#4 #22
-
Umm, you have no idea whether or not Colt will be the QB next year. An open competition is an open competition. As for your challenge pretty sure Rex Grossman ended last season with the Redskins and yet went into the next year having to battle it out with John Beck for the starting job.
I'm not even going to talk about how absurd the idea of Green Bay franchising Flynn would be. That would make him the highest paid player on the team - a backup QB. Also, they have to tag Finley (which is much more likely). You really think Green Bay is going to put themselves in a position where Flynn makes more money than Rodgers? That's just absurd.
Also since they claim they won't be very active in free agency, trading up to get RG3 needs to be absoultely out of the question. They would be giving up at least 3 picks for him and if the Browns don't intend to do anything in free agency the draft is our only hope of filling the massive holes that we have on this team.
I would MUCH RATHER trade down than get into a bidding war with someone like the Redskins and trade away a ton of picks after having not done a freaking thing in free agency. This team would be in an even worse position that it is now.
All of you people thinking that RG3 will be there at the #4 pick? He won't. If we want RG3 we will have to trade up for him and I think that would be the dumbest decision this organization can make considering all of our issues and the fact that we don't intend to do much in free agency.
Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.
Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.
You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.
jparsh said:
Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.
Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.
You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.
Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html
If the Packers tag Flynn, thta $14 million counts against their salary cap and by league rules you are not allowed trade franchise players. It was only done once with the Patriots and that is because Brady was on IR. Look at the rules! You are are not allowed to franchise tag a player with the intent to sign him and then trade him. You seem to be the one misinformed. When you tag a player, the amount that the tag is worth counts against the cap whether the player does or doesn't sign (if the player signs it is guaranteed to them). If the Packers put a franchise tag on Flynn he would be the highest played player on the team annually. That is NOT going to happen.
Sigh you don't get it with RG3. People are saying we need to get RG3. RG3 is not going to be there at the #4 pick. The Rams' (and Vikings') phones will be ringing off the hook with offers from QB needy teams to trade up. Right now, Casserly says for the Redskins to move from #6 to #2 they would have to give up their first this year, their second this year, a first next year and possibly one additional pick. In order for the Browns to outbid them we would have to match that and beat it. Does it make sense now? RG3 is not just going to fall into the Browns lap at #4 and thinking that he will is amazingly naive.
-
jparsh said:
I don't disagree that McCoy can be an 8 win QB. I don't doubt that he can be a 10 win QB and take us to the playoffs. Of course he'll be better with more talent. But we need elite, Colt is not, nor will he ever be elite.
If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..
Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..
If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..
Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..
Amen
-
jparsh said:
Yes, Rex Grossman and Colt McCoy are comparable QB's, I would 100% agree with your comparison. Those are the types of QB's that have competition brought in for them. As for GB franchising Flynn, it's a legitimate option that I wouldn't be surprised in a hearbeat if they do. They know the value for Flynn right now and have a shot at getting something for him, not just letting him go in free agency.
Where on earth did you hear that the Browns were going to trade up to get RG3 and where in this universe did you hear that we'd have to give up 3 picks to get him??? I'd guess that our 3rd round pick would suffice if the Browns did in fact do that, which I don't think they'd do. But if they did it would be FAR from the dumbest choice they can make. Getting a franchise QB is never a dumb decision.
You seem to be very misinformed about much of how things work in the NFL. Your perception of what value trading up costs, your perception of what teams would do with their franchise tag is off. But you are spot on with your comparison of Colt and Grossman being the same type of QB to their teams.
Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html
If the Packers tag Flynn, thta $14 million counts against their salary cap and by league rules you are not allowed trade franchise players. It was only done once with the Patriots and that is because Brady was on IR. Look at the rules! You are are not allowed to franchise tag a player with the intent to sign him and then trade him. You seem to be the one misinformed. When you tag a player, the amount that the tag is worth counts against the cap whether the player does or doesn't sign (if the player signs it is guaranteed to them). If the Packers put a franchise tag on Flynn he would be the highest played player on the team annually. That is NOT going to happen.
Sigh you don't get it with RG3. People are saying we need to get RG3. RG3 is not going to be there at the #4 pick. The Rams' (and Vikings') phones will be ringing off the hook with offers from QB needy teams to trade up. Right now, Casserly says for the Redskins to move from #6 to #2 they would have to give up their first this year, their second this year, a first next year and possibly one additional pick. In order for the Browns to outbid them we would have to match that and beat it. Does it make sense now? RG3 is not just going to fall into the Browns lap at #4 and thinking that he will is amazingly naive.
Again, Green Bay is not franchising Flynn. You should read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/flynn-departure-may-not-aid-packers-k43ld06-136557403.html
welcome FNG! nice to see someone new thats not a clueless madden fanboy.
-
If you truly believe the above then why not spend our picks on playmakers that can help Colt succeed? If Colt can take us to the playoffs with added playmakers, then there is no need to draft a QB that high - yet. Then with more winning seasons Cleveland can attract quality free agents and won't have to worry about losing top players to free agency. We can begin to change the losing culture and then look to add our franchise QB later - where he can come into a good situation instead of being thrown to the wolves with a crap offense..
Bottom line: If Colt is capable of taking the Browns to the playoffs (as you seem to think), then why upgrade that position when so many other positions are much more lacking in talent? It makes no sense..
I believe that with the right circumstance around them, a great number of NFL caliber QB can make it to the playoffs. Colt is no different, neither is Wallace for that matter. In fact Wallace is probably a little better than McCoy. If your defense only gives up 17 points a game and you have a 1,300 yard rusher with a guy who can break a 5 yard pass and turn it into a 70 yard TD play then yeah, your QB is going to succeed. But the problem is that those teams get exposed in the playoffs. Every team is elite when you get far into the playoffs. I want a QB that is capable of winning the super bowl, that is what separates the regular guy from Brees, Manning(s), Rogers, Brady and so on.
jparsh said:
I believe that with the right circumstance around them, a great number of NFL caliber QB can make it to the playoffs. Colt is no different, neither is Wallace for that matter. In fact Wallace is probably a little better than McCoy. If your defense only gives up 17 points a game and you have a 1,300 yard rusher with a guy who can break a 5 yard pass and turn it into a 70 yard TD play then yeah, your QB is going to succeed. But the problem is that those teams get exposed in the playoffs. Every team is elite when you get far into the playoffs. I want a QB that is capable of winning the super bowl, that is what separates the regular guy from Brees, Manning(s), Rogers, Brady and so on.
and RGlll is an elite nfl qb?
what are you his agent or just his 'down low' butt buddy?
it's amazing how you've hijacked all these threads and turned them into an anti-colt and pro manlove rgiii threads.
-
Location: da burgh
I'll ignore much of your stupidity just because of this alone. You get a pass for being uninformed and a dumbass.
But just a little FYI. I never said the Packers were going to franchise Flynn, I said that it's something they are considering, which they are. Not saying they'll do it because of the risk. Ever since I brought it up I qualified my statements with the risk involved. But the Packers are highly intrigued with getting a 1st round pick for Flynn, and that option is keeping them on their toes with what to do.
-
If Blackmon is there, take him: He's more of a talent at his position than RG3 is. His talent at WR is more rare, and the QB position in next year's draft is stacked.
If RG3 is there [99.9% chance Blackmon isn't available if this is the case] take him.
If RG3 was the pick, at #22 take Wright.
If Blackmon was the pick, at #22 go any of OL/DE/LB. There aren't many first-round OL: Only Kalil(T), Konz
, Glenn(G), Reiff(T), Martin(T).. and all are projected to be gone before 22 - but one could fall. I wouldn't be unhappy with Hightower/Wright/Mercilus/Ingram if no OL is available.*They'll still probably get CB Minnifield at the top of the second.
*They'll still get an RDE which they need at the top of the third, or OL/LB if they went DE in the first.
*Two picks in the fourth, one for OL and another for LB/OL/DE, whichever of the three wasn't taken in rounds 1/3.
So at the end of 4 you have one new WR/LB/DE/CB, and 2 new OL. I'd be intrigued if the first round was two WR's - it could happen, but I'd doubt it.
-
jparsh said:
I believe that with the right circumstance around them, a great number of NFL caliber QB can make it to the playoffs. Colt is no different, neither is Wallace for that matter. In fact Wallace is probably a little better than McCoy. If your defense only gives up 17 points a game and you have a 1,300 yard rusher with a guy who can break a 5 yard pass and turn it into a 70 yard TD play then yeah, your QB is going to succeed. But the problem is that those teams get exposed in the playoffs. Every team is elite when you get far into the playoffs. I want a QB that is capable of winning the super bowl, that is what separates the regular guy from Brees, Manning(s), Rogers, Brady and so on.
and RGlll is an elite nfl qb?
what are you his agent or just his 'down low' butt buddy?
it's amazing how you've hijacked all these threads and turned them into an anti-colt and pro manlove rgiii threads.
and RGlll is an elite nfl qb?
what are you his agent or just his 'down low' butt buddy?
it's amazing how you've hijacked all these threads and turned them into an anti-colt and pro manlove rgiii threads.
I always suspected that Cleveland sports fans were the dumbest in the country, but this place proves it. You people are against picking a QB with great potential with the 4th pick but you people would rather have who? Blackmon? Richardson? Who? Who are we supposed to take in order to help the Browns win a super bowl? Do RB's win super Bowls? NO. Do WR's win super Bowls? No.
If we continue with this Colt experiment for one more year (which I've got money on it that we won't) and we build up the offense around him and end up going 7-9 next season. Then that wins Colt yet another year and the next year we go 10-6 and make the playoffs. Then we're almost stuck with this kid who doesn't have the skill set to compare to Rogers or Manning to name a couple. Then we decide that he's not winning us anything, but our record is only good enough to get us the 22nd pick in the draft. Now instead of getting the 1st or 2nd best QB in a draft, we're stuck drafting a 3rd or even 4th best QB in a draft. Therefore that sticks us in the rut of mediocrity for years to come. Great teams place their QB in position and then get late round talent to build around them. That's how a team is built.
-
I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.
-
If Blackmon is there, take him: He's more of a talent at his position than RG3 is. His talent at WR is more rare, and the QB position in next year's draft is stacked.
If RG3 is there [99.9% chance Blackmon isn't available if this is the case] take him.
If RG3 was the pick, at #22 take Wright.
If Blackmon was the pick, at #22 go any of OL/DE/LB. There aren't many first-round OL: Only Kalil(T), Konz
, Glenn(G), Reiff(T), Martin(T).. and all are projected to be gone before 22 - but one could fall. I wouldn't be unhappy with Hightower/Wright/Mercilus/Ingram if no OL is available.*They'll still probably get CB Minnifield at the top of the second.
*They'll still get an RDE which they need at the top of the third, or OL/LB if they went DE in the first.
*Two picks in the fourth, one for OL and another for LB/OL/DE, whichever of the three wasn't taken in rounds 1/3.
So at the end of 4 you have one new WR/LB/DE/CB, and 2 new OL. I'd be intrigued if the first round was two WR's - it could happen, but I'd doubt it.
If Blackmon is there, take him: He's more of a talent at his position than RG3 is. His talent at WR is more rare, and the QB position in next year's draft is stacked.
If RG3 is there [99.9% chance Blackmon isn't available if this is the case] take him.
If RG3 was the pick, at #22 take Wright.
If Blackmon was the pick, at #22 take either OT or LB.
*They'll still probably get CB Minnifield at the top of the second.
*They'll still get an RDE which they need at the top of the third.
*Two picks in the fourth, one for OL and another for LB/OT, whichever wasn't taken at 22.
So at the end of 4 you have a new WR/LB/OL/DE/CB, and either a first-round OT or RG3.
Do you know where Minnifield is projected to go? Is he supposed to go that high in the draft?
As for Blackmon, everything I hear he's not going to be anything close to elite. No where near Jones or Green from this year.
-
I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.
I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
-
Location: da burgh
I'll ignore much of your stupidity just because of this alone. You get a pass for being uninformed and a dumbass.
But just a little FYI. I never said the Packers were going to franchise Flynn, I said that it's something they are considering, which they are. Not saying they'll do it because of the risk. Ever since I brought it up I qualified my statements with the risk involved. But the Packers are highly intrigued with getting a 1st round pick for Flynn, and that option is keeping them on their toes with what to do.
jparsh said:
Location: da burgh
I'll ignore much of your stupidity just because of this alone. You get a pass for being uninformed and a dumbass.
actually, youre ignoring my "stupidity" because you can't argue your side. what exactly am i misinformed about...youre the tool spouting off shit with no evidence.
was it really going out on a limb to say GB may use the tag on flynn? way to go capt obvious...glad we have you around to remind us of shit we've been talking about long before you even got here.
good stuff like "everything i been hearing" is solid reporting...gotta tell ya. everything thing ive been hearing says youre a clueless twerp thats never seen good football. see how that works?
-
Zombo said:
What's this "you people" shit?
We're all Browns fans, and a good deal of us want to upgrade QB.
Take it easy, you've been here three days and two guys want to kick your ass already.
Zombo
You people, meaning the idiots. If two guys want to kick my ass I live in Lakewood, I'm not hard to find. I can't help the stupidity on here. And I can't help that people are childish and make typical white trash comments at others. I've been to Browns games and see the majority of football fans, not really the creme of the crop of society. As I can see on here, most people make this shit their lives. Football is a distraction for me. I've had a few slow days and while searching some Browns stuff I found this place, seeing as how I had some free time over this holiday time I figured I'd talk some Browns with other fans. Turns out the vast majority of people are just as dumb as dirt. Sorry for those who aren't, I'm sure there are a few. But when you start in on the "der, yous must be butt buddies wit hims" and "everybody at my trailer perk sez yous a fag" I have to assume that those people aren't really the part of society that I associate with.
-
I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
jparsh said:
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
It's "Tannehill." But what makes you think Heckert is set on taking a QB in the 1st round? It's one thing to really want RG3 at #4, but we would never trade up from #22 to get some other QB. Heckert will draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round. We didn't stockpile a bunch of draft picks just to throw them all away for 1 QB..
-
jparsh said:
Location: da burgh
I'll ignore much of your stupidity just because of this alone. You get a pass for being uninformed and a dumbass.
actually, youre ignoring my "stupidity" because you can't argue your side. what exactly am i misinformed about...youre the tool spouting off shit with no evidence.
was it really going out on a limb to say GB may use the tag on flynn? way to go capt obvious...glad we have you around to remind us of shit we've been talking about long before you even got here.
good stuff like "everything i been hearing" is solid reporting...gotta tell ya. everything thing ive been hearing says youre a clueless twerp thats never seen good football. see how that works?
actually, youre ignoring my "stupidity" because you can't argue your side. what exactly am i misinformed about...youre the tool spouting off shit with no evidence.
was it really going out on a limb to say GB may use the tag on flynn? way to go capt obvious...glad we have you around to remind us of shit we've been talking about long before you even got here.
good stuff like "everything i been hearing" is solid reporting...gotta tell ya. everything thing ive been hearing says youre a clueless twerp thats never seen good football. see how that works?
How about the next time I'm in "da burgh" I give you a chance to say that to my face. I often eat at one of the many mad mex's when I'm around. Sometimes the one on the Pitt campus if I'm around downtown or I'm many times around Robinson.
And seeing as how I have a life I haven't been on a message board for years or months. Sorry for having a life off of the internet. I have a few weeks a year where I have almost nothing to do and this is that time so I jumped on here to talk some sports. Soon I'll be back to my real life while all you losers are still rambling on the internet about football. LOL
-
Zombo said:
Isn't Lakewood where the gays are from?
Zombo
Typical homophobes. Are gays not excepted at your trailer park? But no, technically a lot of gays live just outside of Lakewood around 110th and Clifton area of Cleveland. But there are some still in Lakewood. Unfortunately to the GOP they don't have to register when they move so it's hard to keep track. But me and my fiance are friends with quite a few gay couple that live in and around Lakewood.
-
jparsh said:
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
It's "Tannehill." But what makes you think Heckert is set on taking a QB in the 1st round? It's one thing to really want RG3 at #4, but we would never trade up from #22 to get some other QB. Heckert will draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round. We didn't stockpile a bunch of draft picks just to throw them all away for 1 QB..
It's "Tannehill." But what makes you think Heckert is set on taking a QB in the 1st round? It's one thing to really want RG3 at #4, but we would never trade up from #22 to get some other QB. Heckert will draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round. We didn't stockpile a bunch of draft picks just to throw them all away for 1 QB..
I disagree with that. You think this team is going keep taking 3rd round projects til they get it right in 20 years? I guess the only thing that can be said about that is we'll see what happens when it happens.
-
I am not at all against drafting a QB or even bringing in Flynn, I am against trading up for one. If we get Tannehill or Foles or Moore or Keenum, and bring them in to compete with Colt? That is fine! Great! I'm not opposed to competition at all. We can use our other draft picks to get wide receivers, maybe a running back later, and help on the offensive line. My main issue is that I think there is a 99.9% chance that RG3 will not be there with the #4 pick and I can not agree with trading away picks to try to outbid others for RG3 when this team has so many other needs. If the Skins intend to give up this year's 1st, 2nd, 4th, and next year's 1st - we would have to beat that and I am not at all willing to do it when we have other needs.
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
jparsh said:
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
Are you opposed to Flynn? I mean, in all honesty, I think Flynn is the best option. He's had a few starts in the NFL, he's been in a very good offensive system for a few years and learned under a great QB. Spending a little money (we have the cap space) to bring him in and compete sounds a lot more sensible to me than trading away picks that we desparately need.
-
jparsh said:
I agree that trading up to get RG3 isn't the best idea. I've said that over and over again on here. The problem is that we may get caught in no mans land if RG3 is gone. No other offensive player is worthy of a 4th overall pick. If Griffin is gone and we can't trade back, which I don't see happening if RG3 is already gone, then we'll probably take Claiborne. Then we may be forced to trade up from 22 to get Tanenhall. That's if we don't get Flynn via free agency or if we don't trade our number 22 pick to get Flynn if GB franchises him.
Are you opposed to Flynn? I mean, in all honesty, I think Flynn is the best option. He's had a few starts in the NFL, he's been in a very good offensive system for a few years and learned under a great QB. Spending a little money (we have the cap space) to bring him in and compete sounds a lot more sensible to me than trading away picks that we desparately need.
Are you opposed to Flynn? I mean, in all honesty, I think Flynn is the best option. He's had a few starts in the NFL, he's been in a very good offensive system for a few years and learned under a great QB. Spending a little money (we have the cap space) to bring him in and compete sounds a lot more sensible to me than trading away picks that we desparately need.
Hell, it's not my money, I don't care. I don't want them to put themselves in a bad spot cap wise, that wouldn't be smart obviously. But no, I'm not opposed to Flynn. I just don't know how much he'll demand in the open market. Maybe 5 years 50 mil with 20 of that guaranteed? I don't know, I'm just throwing out a number that kinda makes sense. What do you think?
-
Zombo said:
So many things wrong with this sentence, I don't know where to start...
Zombo
In my experience with live debate this sounds like a person who has nothing to say. Also when you study the characteristics of most humans when they are trying to divert attention this is a classic tool used. Studying the human mind will give you great insight to what people will and tend to do when faced with adversity in a situation. In the white trash and right wing circle it's excepted speak to talk about gays, when confronted with someone who doesn't think homophobia is acceptable you tend to use phrases and terms that not only undermine the opposing viewpoint but you do so with no legit response to the problem.
I assume administrator has little to no criteria other than being a dumbass.
-
Zombo said:
First of all, your grammar sucks, which is particularly funny when you use it in a sentence to make fun of trailer park folks.
"Excepted" means "not included", so when you say "Are gays not excepted at your trailer park" you are using a double negative and you sound like a complete dumbass.
Secondly, when you live in Lakewood and you talk about my "classic tool" ... that is funny as well.
The third humorous thing is that you assume that I am a "white trash", "right wing" "homophobic" person who lives in a trailer park, when I'm actually a liberal-minded, educated person who lives somewhere that you will never be able to afford.
Finally, what humors me most, is that you come in here swinging your sweater-vest-wearing nutsack around at everyone that has an opinion different than yours without paying attention to the posters. I've actually been in Camp RG3 from the beginning, dicknuts, and support your argument with the others, I just don't like the way you carry yourself with my Browns brothers. You're a douche.
Zombo
Wow, excepted instead of accepted. When you're typing on a message board usually people don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff. I've had writings published so I'm not concerned with a message board typo. And I'm sure your trailer is very luxurious. Double wide I'm assuming.
And I can give a shit about your "Browns brothers". Internet tough guys that call names don't really impress me. Clean the sauce off your wife beater and get a life dip shit.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login