Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

lastcat3 wrote: Do you think it would be fair to give the current Browns franchise the label of worst franchise in league history yet since they have only been around for about twenty years now?

When you say "worst in league history" exactly what do you mean?
It sounds like you are speaking of the current franchises, not all of "league history."

I think the '52 Dallas Texans would give anyone a run for their money in a race to the bottom.
Not to mention any of the dozens (?) of failed franchises from the 1920's-40's.
How about the Tonawanda Kardex or the Muncie Flyers?
All of league history includes a lot of bad teams....

And then there's the Oorang Indians...

Ironic in some ways that Cleveland and Detroit are two of the worst franchises in football. When I first started watching football (1950's), Cleveland and Detroit were the two most dominant teams in pro football.

I am thinking of a movie where a person goes into a coma for 60 years starting in 1957. When he wakes up and starts following football again, he would say, "What the hell happened?"

Saban wrote: I am thinking of a movie where a person goes into a coma for 60 years starting in 1957. When he wakes up and starts following football again, he would say, "What the hell happened?"

Ha!
I am pretty sure football would be the least of said sleeper's worries.

JuggernautJ wrote:

Saban wrote: I am thinking of a movie where a person goes into a coma for 60 years starting in 1957. When he wakes up and starts following football again, he would say, "What the hell happened?"

Ha!
I am pretty sure football would be the least of said sleeper's worries.

I am reminded of the scene in the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper" where he was a guy from the 1970's who wakes up 200 years in the future, and the future scientists have fragments of the past they are trying to piece together to understand the past. In one of them, they show a video segment of Howard Cosell talking, and tell Woody that they had developed a theory that the rulers back then would punish criminals of the state by making them watch footage of Howard Cosell, and Woody confirmed that was true.

Saban wrote:Ironic in some ways that Cleveland and Detroit are two of the worst franchises in football. When I first started watching football (1950's), Cleveland and Detroit were the two most dominant teams in pro football.

I am thinking of a movie where a person goes into a coma for 60 years starting in 1957. When he wakes up and starts following football again, he would say, "What the hell happened?"

It's actually an interesting question there are quite few franchises that you could argue were for a meaningful period of their history both the best franchise and the worst franchise. The Saints for example - even after winning the Super Bowl - really weren't the best franchise in football. It's probably the Browns and the Lions as well as maybe Steelers (40's worst, 70's best) I think that's the list.

NWebster wrote:

Saban wrote:Ironic in some ways that Cleveland and Detroit are two of the worst franchises in football. When I first started watching football (1950's), Cleveland and Detroit were the two most dominant teams in pro football.

I am thinking of a movie where a person goes into a coma for 60 years starting in 1957. When he wakes up and starts following football again, he would say, "What the hell happened?"

It's actually an interesting question there are quite few franchises that you could argue were for a meaningful period of their history both the best franchise and the worst franchise. The Saints for example - even after winning the Super Bowl - really weren't the best franchise in football. It's probably the Browns and the Lions as well as maybe Steelers (40's worst, 70's best) I think that's the list.

I think you can put the Patriots in there too. They have been the class of the league since 2001 and the team was stabilized in 1993.

1989-1993 they were a disaster. Dreadful 1965-1975