Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set
-
if you think the OL and DL aren't what builds championship teams then you don't know shit about football. the QB,,,,,HA!
jim plunkett. jeff hostetler. trent dilfer.
GTFO of here.
the bottle of rum is gonna taste mighty good come next january.
-
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
-
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
Great QBs can covers for a bad or mediocre line. We have seen that with the Colts. The question is, is Andy Dalton great, I say no, so I would say that their offense won't be better, because Dalton will have to play quicker, and be more cerebral and I don't see Dalton doing that. If he were Manning or Brady, they could suffer the OL losses and still play at a high level, Dalton isn't Manning or Brady.
Thank you, thank you for your nuanced and cogent insight! Oi!
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets had a great OL and lost.
The Jets had a great DL and lost
Because the Steelers and the Colts perhaps had better OLs and DLs at the time.
When Parcells was in Dallas he built a solid team all around. Good in the trenches. Dallas still lost with no QB.
When Parcels was in NY with the Giants he beat the Bills in the Super Bowl. The Giants ran the ball and controlled the clock to keep the ball out of Kellys hands.
So, you are saying that Jeff Hostetler was a premier QB and that Tony Romo was not? And that made all the difference?
You made my point, actually. Sometimes it is NOT all about the QB.
Sanchez was better than BR that day...but not overall...but the better QB that day lost.
Kelly was a better overall QB than Hostetler...yet the better overall QB lost. (would have to check on "that day" stats)
Sometimes the other 21 guys on the field have a lot to say about the outcome of a game. As I said. Sometimes.
-
@boo-fagley said:
Relax, I dont care when the Rain Men yell names at me and want to argue.
Oh, boy, I cannot believe that I have explain all this, but here it goes. The OP, Ghoolie, in post # 1 sets up the debate QB or OL. # 9 post of the 1st page Ghoolie comments on the Cinci QB. # 18 post on the 1st page Hoorta brings in Andrew Luck. Later, Ghoolie states that "you are not winning shit without a QB" Everything is all right there for review. The whole premise of the thread has gone right over your head since you cannot fathom why this all relates to the Browns QB situation. I am not going to explain how the QB ties in with the Browns vacancy at the position.
Its just plain stupid. You gave us a list of all Super Bowl QBs. If the thread is not about QBs, then why did you dig up the list? Rodgers has played better and worse. Brady has played better and worse.
I have already produced facts on Andy Luck in this thread. Go back and read them ALL instead of being stuck on 1 game. If you do not realize that the AFC South sucks, then there is no point in bringing up Luck anymore. All 3 teams in Lucks division have been looking for a QB. Luck has been the best in the AFCS because all the other QBs have sucked. Mariota might be something.
Look Coach, Im not here for trouble. I have no desire to respond to all your other dumb BS.
If the Browns are going to be serious competitors in the AFCN they have to find a Ben like QB.
Yes the argument was OL or QB. Obviously everyone in their right mind knows that QB is the most important position, the point is that every QB (whether terrible to elite) needs a supporting cast to ultimately be successful. That is the point I was trying to make and that you were seemingly trying to ignore. If you cannot realize by now that my argument had nothing to do with how the thread started or the intent of it then I am sorry, I must not have articulated it in the right way. If you take every postional group in the sport and ask what I would want my best player to be it would be the QB. He is certainly the most important position on the field 10 fold. And I brought up the list because of the "virtually" comment that you had made, to show that championships can be won or competed for without a great or elite QB.
I despise quite a few teams in the NFL from ways players etc have acted when on those teams, also by rivalries and what some family members allegiance lies with. Half of my family are all diehard Cowgirl fans. Only Cowboy I can like is Zeke. But I hate Andrew Luck way more. It is the same reason that I dislike everyone's favorite son here Lebron James. It is all the hype before the player has done a thing. And Lebron is 100 times better than Andrew Luck will ever be.
But when you were talking about the Patriots/Colts championship game, you were throwing ALL the loss on Andrew Luck. The Colts lost because New England was a lot better. They lost by the margin because Luck was bad and the defense was bad.
So yes to sum it all up, QB IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION, TEAMS CAN WIN WITHOUT A GREAT QB AT TIMES, ANDREW LUCK IS OVERRATED BUT ISN"T THE WHOLE REASON THEY HAVEN'T WON A RING, AND THE BROWNS NEED A GOOD TO ELITE QB.
Now have a great day and good luck to the Pats this year, even though they certainly don't need it
P.S.- I know Peyton Manning has been brought up in this thread and how much he had dropped off in production the last year and a half of his career and not being reason they won the Super Bowl. While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.
Agree.. Manning channeled his vast playoff experience and tailored his game to his Broncos' situation. He went into full game-manager, first-do-no-harm mode. Osweiler would likely have been a deer in the headlights... especially in their 2nd playoff game when Bill would have been at the wheel.
In the 2015 playoffs he attempted 92 passes and threw only one pick... and only 2 TDs. He completed 51... a 55.4% clip. All his stats 2015 were well below his career averages in the playoffs.
Yes, it can be argued that his "diminished skill set" had a lot to say about the change in his approach, but I choose to recognize his awareness of his total circumstance.
-
I don't get the repeated and repeated Jets/Sanchez referrals.
In Sanchez's two postseasons, '09 and '10, with the Jets he posted very good numbers... especially when you consider they came in his first two seasons in the league. He did not become the butt of jokes until later in his career.
6 games... 4-2... 95 of 157... 60.51%... 1155 yds... 9 TD... 3 INT... 94.3 rating
All were better than regular season postings. He did have ball security issues that don't show in the above stat line, but again in the playoffs he was much better with only 2 fumbles in the 6 games.
One other factor to consider is coaching... NYJ gave birth to one of the most toxic HCs in the history of this game. Ranks right up there with his daddy...
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets had the better OL in 2009.http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2009
Better than what? Maybe Not better than the Steelers front 7 in that game. I didn't check the rushing stats for that game for the Jets....I just know that the Steelers ran over the Jets defense. (ran...not passed)
Ranked 6th in rushing, 70% success rate rushing. Passing ranked 23rd and Sanchez sacked 30 times. I wont even bother to look at Sanchezs turnovers because the number is putrid.
In that game vs. the Steelers there is nothing to look at....because he had -0- turnovers. Ben R. had several...yet Ben Rs team won.
Again.....the fact is, in a few games here....that one in particular it was NOT all about the QB....but about the other 21 players.
Again...is this something you are not getting about that game (a game you brought up).
OLs no good and to blame. No, it is not. A Bad QB made 4 - 1st round pick OLs look like shit.
Again...NOT in that game...Steelers game.
Colts ranked # 1 in passing protection. 13 sacks. Its the Great OL. No, it is not. A Great QB got rid of the ball and made his OL look good.
If we are talking about the AFC title game vs. the Colts. Sure, absolutely...Peyton outshined Sanchez....but not because Sanchez was bad....but because Peyton was great.
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Jets played the Colts in the 2009 AFCC
The Jets played the Steelers in the 2010 AFCC
If you would like to go over the 2010 Steeler OL then fine. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2010
But you come out worse. The Jets had the better OL. The Steelers were 29th in pass blocking and 19th in run blocking.
Not sure I know, nor care what point it is that you are trying to make.
My simple point is that sometimes the other 21 guys on the field have far more to do with winning and losing than does the QB.
That day....the Steelers HOF caliber QB had a shitty day....and the now scorned/joke jock QB for the Jets had a very fine day.....yet, the Steelers won....because their other 21 guys outplayed the Jets other 21 guys.
Jets had the better overall OL? Fine. They did a good enough job to allow Sanchez to have a good game.
But clearly SOME other aspect of the Steelers allowed them to win...other than the play of their QB that day.
That's all.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
Yes Oline is important, first team since 1939 Eagles to not score a TD in their first 2 games of the season.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
Yes Oline is important, first team since 1939 Eagles to not score a TD in their first 2 games of the season.
-
Yeah- those guys at nfl.com don't know diddly doo.
Cincinnati Bengals: They finish with a worse record than last season (6-9-1).
This hasn't happened since 2010, the year of the T.O.-Ochocinco marriage. So what gives? It's not because of the wide receiver group, which should be just fine with A.J. Green and rookie John Ross. No, the issue on offense is the offensive line, a group that didn't play particularly well last season. That group lost its two top players (Kevin Zeitler and Andrew Whitworth) during the offseason, which doesn't bode well for the skill positions. Sure, Ross boasts a tremendous 40 time, but by the time he gets downfield, Andy Dalton could very well be on his back. Many draftniks touted second-round selection Joe Mixon as a steal. But he won't be if he's running through some of the same holes Jeremy Hill saw last season. Cincinnati missed Hue Jackson's guidance on offense last season. Leadership on defense has been lacking. Wins could be similarly rare.
hey don't know as much as I do. hat is the point. THe Bengals OL was not an issue. They will make a run for the division title. 11- 5
They don't know as much as I do. That is the point. THe Bengals OL was not an issue. They will make a run for the division title. 11- 5
Lololol!!! Had to peruse your ranting earlier. They'll need to go 11-3 to make that prediction come true. Make that 11-2 after they get beat in Green Bay a week from Sunday. I gave you an over\under of 10.5 wins Zaya vs Hennessy VSOP still interested? Easier to see 10 losses than 10 wins.
So now you just yawn when you're wrong? Dalton is up shit creek if Green gets hurt. & How 'bout that Ross (he of 4.2 speed) fumbling the ball to Javedon Clowney? Apparently sat the rest of the game out with a bruised ego. Too funny. JJ Watt was beating their fatass Oju- boo-boo like a drum.
-
@boo-fagley said:
I had to turn that shit show off.
I mean, the commentators were trying to build up a 3 -3 game like its being played at the north pole. Sure seemed like Watson was sacked more than 3 times.
Yeah both teams played like shit. Seems like Ghoolie is already wrong. Bengals look like shit. They are getting well deserved boos.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
After zero touchdowns and nine points in two games, this is just beautiful.
You must have missed the 4th FG last night.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
Sarcasm? If not, I'm not sure how you get there.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
-
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
OK Larry, unless I am mistaken, this should be a great year for us to once again reprise the are OL fatasses a dime-a-dozen, or are they hard-to-come-by athletes who determine if a QB is successful or not?
FIRST
If I understand you correctly, your feelings are that with the loss of veteran Linemen, the Bengals offense, especially Andy Dalton is going to suffer, and be far less effective. I honestly don't follow OL at all. I seriously have ADD on this topic based on my knowledge that the individual players are all interchangeable.
Fun thing to watch #1 - I believe the Bengals will have a more explosive offense in 2017 than they did in 2016, and may be unstoppable. They added pizazz at RB and WR, which are far, far more important than some 300 pound, clumsy fatasses.
However.........if OL men are as important as you say, then the Bengals O should struggle.
SECONDLY
According to most here the Browns have assembled a great OL, and by your philosophy should translate into a remarkably better offense. This end of it is a little harder to quantify because we probably will have a better starter in Ass-Oiler than we did with RG3 and Kessler. Kizer potentially coming in has a tremendous upside, so the Browns OL performance may have very little to do with an improved offense by way of a better QB.
This is the hard thing about football analyses. There are too man variables sometime to really get a cause-and-effect picture. I think in Cincy though, you are out on a limb. They lost integral OL, and by your measure the offense is going to struggle. I don't believe they will miss the fatasses, and I think their O will be improved.
Let's see who is right.
Whelp, the evidence seems to be rolling in.
Cincinnasty may be taking the place of the J-e-t-s as the weekly stooge in my survivor pool, at least during bye weeks.
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Not only that, the Butterfingers Bungles dropped a couple room service interceptions, one of which would have been a certain TD.
Ah, those Bunglin' Bungles. Getting beat at home by a rookie QB making his first start, missing 1\2 his offensive players. The awesomeness of those Stripers!!! But of course Ghoolie knows you can't win (Texans) with defense. NOT!!!
-
@boo-fagley said:
And evidently Watson is a Bust.
I counted 4 sacks when I turned it off. They must have counted 1 as a run.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
Under the Ghoolie Theory of Quarterback Dynamics, no QB can ever get any better than he is in his first game as a rookie. Ergo....you must be correct....a QB who is sacked 4 times will always be sacked 4 times in every game the rest of his career.
That totally makes sense if you think about it. Just mull it over a few, the ghoolie genius eventually makes its way through if you add collinear infinite multidimensional theory.
Follow.....theres infinite deshaun watsons on infinite earths. Cut to the chase, somewhere...in some dimension....nigga gettin sacked. We can throw away the dimensions where the texans are winning the superbowl with watson as qb as "inconsequential outliers".....per the ghoolie inconvenience theorem.
So now we can add all the diminsions together where watson sucks as proof he sucks and will always suck here on this earth. It rather simple i dont know why so many of u struggle with it.
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