Trade for OBJ ?
-
Beckham with Gordon? Oh please no, Josh doesn't need the coke whores and OBJ to tempt him. If Beckham showed up with those girls, and you played for the Browns, I dare one of you to tell me you could decline the women and all of the stuff that came with it if he hit you up to hang out.
-
G-wiz we've got to be able to find another bad attitude team cancer player for a lot less money, right?
WSS
-
the difference between OBJ and Jarvis Landry is the difference between a toyota camry and an audi R8.
Youre right, one is high maintenance, over priced transportation while the other will get you to all the same places while being more reliable and a higher value. Glad we see eye to eye.
Youre right, one is high maintenance, over priced transportation while the other will get you to all the same places while being more reliable and a higher value. Glad we see eye to eye.
OBJ is of a different stratosphere of value compared to landry. the thread is ridiculous the giants arent getting rid of beckham and if they did it wouldnt be to us, but OBJ is a top 3 reciever when healthy. Jarvis Landry is not a top 20 reciever.
-
Youre right, one is high maintenance, over priced transportation while the other will get you to all the same places while being more reliable and a higher value. Glad we see eye to eye.
OBJ is of a different stratosphere of value compared to landry. the thread is ridiculous the giants arent getting rid of beckham and if they did it wouldnt be to us, but OBJ is a top 3 reciever when healthy. Jarvis Landry is not a top 20 reciever.
OBJ is of a different stratosphere of value compared to landry. the thread is ridiculous the giants arent getting rid of beckham and if they did it wouldnt be to us, but OBJ is a top 3 reciever when healthy. Jarvis Landry is not a top 20 reciever.
Right....Landry was the #1 receiver....in terms of receptions.......
-
He's a cancer. No thanks. Plus, how are the browns going to keep ALL 3 of those guys happy? It's not possible. Plus, you have to pay them. So not only do you have to make a trade giving up big assets for him, but then you have to pay him at least $18mil/yr plus pay landry PLUS pay Gordon next year. Pass pas pass.
Which means Dorsey will do it...He'll flip #1 for #2 and OBJ...just watch
-
There's no way Dorsey is taking saquon Barkley #1 overall. I'll bet you one u.s. dollar that we go qb #1
Whatever you say bro. We are taking him #1.
You would rather give the Giants damn near a first rounder instead of Coleman and a 4th rounder?
Jesus, you are dumb.
My reading comprehension and response was accurately portrayed in my proposal.
The hypothetical trade was for Corey Coleman and the 4th pick.
Whatever you say bro. We are taking him #1.
My reading comprehension and response was accurately portrayed in my proposal.
The hypothetical trade was for Corey Coleman and the 4th pick.
Then take my $1 us bet. And when you lose you have to be known as "Barkley's bottom" henceforth. And for the Cal's of the board it will have to be made clear that that it is being used like the uh...pink team...would use it.
-
No, won't even bother. But I think you get my drift.
I get the drift that you think the Barkley is the second coming. But, if you DID bother, you would see that Emmitt Kelly was a clown (an actual circus clown).
And SQB may actually BE the second coming of Ricky Bell:
Ricky Bell was the first overall draft choice in the 1977 NFL Draft, selected by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who were winless in their first season in 1976. Bell signed a five-year contract for a reported $1.2 million, by far the richest contract ever signed by an NFL rookie.[7][8][9][10] This draft choice was somewhat controversial because Tony Dorsett was being projected as an arguably better back than Bell. Bell's selection was not a surprise, however, because Tampa Bay was coached by John McKay, Bell's former head coach at USC through 1975. After a couple mediocre seasons, in 1979, Bell enjoyed his finest season, rushing for 1,263 yards and leading the Buccaneers to the championship of the NFC Central Division. He led the Buccaneers to their first playoff win in franchise history that season by rushing for 142 yards on 38 carries scoring two touchdowns against the Philadelphia Eagles. The team fell one game short of a trip to Super Bowl XIV, ending their season by losing to the Los Angeles Rams for the NFC championship.
In March 1982, McKay sent him to the San Diego Chargers, but suffering from weight loss, aching muscles, and severe skin problems, he retired before the 1983 season.[3
And he died in 1984....from what allegedly was heart disease...but may actually have been drugs.
I get the drift that you think the Barkley is the second coming. But, if you DID bother, you would see that Emmitt Kelly was a clown (an actual circus clown).
And SQB may actually BE the second coming of Ricky Bell:
Ricky Bell was the first overall draft choice in the 1977 NFL Draft, selected by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who were winless in their first season in 1976. Bell signed a five-year contract for a reported $1.2 million, by far the richest contract ever signed by an NFL rookie.[7][8][9][10] This draft choice was somewhat controversial because Tony Dorsett was being projected as an arguably better back than Bell.
Let me ask you a question. Who had the better football "TEAM", Dallas or Tampa Bay? Dallas of course. The Bucs had the worst record in the league and having the best RB doesn't help, as a matter of fact, he wouldn't last. I've read other post suggesting that if you draft the best RB, you're on your way to the SB. I've always talked about having a good team to win. This is why I always talked about all positions. I'm about to rub a lot of people the wrong way with this statement. Tom Brady is a much better QB than Joe Montana was. Brady won SBs with no name players. Joe Montana had household names around him always. I can name all the players Joe had around him, but who did Brady have when he won the SB? Ok board, let me have it.
-
I get the drift that you think the Barkley is the second coming. But, if you DID bother, you would see that Emmitt Kelly was a clown (an actual circus clown).
And SQB may actually BE the second coming of Ricky Bell:
Ricky Bell was the first overall draft choice in the 1977 NFL Draft, selected by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who were winless in their first season in 1976. Bell signed a five-year contract for a reported $1.2 million, by far the richest contract ever signed by an NFL rookie.[7][8][9][10] This draft choice was somewhat controversial because Tony Dorsett was being projected as an arguably better back than Bell.
Let me ask you a question. Who had the better football "TEAM", Dallas or Tampa Bay? Dallas of course. The Bucs had the worst record in the league and having the best RB doesn't help, as a matter of fact, he wouldn't last. I've read other post suggesting that if you draft the best RB, you're on your way to the SB. I've always talked about having a good team to win. This is why I always talked about all positions. I'm about to rub a lot of people the wrong way with this statement. Tom Brady is a much better QB than Joe Montana was. Brady won SBs with no name players. Joe Montana had household names around him always. I can name all the players Joe had around him, but who did Brady have when he won the SB? Ok board, let me have it.
Let me ask you a question. Who had the better football "TEAM", Dallas or Tampa Bay? Dallas of course. The Bucs had the worst record in the league and having the best RB doesn't help, as a matter of fact, he wouldn't last. I've read other post suggesting that if you draft the best RB, you're on your way to the SB. I've always talked about having a good team to win. This is why I always talked about all positions. I'm about to rub a lot of people the wrong way with this statement. Tom Brady is a much better QB than Joe Montana was. Brady won SBs with no name players. Joe Montana had household names around him always. I can name all the players Joe had around him, but who did Brady have when he won the SB? Ok board, let me have it.
A. Other than Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott....Joe M. did not play with a lot of HOF players. Compare that to some other dynasties, such as the 70s steelers, 60s Packers, 50s Browns....which each had 10-11 other HOF players on those teams.
Besides, I don't think you can call Gronkowski a "no name player"....and a number of other TB has played with have had very big names.
On the other matter....I think it was basically a fact that Dorsett was a better player than Ricky Bell....and I think that would have been true if their picks had been reversed.
This has always been an ongoing debate? What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 instead of Terry Bradshaw the same year? Would that team still have been a dynasty with Mike Phipps? Most doubt it. Would the Browns have been much better with Terry Bradshaw?
The same for 1999......we picked Couch....instead of Donovan McNabb. Would the Browns have been much better with him? Would the Eagles have gone to like 4 NFC title games with Couch?
But....bottom line...you can debate between Joe Montana and Tom Brady all you want......Otto Graham was still better than both of them...
-
-
Youre right, one is high maintenance, over priced transportation while the other will get you to all the same places while being more reliable and a higher value. Glad we see eye to eye.
OBJ is of a different stratosphere of value compared to landry. the thread is ridiculous the giants arent getting rid of beckham and if they did it wouldnt be to us, but OBJ is a top 3 reciever when healthy. Jarvis Landry is not a top 20 reciever.
OBJ is of a different stratosphere of value compared to landry. the thread is ridiculous the giants arent getting rid of beckham and if they did it wouldnt be to us, but OBJ is a top 3 reciever when healthy. Jarvis Landry is not a top 20 reciever.
Landry not being a top 20 receiver is a hell of a stretch. Top ten? No probably not.
-
-
And to the OP, absolutely hell no.
I'll second that. - No more friggin' idiot, head-cases please!
-
On the radio today they were tossing around a swap of number one picks. With some other incentives. On the upside if they were hungry for a quarterback we weren't going to take at number 1 fine. On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
And still not Head and Shoulders, if anything at all, above Landry and Gordon.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Let me ask you a question. Who had the better football "TEAM", Dallas or Tampa Bay? Dallas of course. The Bucs had the worst record in the league and having the best RB doesn't help, as a matter of fact, he wouldn't last. I've read other post suggesting that if you draft the best RB, you're on your way to the SB. I've always talked about having a good team to win. This is why I always talked about all positions. I'm about to rub a lot of people the wrong way with this statement. Tom Brady is a much better QB than Joe Montana was. Brady won SBs with no name players. Joe Montana had household names around him always. I can name all the players Joe had around him, but who did Brady have when he won the SB? Ok board, let me have it.
A. Other than Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott....Joe M. did not play with a lot of HOF players. Compare that to some other dynasties, such as the 70s steelers, 60s Packers, 50s Browns....which each had 10-11 other HOF players on those teams.
Besides, I don't think you can call Gronkowski a "no name player"....and a number of other TB has played with have had very big names.
On the other matter....I think it was basically a fact that Dorsett was a better player than Ricky Bell....and I think that would have been true if their picks had been reversed.
This has always been an ongoing debate? What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 instead of Terry Bradshaw the same year? Would that team still have been a dynasty with Mike Phipps? Most doubt it. Would the Browns have been much better with Terry Bradshaw?
The same for 1999......we picked Couch....instead of Donovan McNabb. Would the Browns have been much better with him? Would the Eagles have gone to like 4 NFC title games with Couch?
But....bottom line...you can debate between Joe Montana and Tom Brady all you want......Otto Graham was still better than both of them...
A. Other than Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott....Joe M. did not play with a lot of HOF players. Compare that to some other dynasties, such as the 70s steelers, 60s Packers, 50s Browns....which each had 10-11 other HOF players on those teams.
1982 - they only had about 3 HOF players: Ronnie Lott, Dwight Clark, Randy Cross
1985 - HOF Roger Craig, Fred Quinlan, Michael Carter, Eric Wright, Carlton Williamson. But they still had Ronnie Lott, Dwight Clark, Randy Cross and other good players
1989 - HOF Roger Craig, John Taylor, Jerry Rice, Guy McIntyer, Ronnie Lott, Mike Cofer. But still had guys like Brent Jones, Tom Rathman, Michael Carter, Charles Haley, Matt Millan, Kevin Fagen
1990 - HOF Jerry Rice, Charles Haley, Ronnie Lott, Guy McIntyre. But still had Brent Jones, Tom Rathman, Michael Carter, Matt Millan, John Taylor, Mike Cofer, Kevin Fagen
**** Now some of these guys were getting a little long in the tooth, but still good players. ***
And don't forget the 49ers had one of the best Olines/Dlines in the game. Now there were times when the Oline broke down and Joe had to roll out of the pocket and do the infamous pump fake, then throw the ball his receiver. But he just had too many weapons.
Besides, I don't think you can call Gronkowski a "no name player"....and a number of other TB has played with have had very big names.
You're right, Brady did have a few good players. Just not enough compared to Montana. Besides, I was only comparing the two best QBs (at least by most). I believe Montana is considered #1 and Brady #2.
The other point I was trying to make is that the 77 Bucs had no roster compared to the 77 Cowboys. They had the worst record in league, which explains why the Ricky Bell didn't have the stats. Oline not very good either and other teams stacked the box.
This has always been an ongoing debate? What if the Steelers had taken Mike Phipps #1 instead of Terry Bradshaw the same year? Would that team still have been a dynasty with Mike Phipps? Most doubt it. Would the Browns have been much better with Terry Bradshaw?
The same for 1999......we picked Couch....instead of Donovan McNabb. Would the Browns have been much better with him? Would the Eagles have gone to like 4 NFC title games with Couch?
I might be one of very few that still believed that if Phily picked Couch and we had McNabb, Couch would have been the star. We came back in 99 and had the worst roster in football. Just my opinion.
But....bottom line...you can debate between Joe Montana and Tom Brady all you want......Otto Graham was still better than both of them...
I have to admit, I didn't see Otto play. But for the record, most still think Joe was #1 and Tom #2.
And for the record, after we take Darnold or Allen at #1, I would rather take Chubb at #4 and go for another back in the 2nd round. As good as Barclay is, we can find another good back in this draft. But Chubb would create the much needed pass rush to make our D stellar right now. If Chubb is taken by the Giants, then we almost have to take Barclay.
-
On the radio today they were tossing around a swap of number one picks. With some other incentives. On the upside if they were hungry for a quarterback we weren't going to take at number 1 fine. On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
And still not Head and Shoulders, if anything at all, above Landry and Gordon.
WSS
On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
He wants to be the highest paid non QB. And he says he won't even play at all this year (the last year of his contract) if he doesn't get a new deal. Does ANYBODY really want a guy like THAT on their team? He's an a-hole.
BEING A BROWNS FAN IS A TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE -
On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
He wants to be the highest paid non QB. And he says he won't even play at all this year (the last year of his contract) if he doesn't get a new deal. Does ANYBODY really want a guy like THAT on their team? He's an a-hole.
He wants to be the highest paid non QB. And he says he won't even play at all this year (the last year of his contract) if he doesn't get a new deal. Does ANYBODY really want a guy like THAT on their team? He's an a-hole.
That's my take away.
WSS
-
A Head and Shoulders joke? Lol. Nice
-
On the radio today they were tossing around a swap of number one picks. With some other incentives. On the upside if they were hungry for a quarterback we weren't going to take at number 1 fine. On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
And still not Head and Shoulders, if anything at all, above Landry and Gordon.
WSS
On the radio today they were tossing around a swap of number one picks. With some other incentives. On the upside if they were hungry for a quarterback we weren't going to take at number 1 fine. On the downside he's a team cancer and wants a new deal which would be astronomical.
And still not Head and Shoulders, if anything at all, above Landry and Gordon.
WSS
Beckham’s much better than Landry.
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