The Browns---Worse Than You Thought

Greetings!

I just wanted to post up a thread about my article (and new series of NFL articles) called, "Crossing the Line." In this one, we're going to take a look at the Cleveland Browns, a team so bad, that even Vegas and the bettors do not know what to do with them:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/crossing-the-line-browns/

We understand how bad going 1-31 over the past two seasons is, but what if I told you that the Browns have been less than 1% to perform as badly against the spread as they have over the last three years?

Ideally, ATS bets are a 50/50 proposition, so when you have a team that goes 13-34 (One Push) over three years, something is fundamentally wrong. My argument is that Vegas and the sports bettors simply can't find a way to give the Browns enough points.

Anyway, please give it a read and feel free to comment either in this thread or the comment section of the Article. If you really like it and are in an especially generous mood, share it on the socials! (Twitter, Facebook, Google+)

There is also a poll above, multiple options can be selected.

IMHO, it should get back closer to normal this year. Betting against truly awful teams shows profit for a year or two, but then the team gets better and people find the value, meaning the books take away the value.

That being said, should they start say 0-3, I would consider betting against them as the players sooner or later will be spiritually broken even more than they are now.

Quote: Mission146

Ideally, ATS bets are a 50/50 proposition, so when you have a team that goes 13-34 (One Push) over three years, something is fundamentally wrong.

It feels like this is a biased analysis. The team that loses only covers the spread 16-17% of the time. The Browns were able to do it 23% of the time the past two years (plus a few more times they covered on parlay cards while losing off the board). There should be enough examples of teams going three straight years with 10 wins or fewer (out of 48) to compare the Browns to. What were their records against the spread? (Jaguars, Lions, Rams, Raiders all did it this century)

I love an underdog. I think we should invest the Cooperation Game big pool money into bets on Browns money line.

Quote: TomG

It feels like this is a biased analysis. The team that loses only covers the spread 16-17% of the time. The Browns were able to do it 23% of the time the past two years (plus a few more times they covered on parlay cards while losing off the board). There should be enough examples of teams going three straight years with 10 wins or fewer (out of 48) to compare the Browns to. What were their records against the spread? (Jaguars, Lions, Rams, Raiders all did it this century)

If nothing else, I think that helps prove my point. This is especially true for the 2017 season, Vegas strongly believed the Browns would lose, in fact, they were only favored in one game. (-1 against IND)

Vegas had them as 6.5 point dogs, on average, for the entire season of 2017.

If you look at Wizard's chart, getting 6.5 points means you only have an estimated 29.7% probability of winning:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/

That leads to an expected five games won (4.752), with three more games out of thirteen needed for the Browns to go 8-8 ATS. That would mean that they would have to lose and cover three times of the remaining eleven games in order to meet that 8-8 while only being expected to do so 1.87 times based on your 17-18%.

So, before you even get into what actually happened, the point spreads already inherently over favored the Browns ATS by a little more than one game.

I think that's what you end up with. I think you have a team that is more likely than average to beat the spread while still losing and Vegas doesn't quite know what to do with that. It would make inherent sense that if you had a balance like this:

Beat Spread and Win Game --- Beat Spread and Lose Game

That the balance would shift to the right side of that the greater the spread is. I don't know how much, but if you look at a spread like -1/+1, the only way for the underdog to beat the spread is either a tie game or to win outright and those kind of games are factoring into your 17-18% number.

In short, the Browns are not like other teams.

Quote: TomG

It feels like this is a biased analysis. The team that loses only covers the spread 16-17% of the time. The Browns were able to do it 23% of the time the past two years (plus a few more times they covered on parlay cards while losing off the board). There should be enough examples of teams going three straight years with 10 wins or fewer (out of 48) to compare the Browns to. What were their records against the spread? (Jaguars, Lions, Rams, Raiders all did it this century)

This sounds like you are suggesting there is a correlation between a team’s record and their record ATS.

Bud announced a promo where Brown's fans get free beer after their first win. Genius idea for a franchise whose QB of the future was run out of the league for abusing alcohol, and whose star receiver was convicted of manslaughter while DWI.

Quote: billryan

Bud announced a promo where Brown's fans get free beer after their first win. Genius idea for a franchise whose QB of the future was run out of the league for abusing alcohol, and whose star receiver was convicted of manslaughter while DWI.

Also the team with fans that ruined the buzz for everyone by throwing plastic Miller Lite bottles on the field(in referee protest on MNF), and as a consequence, you cannot buy beer after the start of the 4th quarter.

Quote: Mission146

In short, the Browns are not like other teams.

They are not like the other NFL teams of the past couple years -- that's obvious from their won-loss record. But they are like other teams from NFL history that have lost over 80% of their games. That's my theory. What data is there that goes against that theory?

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Also the team with fans that ruined the buzz for everyone by throwing plastic Miller Lite bottles on the field(in referee protest on MNF), and as a consequence, you cannot buy beer after the start of the 4th quarter.

I thought Jet fans were responsible for that. One Monday night game, they lit some trash cans on fire and someone decided to see if he could kick a flaming can from the upper deck down onto the people in the rich seats.

Quote: billryan

I thought Jet fans were responsible for that. One Monday night game, they lit some trash cans on fire and someone decided to see if he could kick a flaming can from the upper deck down onto the people in the rich seats.

As close to a rigged game as possible, it was totally inexcusable what the refs did. I think it was appropriate for the fans to be in shock.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cleveland-browns/0ap3000000837026/Game-Theory-Record-Prediction-Cleveland-Browns

Cynthia Frelund predicts the Browns at 5-11, and I hear, the Browns are going to make the playoffs and maybe win the SB.

Quote: TomG

They are not like the other NFL teams of the past couple years -- that's obvious from their won-loss record. But they are like other teams from NFL history that have lost over 80% of their games. That's my theory. What data is there that goes against that theory?

Well, wait a minute. Your leading point was that a dog only covers whilst losing 17-18% of the time and I pointed out that most teams aren’t as big a dog on average as the Browns, so are you conceding that point?

Don’t talk to me about 80%. The Browns have lost 96.875% of their games in the last two years. 91.67% of their games in the last three years, so this isn’t any 80%. Losing 80% puts them at 9.6 wins in three years...they have four.

Is there any team that has lost that percentage of games over three seasons? VI has the line data going to 2012, so do you know where I could look to go back further if there is such a team?

Quote: Mission146

Well, wait a minute. Your leading point was that a dog only covers whilst losing 17-18% of the time and I pointed out that most teams aren’t as big a dog on average as the Browns, so are you conceding that point?

Don’t talk to me about 80%. The Browns have lost 96.875% of their games in the last two years. 91.67% of their games in the last three years, so this isn’t any 80%. Losing 80% puts them at 9.6 wins in three years...they have four.

Is there any team that has lost that percentage of games over three seasons? VI has the line data going to 2012, so do you know where I could look to go back further if there is such a team?

(bold added)

I thought he said something different that the “losing” team only covers 17-18% of the time. That would imply that the underdog covers well more than 17-18% of the time when losing since the favorite covers exactly 0% of the time when losing.

Quote: Mission146

Don’t talk to me about 80%. The Browns have lost 96.875% of their games in the last two years. 91.67% of their games in the last three years, so this isn’t any 80%. Losing 80% puts them at 9.6 wins in three years...they have four.

That’s information that is so widely known and so easily available that it goes on the side of the Browns being as bad as we would think — not necessarily worse than that

Offhand , I think the Giants came close to that when I was a kid, and Tampa Bay in the late 70s. It was a 14 game schedule back then.

Quote: unJon

I thought he said something different that the “losing” team only covers 17-18% of the time. That would imply that the underdog covers well more than 17-18% of the time when losing since the favorite covers exactly 0% of the time when losing.

Okay, so it would be 34-38% of the time as dogs but that still doesn’t get the Browns to eight covers, nor does historic ACTUAL or estimated probability of winning based on historic point spread and their mean point spread for the relevant seasons.

Obviously, were they getting more points, they’d cover more often. Look at the last three years in terms of points spreads v. actual point differentials.

Most importantly, if you want to assume the spreads are right and it’s 50/50 with a, “Bad Run,” in terms of covering, the last three years are outside of the third standard deviation.

Quote: TomG

That’s information that is so widely known and so easily available that it goes on the side of the Browns being as bad as we would think — not necessarily worse than that

Worse not only because they lose, but because they lose by so much and do it so consistently.

A correct point spread is, ideally, a coin toss. A flawed line is not a coin toss. If the Browns’ spreads over the last three years were a coin toss, the results are outside of the third standard deviation.

They flipped that coin 47 times and it only came up heads 13 times...or the lines are flawed...which explanation do you prefer?

Both the Bucs and Big Blue had back to back two win seasons, but the Bucs had eight over three seasons with Big Blue having nine.
Lions had six wins in three seasons in the 40s.

Quote: billryan

Both the Bucs and Big Blue had back to back two win seasons, but the Bucs had eight over three seasons with Big Blue having nine.

Thank you, and both of those were 14 game seasons, weren’t they? 8/42 gets you 19% and that might be the closest three season stretch to being as bad as the Browns?

Mission, were you inclined to test TomG’s hypothesis, I would suggest checking how the following 2012+ teams did ATS:

1) 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars (2-14)
2) 2014 Oakland Raiders (3-13
3) 2014 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-14)
4) 2014 Tennessee Titans (2-14)
5) 2016 San Francisco 49ers (2-14)

Quote: unJon

Mission, were you inclined to test TomG’s hypothesis, I would suggest checking how the following 2012+ teams did ATS:

1) 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars (2-14)
2) 2014 Oakland Raiders (3-13
3) 2014 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-14)
4) 2014 Tennessee Titans (2-14)
5) 2016 San Francisco 49ers (2-14)

To be clear, I agree with the gist of TomG’s hypothesis, I just don’t think it explains everything.

I think his hypothesis boils down to, when a team performs worse than expected in terms of actual wins and losses, that team also tends to perform worse against the spread.

I definitely agree with that because it involves a team not performing to expectations. However, my contention is that the Browns so woefully underperformed expectations that were already extremely low that books/bettors simply don’t even know where to start on handling a team this bad.

Also on the O/U for total wins going into 2017...it was five. Why? What could possibly cause a person to believe, after 2015 and 2016, that the Browns would win five in 2017!? DeShone Kizer? Granted, I don’t think anybody expected him to have almost as many RED ZONE picks as total touchdowns, but still, how do you get them to five wins going into 2017? It’s unfathomable.

I guess TomG can tell us what his hypothesis is, but I read him as saying not teams with “worse than expected” records do bad ATS, but rather teams “that lose 80% of their games” do bad ATS.

Quote: unJon

Mission, were you inclined to test TomG’s hypothesis, I would suggest checking how the following 2012+ teams did ATS:

1) 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars (2-14)
2) 2014 Oakland Raiders (3-13)
3) 2014 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-14)
4) 2014 Tennessee Titans (2-14)
5) 2016 San Francisco 49ers (2-14)

I looked at the above teams ATS:

JAX 2012: 7-9
OAK 2014: 8-8
TB 2014: 7-9
TEN 2014: 3-12
SF 2016: 4-11

Browns 2015-2017: 13-34

Normally, when you would want to sample three of five, you kick out the highest and the lowest. That would leave you with 7-9, 7-9 and 4-11 for 18-29 which is nowhere near as bad as 13-34 ATS, 7.2145% to win that many or fewer by binomial distribution.

Even cherry-picking the worst three gets you to 14-32, binomial puts that or fewer at 0.6036%, which brings you back within the third standard deviation (hey, it has to end somewhere) and that's cherry-picking the worst three seasons in a deliberate effort to prove my own position wrong.

The other thing is that Vegas/Bettors may have arguably not been as likely to see those five teams being that bad coming. All of them had won more games the previous year than had the Browns in either of the past two seasons. Not to mention that none of them had gone winless the previous season but for a meaningless Week 16 win against the 5-11 San Diego Chargers.

2011 JAX: 5-11 POINT DIFF: -86
2013 OAK: 4-12 POINT DIFF: -131
2013 TB: 4-12 POINT DIFF: -101
2013 TEN: 7-9 (!) POINT DIFF: -19
2015 SF: 5-11 POINT DIFF: -149

2015 CLE: 3-13 POINT DIFF: -154
2016 CLE: 1-15 POINT DIFF: -188

So, they have worse records and a worse points differential for both years than any of those five teams had for any individual year.

Interesting enough, the Jags had a Point Diff. of -189 for 2012, but bettors managed to go 7-9 on the spread despite that. They covered the spread five games in which they were not favored to win.

The Raiders in 2014 had a Point Diff. of -199 for 2012, but bettors managed to go 8-8 against the spread despite that. They covered five games they did not win.

The Buccaneers had a Point Diff. of -133 for 2012, and bettors managed to go 7-9 ATS, they covered five games they lost.

The Titans had a -184 Point Diff. for 2012, they only went 3-12 against the spread and only beat the spread in one losing effort. The 49ers are almost the same (-171) for 2016, but they did manage to cover twice in spite of losing.

It's fascinating. In terms of Point Differential, the Browns were slightly improved 2017 compared to 2016, but same 4-12 ATS...It's like the bettors didn't see it coming.

The other teams all went from bad (or average, in one case) to REALLY bad for one season. In fact, it was the team (Tennessee) that went from average to basically awful where bettors went 3-12 against the spread, (worst of the five) so that actually makes sense. The Browns started being REALLY bad in 2015 and haven't stopped yet, but it's like bettors still don't know what to expect.

Hey now I bet the Browns ML last week against the Giants and won. Suck it Trebeck

Worst three consecutive years for a franchise this century before the Browns and how they did against the spread:

Raiders 2005 - 2007: 10 wins and 17-31 against the spread
Lions 2007 - 2009: nine wins and 17-30-1 against the spread (better if we look at 08 - 10 and worse if we look at 06 - 08
Rams 2007 - 2009: six wins and 18-30 against the spread
Jaguars 2012 - 2014: nine wins and 18-28-2 against the spread

Based on this data, if we knew a team would win only four games (only half what the other four worst averaged), the reasonable prediction would have them winning around 17 (or fewer) games against the spread. For the Browns to have only won 13 is easily within expectations.

Quote: Mission146

They flipped that coin 47 times and it only came up heads 13 times...or the lines are flawed...which explanation do you prefer?

I'll lay 5-1 that the eight first place teams this year have a better record against the spread than the eight last place teams. We can even eliminate the Browns from this and use the third place AFC North team if Cleveland finishes last again. I'll put up to $50,000 in escrow. If you really believe this position -- that any pointspread based on back fitting is a coin flip -- this would be the best bet you find all century.

Quote: TomG

Worst three consecutive years for a franchise this century before the Browns and how they did against the spread:

Raiders 2005 - 2007: 10 wins and 17-31 against the spread
Lions 2007 - 2009: nine wins and 17-30-1 against the spread (better if we look at 08 - 10 and worse if we look at 06 - 08
Rams 2007 - 2009: six wins and 18-30 against the spread
Jaguars 2012 - 2014: nine wins and 18-28-2 against the spread

You accuse me of retrofitting? The closest you get to the last three years of the Browns is the Lions 2008-2010, three seasons in which they went 23-24 against the spread. For those three seasons, their record was 8-40.

Rams: Five wins better against the spread, well within the third standard deviation.

Jaguars: Five wins better against the spread, well within the third standard deviation.

Raiders: Four wins better against the spread, well within the third standard deviation.

I've already agreed with you that teams that perform badly in win/loss, especially as compared to expectations, perform worse against the spread. I think it goe4s without saying. My suggestion is that the Browns are even worse than that despite good reason that people should expect them to be this bad.

Look at your examples: 9 wins, 9 wins, 6 wins, 9 wins...the Browns have won FOUR GAMES in three years. Even with every example you have, even isolating the three worst ATS seasons of teams to win four or fewer games since 2012, you still can't get results as bad as the Browns.

You can't cherry-pick results worse than the Browns have been. I mean, not if you have to use the same team. Maybe you can isolate three individual seasons in your four example teams that, combined, would be worse. Anything it takes to win an argument, I guess. Even though I don't even disagree with your fundamental point.

Quote:

Based on this data, if we knew a team would win only four games (only half what the other four worst averaged), the reasonable prediction would have them winning around 17 (or fewer) games against the spread. For the Browns to have only won 13 is easily within expectations.

"Based on this data," what data? You cherrypicking the worst seasons ATS possible? What a joke. 2007-2009 wasn't even the Detroit Lions worst three year record that includes 2008. 2008-2010 was. Of course, if you cherry-pick that, you get 23-24 ATS...which doesn't seem like it helps your argument much.

You included the worst three year stretch for the other three teams, why not Detroit? Because it hurts your argument too much?

Quote:

I'll lay 5-1 that the eight first place teams this year have a better record against the spread than the eight last place teams. We can even eliminate the Browns from this and use the third place AFC North team if Cleveland finishes last again. I'll put up to $50,000 in escrow. If you really believe this position -- that any pointspread based on back fitting is a coin flip -- this would be the best bet you find all century.

I've already conceded that point in an earlier post. Of the eight first place teams, I should think that a few of those will have done better than expected W/L and that of the eight worst a few will have done worse than expected in W/L. A team performing better or worse than expected in W/L should lead to that team performing better or worse than expected against the spread.

Anyway, I never disputed that. My point this entire time is that people are uniquely unprepared to account for a team as bad as the Browns. In all of your four examples (one of which you cheated on) you couldn't find a team to do worse ATS. Beyond that, people should have expected worse from the Browns.

Now, if you want me to, sight unseen, Lay 105 against your 100 that the Cleveland Browns go 7-9, or worse, ATS this year with 8-8 being a push, maybe we have a bet.

Actually, no bet.

I'm not going to enter a bet with someone when the subject matter of the bet came about as a result of a perfidious argument.

Quote: Mission146

Look at your examples: 9 wins, 9 wins, 6 wins, 9 wins...the Browns have won FOUR GAMES in three years. Even with every example you have, even isolating the three worst ATS seasons of teams to win four or fewer games since 2012, you still can't get results as bad as the Browns.

This has become a complete circle. The Browns have been uniquely bad at winning against the spread and uniquely bad at winning. Given one of those conditions, the other one should be expected.

Since y'all got numbers and fancy book learnins

which NFL team had the best ATS record, with a record of .500 or less in the last 10 years?

Quote: Mission146

Actually, no bet.

I'm not going to enter a bet with someone when the subject matter of the bet came about as a result of a perfidious argument.

Where did you learn this word?

Quote: TomG

This has become a complete circle. The Browns have been uniquely bad at winning against the spread and uniquely bad at winning. Given one of those conditions, the other one should be expected.

That’s my entire point, should be expected, so why aren’t the point spreads adjusting for it? When you factor in Points differentials, there should be no reason not to expect this.

It’s not like this is a flash in the pan bad year. They have lost their mean average game by nearly 10 (or more) points for the last three years, and it was two years before last year, so explain to me how that failed to become the expectation when nothing else about them showed any real sign of improvement.

Which is my thesis: Vegas/Bettors have given them too much credit.

So, Mission146 - based on your analysis would you say the Browns are a good bet to go under the total wins for the season bet which is now 4.5 per vegasinsider?

it dropped from 5.5.

or would you say that the positive personnel acquisitions cause it not to be a good bet?

Quote: Mission146

Quote: TomG

This has become a complete circle. The Browns have been uniquely bad at winning against the spread and uniquely bad at winning. Given one of those conditions, the other one should be expected.

That’s my entire point, should be expected, so why aren’t the point spreads adjusting for it? When you factor in Points differentials, there should be no reason not to expect this.

Lets make another lap around this circle: The point spreads haven't been able to adjust because the Browns have been so bad. But anyone would have *thought* the past years were so bad with information that is typically looked upon: the 0-16 and 4-44.

They're Pythagorean expectations for the past three years was 11 wins. So the point differentials. But still worse than other teams throughout recent history. But we already knew that just by looking at their win totals.

Quote: lilredrooster

So, Mission146 - based on your analysis would you say the Browns are a good bet to go under the total wins for the season bet which is now 4.5 per vegasinsider?

it dropped from 5.5.

or would you say that the positive personnel acquisitions cause it not to be a good bet?

For all we know, sharpies on this site reading Mission’s analysis are the ones that drove the line down!

Quote: lilredrooster

So, Mission146 - based on your analysis would you say the Browns are a good bet to go under the total wins for the season bet which is now 4.5 per vegasinsider?

it dropped from 5.5.

or would you say that the positive personnel acquisitions cause it not to be a good bet?

I honestly don't know on that one, it's pretty hard to say. I guess I would take the Under on a gun to my head basis, but what I do think is going to happen is that they will go 7-9, or worse, ATS. And, actually, I liked my position on that even better before the season win total dropped to 4.5, seems like maybe the bettors are starting to learn a little something about the Browns.

Of course, if they won four, then they would need to cover four more (33.33% out of 12) while losing. If they won five, then they would still need to cover three more (27.27% out of 11) while losing.

If the bettors continue to give them the same undeserved respect, which is only going to increase if they do win the off game or two, then that actually makes it less likely they'll cover.

In terms of personnel, the Browns have been called a, "QB Carousel," for a reason. Tyrod Taylor will hardly be the first seemingly average QB to go to that team and look like complete trash, and it won't be surprising if we have a, "QB Controversy," by Week 4, if not earlier.

Quote: TomG

Lets make another lap around this circle: The point spreads haven't been able to adjust because the Browns have been so bad. But anyone would have *thought* the past years were so bad with information that is typically looked upon: the 0-16 and 4-44.

That's my entire point, that's the entire point of the article. When you have -10 mean average points differentials two seasons in a row, the bettors should have some idea of what to expect, and for some reason, they didn't. I would argue that the Browns did not perform below expectations, but rather performed to expectations...that it is what people were expecting that was off.

You've got 3-13 (-155) and 1-15 (-188), now if you look at an average Vegas line of -6.5, then you would have the Browns going from a -188 net points differential to an expectation of -104? Why? For what reason?

So, I'm not even talking about 2015 and 2016 so much, I'm talking about bettors not using 2015 & 2016 to inform their opinions of what would happen in 2017. For that reason, I don't think they're prepared necessarily to use 2015-2017 to inform their opinions on what is going to happen in 2018.

Quote:

They're Pythagorean expectations for the past three years was 11 wins. So the point differentials. But still worse than other teams throughout recent history. But we already knew that just by looking at their win totals.

Yes, but what should the expectations have been against the spread? Well, that depends on the spreads, doesn't it? That's my point, the spreads have been fundamentally wrong (2015 was completely understandable and 2016 was arguably understandable) and I think the spreads will continue to be wrong this year.

Will the Browns win more games this year than they have won cumulatively in the last three years? Has any team ever done this?

Quote: unJon

For all we know, sharpies on this site reading Mission’s analysis are the ones that drove the line down!

That'd be neat, but more likely the New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/19/take-the-under-on-browns-win-total/

Fansided:

https://fansided.com/2018/08/06/nfl-win-totals-over-under-bets-browns-patriots-49ers/4/

I mean, we looked at teams to win fewer than 80% of games in the last five years, take the worst three, still one game ATS better than the Browns. Take the middle three, four games better ATS.

We tried (even with a little cheating) teams that had ten or fewer wins in a three year period since 2005 (or whatever it was). No dice, worst ATS you have there is seventeen wins.

The only thing that will prove me conclusively wrong is the Browns going better than 8-8 against the spread this year. We've looked at all the other ATS within the last over a decade and none of that does it.

As mentioned, the worst team that is also the most comparable (winless season) was the Detroit Lions from 2008-2010 who went 8-40 over those three years. During that time, they went 23-24 ATS. The only counter argument seems to be, "Oh, well they had eight wins and the Browns had only four, so of course they won ten more games ATS."

Look, I'm not a tout and I'm not a handicapper. That's why I started my article with this:

Quote:

DISCLAIMER: This article is for entertainment and research purposes only and should not be used to inform any actual betting decisions. Past performances are not necessarily an indicator of future results and all content within simply reflects past data.

So, it's just my opinion based on what I've seen in the last three years.

If the Browns go better than 8-8 against the spread for the 2018 season, then someone can bring this thread back up and I will be more than happy to admit to being wrong. Being wrong about something isn't going to shatter my self worth or hurt my feelings. I promise. I'm wrong about plenty of stuff.

Quote: DRich

Will the Browns win more games this year than they have won cumulatively in the last three years? Has any team ever done this?

My answers are: I don't believe so and Yes, in that order.

The Detroit Lions won 11 games in 2011 despite having only won a combined eight during the prior three seasons. There may be other examples. It's worth noting that the Lions (obviously) changed coaches after the disastrous 0-16 campaign whereas the Browns' head coach, and his coaching record of 1-31 with the Browns, remains.

Quote: DRich

Will the Browns win more games this year than they have won cumulatively in the last three years? Has any team ever done this?

Someone mentioned the Bucs upthread. In their first 3 seasons (76-78), they went 7-37. The next year, they won 10 games and the division.

I do miss Bucko Bruce and those Creamsicle orange jerseys! =)

Quote: lilredrooster

So, Mission146 - based on your analysis would you say the Browns are a good bet to go under the total wins for the season bet which is now 4.5 per vegasinsider?

it dropped from 5.5.

or would you say that the positive personnel acquisitions cause it not to be a good bet?

This is #FakeNews. The only non offshore book that matters (Westgate) went from 5.5 to 6 today.

Based on what? Did people like what they saw in practice on Hard Knocks?

Browns are BAD, but not the worst ?

Odds for Winning Super Bowl per https://www.sportsline.com/nfl/futures/ ( is there a more authoritative site ? )

Cincinnati Bengals 80/1

Cleveland Browns 80/1

Arizona Cardinals 100/1

Chicago Bears 100/1

Miami Dolphins 100/1

New York Jets 100/1

Washington Redskins 100/1

Buffalo Bills 200/1

Tampa Bay Bucs 200/1

Three of those teams - Bills, Miami and Jets - are in the A.L. East. That's a real advantage for the Patriots. Dolphins and Bills might possibly be the two least talented teams this year.

Quote: JohnnyQ

Browns are BAD, but not the worst ?

Odds for Winning Super Bowl per https://www.sportsline.com/nfl/futures/ ( is there a more authoritative site ? )

Cincinnati Bengals 80/1

Cleveland Browns 80/1

Arizona Cardinals 100/1

Chicago Bears 100/1

Miami Dolphins 100/1

New York Jets 100/1

Washington Redskins 100/1

Buffalo Bills 200/1

Tampa Bay Bucs 200/1

I’d look at Vegas insider instead, which I believe pulls the NFL future lines from betonline.ag. http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/futures/

Directionally the same as the above with the Browns not being bottom of the list.

Quote: unJon

I’d look at Vegas insider instead, which I believe pulls the NFL future lines from betonline.ag.

That website sez:

Cleveland Browns 66/1
Indianapolis Colts 66/1
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 66/1
Washington Redskins 66/1
Arizona Cardinals 100/1
Buffalo Bills 100/1
Chicago Bears 100/1
Cincinnati Bengals 100/1
Miami Dolphins 100/1
New York Jets 150/

Substantial difference for the Bucs, for example. Which is why I asked about the most realistic website to get the odds.

Baker Mayfield changes everything.

The Browns win! The Browns win! THE BROWNS WIN!!!

Quote: JimRockford

Baker Mayfield changes everything.

I really had no idea whom he was. I don't watch college football or pay attention to NFL happenings in the off season. I remember years ago when I was wearing a browns hat leaving a casino, and some young guy was excited because the Browns drafted Brady Quinn and he told me the Browns were going to be great. I had no idea who Brady Quinn was, thought maybe the guy was credible, but that turned out to be wrong. Yeah that kept happening, maybe this time it will be real. Poor Tyrod Taylor, he got the Browns their first tie in a long time, I think he is good.