Which team gets to their respective conference championship game first, the Cowboys or the Browns?

The Fonz

Correctamundo
Messages
8,224
Reaction score
11,987
One is a pretender and the other is a contender
So I would say the Browns
 

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,734
Reaction score
27,009
If Jerry gets constipated your head will shrink to the size of a pinto bean.
wow what a detailed and concise response..

you think that up all by yourself there Brainiac..i stated facts the thread was dumb one to begin with anytime any team that used to be pathetic stats looking even decent ignorant fans post the same ridiculous narrative. They want to bury realities that regardless of what happened since 1997 we are still a great franchise..not the browns, never will be regarded the browns. Period

my two responses hold very true, ignore them if you will , its hows how bad fan some in here are , just bash the team 24/7 ..
 

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,734
Reaction score
27,009
In all fairness, the “Browns” have 2 SB Championships as the Ravens. The fact that the original Browns moved cities and changed names is irrelevant. The current team named the Browns was an expansion team only 20 years ago.

Now, as regards the OP question, I firmly believe Dallas will play in the NFCCG before the Browns. In fact, I would not be surprised to see it be this year. This is largely a year to year league and last year is history. The biggest obstacle to Dallas reaching the NFCCG is Ole Hog Jowells.

NOPE totally different teams in different citys that doesnt work, nice reach but it didnt land..the fact the browns ran land left Cleveland and started new franchise says it all..they sucked and left reemerged and sucked for 20 years not one good season and these fools trying to make comparisons..nah not on your life..

cant use that

nice try but FAIL

browns suck as they always have
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,356
Reaction score
8,619
The Cowboys aspire to be the Browns currently. It really is that simple. Forget past glory and name brand. They have a solid team and appear to have improved in the off season. Let's also not forget the drubbing they put on us last year.

Hopefully we will be a lot better this year but until its proven ....
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,177
Reaction score
5,764
NOPE totally different teams in different citys that doesnt work, nice reach but it didnt land..the fact the browns ran land left Cleveland and started new franchise says it all..they sucked and left reemerged and sucked for 20 years not one good season and these fools trying to make comparisons..nah not on your life..

cant use that

nice try but FAIL

browns suck as they always have
Actually, the Ravens weren’t a totally different team. Ownership stayed the same as did the management and roster. By your logic, the Raiders have been totally different teams after every one of their moves. I doubt you’ll find anyone that would subscribe to that.

The Cowboys certainly are more relevant than the Browns/Ravens/Browns. They’re a far greater media draw and polarizing. But your use of Super Bowls to support your point is incomplete.

You want to compare the current Browns franchises on-field success to the Cowboys, fine, then limit the later’s success since 1999. Certainly, the Cowboys have had more success in that time period, but not by some huge amount.

Or if you want to compare all Cleveland franchises to the Cowboys, fine. The Browns were successful well before the Cowboys winning NFL Championships before the Cowboys. One of the worst Cowboys losses for me as a kid was getting thumped by the Browns in the playoffs in the late 60s after being heavily favored.
 

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,734
Reaction score
27,009
Actually, the Ravens weren’t a totally different team. Ownership stayed the same as did the management and roster. By your logic, the Raiders have been totally different teams after every one of their moves. I doubt you’ll find anyone that would subscribe to that.

The Cowboys certainly are more relevant than the Browns/Ravens/Browns. They’re a far greater media draw and polarizing. But your use of Super Bowls to support your point is incomplete.

You want to compare the current Browns franchises on-field success to the Cowboys, fine, then limit the later’s success since 1999. Certainly, the Cowboys have had more success in that time period, but not by some huge amount.

Or if you want to compare all Cleveland franchises to the Cowboys, fine. The Browns were successful well before the Cowboys winning NFL Championships before the Cowboys. One of the worst Cowboys losses for me as a kid was getting thumped by the Browns in the playoffs in the late 60s after being heavily favored.

Im not debating this the browns have yet to earn being mentioned with the DC or better, not even close yet..


sorry theres no way around it, the name is the name...

the DC didnt have team close shop and run from that crap city , ours is labeled Americas Team for reason and W-Ls since 1999 we are still better period, people trying to prop up the browns because of finally after 23 years of absolute dog poo they have ONE wining season. Lmao

good try they haven't turned around anything like the jags one and done 10-6 season and trip to an afccg, they fell rights back on their faces..you all can start bragging when the browns do what KC did and it took KC 50(FIFTY) Years between Championships..

we are on 25, its gets old for this reason..we haven't approached 50 so lets keep it real..philly took 60 years finally got pone ,all of sudden they were the new measuring stick , uh oh back on their faces..

No our franchise since 1960 has always been the Dallas Cowboys and we have history that gets us credit to ait on our 6th because it for sure isnt ONE or just looking for 2..that matters to fans like me..its called pride regardless of this drought its not the cubs 100year curse~!

so im good with being hopeful it will turn around before 50 and for sure before 100 :)
 
Top