raiders 18, Browns 11
Division titles-Raiders 12, Browns 5
AFC conference championships-Raiders 4, Browns 0
Super Bowl victories-Raiders 3, Browns 0

I don't see where you're coming from.

These seem like indisputable facts to me. You should have dropped the mic.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Evan702

And the Rams haven't been to the playoffs since 2004, yet they just successfully relocated and they're almost certainly farther away from a return to the postseason than are the Raiders. Again, recent on-field performance is a poor rationale either for or against a relocation. Moreover, unlike Oakland, St. Louis was very willing to work with the team on a new stadium.

As for the Browns, they have never won a Super Bowl, hell they've never even been to a Super Bowl. As you point out, they were a franchise that just couldn't get over the hump. That, to me, says that their entire NFL existence has been a failure. And when you choose an arbitrary number like 14 that does seem a bit like cherry picking. You expand that out just a few seasons and you have three straight division titles for Oakland, two AFC championship game appearances and a Super Bowl appearance.

Put another way, between the modern NFL history of each of these two franchises, which one do you think that Browns fans would rather have?

The 14 seasons is not an arbitrary number. It is the number of seasons since the Raiders posted a winning record. I compared it to the same number of seasons of the Browns before their move. The Raiders are a pitiful franchise devoid of a culture of winning. Sure, they look better than they have in the past last year, but they still posted a losing record and only beat one team with a winning record.

I don't really care how bad the Raiders are or if they move here as long as they pay their own way.

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

The 14 seasons is not an arbitrary number. It is the number of seasons since the Raiders posted a winning record. I compared it to the same number of seasons of the Browns before their move. The Raiders are a pitiful franchise devoid of a culture of winning. Sure, they look better than they have in the past last year, but they still posted a losing record and only beat one team with a winning record.

Sure it's arbitrary. You plucked some metric that has little to nothing to do with a team's relocation process and are trying to make some nebulous point out of it. As for the rest, that's your opinion and we know what those are frequently equated to. Personally, the franchises that I consider "pitiful and devoid of a culture of winning" are those like the Lions and Browns that have never played on the sport's grandest stage, but to each their own.

I don't really care how bad the Raiders are or if they move here as long as they pay their own way.

Yes, it'd be nice if were to work out that way...

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Evan702

Sure it's arbitrary. You plucked some metric that has little to nothing to do with a team's relocation process and are trying to make some nebulous point out of it. As for the rest, that's your opinion and we know what those are frequently equated to. Personally, the franchises that I consider "pitiful and devoid of a culture of winning" are those like the Lions and Browns that have never played on the sport's grandest stage, but to each their own.

I'm not sure what better comparison you are looking for. I was responding to a post where the Browns were described as a failure and the relocation process somehow improved them. I pointed out that the Browns were a good team for the 14 years before they moved (the number of years since Raiders posted a winning record, the other topic involved). There is little doubt the Browns that became the Ravens were far superior to the current Raiders.

If the Browns were a failure after going to the playoffs in half of their seasons and making it to three AFC Championship games in the years leading up to their move, how would you describe the Raiders, who haven't won 9 or more games since 2002 and posted seven 4-12 or worse seasons during that span?

[Evan702]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I'm not sure what better comparison you are looking for. I was responding to a post where the Browns were described as a failure and the relocation process somehow improved them. I pointed out that the Browns were a good team for the 14 years before they moved (the number of years since Raiders posted a winning record, the other topic involved). There is little doubt the Browns that became the Ravens were far superior to the current Raiders.

If the Browns were a failure after going to the playoffs in half of their seasons and making it to three AFC Championship games in the years leading up to their move, how would you describe the Raiders, who haven't won 9 or more games since 2002 and posted seven 4-12 or worse seasons during that span?

I wasn't looking for any comparison. I also never claimed that the relocation process improved the Browns-turned-Ravens. The posts are still there for you to go back and review. As an example, I mentioned that the Browns had been a failure for their entire existence in football's Super Bowl era and yet were able to win a Super Bowl in a relatively short time after their move to Baltimore. Again to reiterate, I never made the claim that the move to Baltimore was the reason for their Super Bowl wins as correlation does not imply causation. My only points, and I plainly stated them because nuance doesn't translate well over the internet, were that past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future results and that the on-field record of a team isn't a good rationale for or against a relocation.

Now for whatever reason you've truncated the Browns "entire existence" down to 14 years to fit a narrative that you've arbitrarily created. The number of years since the Raiders have had a winning season is not a topic that I was involved in. You brought that topic up. You'll have to forgive me, but I don't care to play the straw man game.

[LasVegasPlayer]

OK, I get it. You didn't like the proof that the Browns weren't a "failure" before moving to Baltimore and in fact moved a great team there that had been winning for years, something the Raiders wouldn't be doing.

[Evan702]

Sorry, but you didn't prove anything except for your affinity for straw men. Have fun with that.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by Evan702

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't follow your logic. How can the Browns be a "winner" over a longer period of time when they've never won the Super Bowl? And going to the playoffs almost every year? The Browns have been to the postseason TWICE in the last quarter century+.

All time regular season winning percentage: Raiders .528, Browns .505
All time postseason winning percentage: Raiders .581, Browns .355
Since the NFL-AFL merger:

Playoff Appearances-Raiders 18, Browns 11
Division titles-Raiders 12, Browns 5
AFC conference championships-Raiders 4, Browns 0
Super Bowl victories-Raiders 3, Browns 0

I don't see where you're coming from.

I'm coming from living in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Oakland Raiders are has been who won Super Bowls in 1976 1980 and 1983.

And as I mentioned before they are has been's I am not going to support a has-been and that was my logic?