Andrew Luck
-
Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team.
But....the Browns last year didn't do the best for their team. Hell, the best for them was to get a better draft pick. They did their best for the sake of the other teams in the league that were still in the race.
The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard.
Are you condoning that activity as well then?
As Al Davis said- "just win,baby". If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified.
That is right...it is righteous and justified.
Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired.
But no one, I do not believe thinks that Tua is by any means any sure fire NFL prospect. I don't personally think that he will be the first QB taken. The guy from Oregon...Justin Herbert, I think, I consider a better pro prospect. The next player to "Suck for" is Trevor Lawrence from Clemson...who is being touted as the best QB prospect to come out since Luck. But that won't be unti 2021.
They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff.
They are a good team....would have been in the hunt for their division title...and maybe more. Brissett will be...OK. And I think that 8-8 there is just about right....give or take.
Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team.
But....the Browns last year didn't do the best for their team. Hell, the best for them was to get a better draft pick. They did their best for the sake of the other teams in the league that were still in the race.
The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard.
Are you condoning that activity as well then?
As Al Davis said- "just win,baby". If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified.
That is right...it is righteous and justified.
Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired.
But no one, I do not believe thinks that Tua is by any means any sure fire NFL prospect. I don't personally think that he will be the first QB taken. The guy from Oregon...Justin Herbert, I think, I consider a better pro prospect. The next player to "Suck for" is Trevor Lawrence from Clemson...who is being touted as the best QB prospect to come out since Luck. But that won't be unti 2021.
They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff.
They are a good team....would have been in the hunt for their division title...and maybe more. Brissett will be...OK. And I think that 8-8 there is just about right....give or take.
Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river.
I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10.
-
Who needs integrity? You do what's best for your team.
But....the Browns last year didn't do the best for their team. Hell, the best for them was to get a better draft pick. They did their best for the sake of the other teams in the league that were still in the race.
The Cheatriots are leaders in the clubhouse in that regard.
Are you condoning that activity as well then?
As Al Davis said- "just win,baby". If you want to hate the Colts because of the Irsays and that one game, your POV is justified.
That is right...it is righteous and justified.
Maybe karma is catching up with them, as except for that one year, they've had great QBs since 1998. But as I pointed out- they could "Tank for Tua", though it sure sounds like from reports I've seen they're not about to throw in the towel just because Luck abruptly retired.
But no one, I do not believe thinks that Tua is by any means any sure fire NFL prospect. I don't personally think that he will be the first QB taken. The guy from Oregon...Justin Herbert, I think, I consider a better pro prospect. The next player to "Suck for" is Trevor Lawrence from Clemson...who is being touted as the best QB prospect to come out since Luck. But that won't be unti 2021.
They have too much surrounding talent around Brissett to not finish at least 8-8, maybe better- unless Brissett totally sucks- like he has in the past. My eyeball test at the Colts game told me he's not exactly a stiff.
They are a good team....would have been in the hunt for their division title...and maybe more. Brissett will be...OK. And I think that 8-8 there is just about right....give or take.
Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river.
I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10.
Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river.
I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10.
I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.
Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?
-
Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river.
I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10.
I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.
Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?
I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.
Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?
Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in. If they are playing another team that has their playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game.
I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.
-
I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.
Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?
Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in. If they are playing another team that has their playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game.
I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.
Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in. If they are playing another team that has their playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game.
I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.
I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?
If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.
And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.
-
Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in. If they are playing another team that has their playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game.
I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.
I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?
If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.
And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.
I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?
If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.
And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.
I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know. Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs.
Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?
I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.
But, Ask me then....hopefully!!
-
Every team has to win its games if it wants to be a playoff contender. If the last week of the regular season you need someone else winning it for you, then you probably are not such contender, thus you cannot complan if certain team doesn't win a rival in the hunt for a playoff berth. No matter the how they do it.
I would 100% rest my starters if I could on Week 17.
Ironically, in soccer there are or have been, at least in Spain, some under the table bonus payment offers between teams so they would compete last games of the season when they had nothing to play for. No need to say that it is forbidden by league authorities.
-
The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi.
I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true.
But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out.
-
Every team has to win its games if it wants to be a playoff contender. If the last week of the regular season you need someone else winning it for you, then you probably are not such contender, thus you cannot complan if certain team doesn't win a rival in the hunt for a playoff berth. No matter the how they do it.
I would 100% rest my starters if I could on Week 17.
Ironically, in soccer there are or have been, at least in Spain, some under the table bonus payment offers between teams so they would compete last games of the season when they had nothing to play for. No need to say that it is forbidden by league authorities.
Every team has to win its games if it wants to be a playoff contender. If the last week of the regular season you need someone else winning it for you, then you probably are not such contender, thus you cannot complan if certain team doesn't win a rival in the hunt for a playoff berth. No matter the how they do it.
Uhmm...it happens ALL the time. Nearly every single year. I mean, I don't know if/where you could find the stats....but I doubt there has been a season where every playoff berth has been wrapped up before the final week. There is ALWAYs relying on help from someone else for them to make the playoffs.
I would 100% rest my starters if I could on Week 17.
Ironically, in soccer there are or have been, at least in Spain, some under the table bonus payment offers between teams so they would compete last games of the season when they had nothing to play for. No need to say that it is forbidden by league authorities.
-
The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi.
I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true.
But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out.
The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi.
I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true.
But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out.
You are not getting it, at all apparently. We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)
And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6. Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs. Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.
I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB. We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.
-
I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?
If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.
And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.
I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know. Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs.
Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?
I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.
But, Ask me then....hopefully!!
I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know. Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs.
Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?
I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.
But, Ask me then....hopefully!!
But by your stance on it it doesn't have to be this year (since it is unlikely that the Bengals will be able to make playoffs).
Or let's look at it another way, so maybe you can understand the point. IF the Browns are locked into a playoff spot and win or lose makes no difference for the spot, and the Bengals game doesn't matter for it, would you be okay with the Browns sitting the starters to preserve them?
Because whether it effects the playoffs or not, ANY time sitting the starters would be against the integrity no? Or let's go even more; say Baker gets hurt and misses Week 15 and 16, the Browns are in playoff position, and Baker has been cleared. Should they send him out there for the game after missing the past 2 games in a game that won't matter in the grand scheme of things, or rest him to make sure he is ready for the postseason? Remember he has been cleared, so him not playing by your feelings is the Browns not playing with integrity.
-
The Browns tanked for two seasons under Sashi.
I know it might rock the moral high ground some here think they are on concerning the Browns vs the Colts, but it is true.
But if it makes people feel better about the Browns not making the playoffs 12 years ago, in a season where the team was tailing off at the end, then knock yourself out.
You are not getting it, at all apparently. We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)
And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6. Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs. Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.
I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB. We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.
You are not getting it, at all apparently. We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)
And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6. Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs. Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.
I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB. We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.
That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority. Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have.
BTW, the Browns tanking for draft picks sure helped the W-L record of the teams they were up against- like the Steelers and every other team in the AFC North. So it most certainly did affect who got in the playoffs- or not.
-
Not to go off topic so to speak but yeas most teams that go 10-6 do make playoffs, Had the Pats not gone 16-0 we may have stood a chance. If you recall in 1985 we went 8-8 and made playoffs only to fall to the Phins in the wildcard round in a "fixed" game if you ask Chip. or should I say Medicine man
-
It never upset me that the Colts sat their starters in '07. The sewed up their division, and the week before clinched home field advantage for the playoffs. Why would you send your starters out in a meaningless game?
Because it wasn't a meaningless game. It had playoff implications for the league. It was a gutless move....so I guess you are in favor of gutless moves.
I can assure you that if the Browns have home field sown up going into the final week and I see Baker and OBJ and Landry and Chubb running out onto the field I'm gonna lose my shit. Fuck the other teams; we took care of our business---you take care of yours.
Well...I am sure that is the thinking. It is still gutless.
Bottom line, Indy took care of their business. They were not responsible to help the Browns or anyone else make the playoffs.
They were as equally as responsible for the integrity of the league as any other team. Again, the Ravens game at the end of last year was just as meaningless to the Browns....but they fought hard to win and to maintain the integrity of the game.
Especially when you consider that Cleveland fucked itself when we shit the bed in Cincinnati the week before and lost (badly) to a shitty 5-9 Bengals team. The Browns had complete control of their own destiny going into that game and fucked it up. Not Indy's responsibility to pick us up.
No, but integrity IS their responsibility.
Again...FUCK them. Let them die as a franchise. Do you disagree with that?
No, I agree---fuck the Colts (Irsay).
As for the rest of it---sorry, the Browns have no one to blame but themselves. If you're counting on another team to win in order for you to make the playoffs, you probably don't belong in the playoffs. In 2011, the Red Sox entered the final game of the season needing the Yankees to beat Baltimore so that Boston could get the wild card. The Yankees had clinched the division the week before. The Yankees led and then Joe Girardi pulled the starters in the 6th inning. Baltimore came back and won and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation because the Yankees "tanked so we wouldn't make the playoffs". Barry Larkin said on Baseball Tonight, "the Yankees took care of their business. It is not their responsibility to help you make the playoffs." 3 or 4 years ago we had the same shit with the Steelers. After another 0-3/2-4 start, they rallied late in the season and in the final week needed another AFC team that had already clinched a playoff berth to win. That team rested it's starters and Steeler Nation and the Steeler players themselves bitched and moaned that other teams tanked because they were afraid of the Steelers in the playoffs. Fuck'em. Win your games and forge your own destiny.
In '07, with 2 games left the Browns controlled their own destiny. Beat the 5-9 Bengals and the 49ers and we were in. Instead, we laid an egg against Cinci. Not an iota of the requisite effort and intensity. So we went into the final game needing the Colts to win. The Colts sat their starters. Tough shit for us. Win your fucking games.
-
You are not getting it, at all apparently. We are talking about the integrity of the game. (again referring to 2007)
And I don't think they were tailing off at the end. They went 10-6. Most teams that go 10-6 make the playoffs. Yes, they cacked up a furball vs. the Bengals in the next to last game....but they took care of business in the final game...but because the Colts did us no favors, they had no chance to make the playoffs.
I mean...bring to point up to date....I am NOT going to have a fucking pity party for the cocksucking Baltimore Colts (yes, I meant it that way)....over losing their QB. We have waited 55 years now...then can go that long from here on out.
That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority. Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have.
BTW, the Browns tanking for draft picks sure helped the W-L record of the teams they were up against- like the Steelers and every other team in the AFC North. So it most certainly did affect who got in the playoffs- or not.
That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority.
Fucking Bullshit. Integrity is in the heart and in the mind. Yes, I realize that with Trump World that Integrity is a devalued commodity. But really...does everything have to be based on dishonesty and greed?
Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have.
So what if they lost to the Bengals the week before. It was still a playoff race. So, you are saying that I should just give up and accept that a lack of integrity and honesty are just now the norm in American culture.
-
No, I agree---fuck the Colts (Irsay).
As for the rest of it---sorry, the Browns have no one to blame but themselves. If you're counting on another team to win in order for you to make the playoffs, you probably don't belong in the playoffs. In 2011, the Red Sox entered the final game of the season needing the Yankees to beat Baltimore so that Boston could get the wild card. The Yankees had clinched the division the week before. The Yankees led and then Joe Girardi pulled the starters in the 6th inning. Baltimore came back and won and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation because the Yankees "tanked so we wouldn't make the playoffs". Barry Larkin said on Baseball Tonight, "the Yankees took care of their business. It is not their responsibility to help you make the playoffs." 3 or 4 years ago we had the same shit with the Steelers. After another 0-3/2-4 start, they rallied late in the season and in the final week needed another AFC team that had already clinched a playoff berth to win. That team rested it's starters and Steeler Nation and the Steeler players themselves bitched and moaned that other teams tanked because they were afraid of the Steelers in the playoffs. Fuck'em. Win your games and forge your own destiny.
In '07, with 2 games left the Browns controlled their own destiny. Beat the 5-9 Bengals and the 49ers and we were in. Instead, we laid an egg against Cinci. Not an iota of the requisite effort and intensity. So we went into the final game needing the Colts to win. The Colts sat their starters. Tough shit for us. Win your fucking games.
No, I agree---fuck the Colts (Irsay).
As for the rest of it---sorry, the Browns have no one to blame but themselves. If you're counting on another team to win in order for you to make the playoffs, you probably don't belong in the playoffs. In 2011, the Red Sox entered the final game of the season needing the Yankees to beat Baltimore so that Boston could get the wild card. The Yankees had clinched the division the week before. The Yankees led and then Joe Girardi pulled the starters in the 6th inning. Baltimore came back and won and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation because the Yankees "tanked so we wouldn't make the playoffs". Barry Larkin said on Baseball Tonight, "the Yankees took care of their business. It is not their responsibility to help you make the playoffs." 3 or 4 years ago we had the same shit with the Steelers. After another 0-3/2-4 start, they rallied late in the season and in the final week needed another AFC team that had already clinched a playoff berth to win. That team rested it's starters and Steeler Nation and the Steeler players themselves bitched and moaned that other teams tanked because they were afraid of the Steelers in the playoffs. Fuck'em. Win your games and forge your own destiny.
In '07, with 2 games left the Browns controlled their own destiny. Beat the 5-9 Bengals and the 49ers and we were in. Instead, we laid an egg against Cinci. Not an iota of the requisite effort and intensity. So we went into the final game needing the Colts to win. The Colts sat their starters. Tough shit for us. Win your fucking games.
OK....I get it. Let's not value integrity.
I will take that as a cue to hereafter lie, cheat, steal...and that no one will think the worst of me for it.
Thank you for freeing me from morality.
Now, let's ask this: What can the Browns now do to cheat their way into the playoffs this year? Go the Steeler route and pass out the HGH injection needles? Videotape the other teams practices? Deflate the balls? Go for the opposing QBs knees? At worst that would be 15 yards....worth it to knock out BR/Jackson etc. Tap the other teams communications with the field?
Everything is on the table, apparently.
-
That integrity is only in your mind Gipper, and your POV is in the minority.
Fucking Bullshit. Integrity is in the heart and in the mind. Yes, I realize that with Trump World that Integrity is a devalued commodity. But really...does everything have to be based on dishonesty and greed?
Teams always rest their starters with a playoff spot locked up not just the Colts. And for the last freaking time- you just pointed it out- we beat the Bengals the week before- what the Colts did in the last game wouldn't have mattered. How many times you want to talk in circles about a game that happened 12 years ago? Let it go- the rest of us have.
So what if they lost to the Bengals the week before. It was still a playoff race. So, you are saying that I should just give up and accept that a lack of integrity and honesty are just now the norm in American culture.
I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.
But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?
Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?
Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.
I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel
-
I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.
But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?
Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?
Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.
I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel
I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.
But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?
Yea, that is different. In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.
Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?
Uhmm that is different. I have no problem with a team being cautious about an injured player. Just because he is cleared may not mean he is ready.
Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.
I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel.
Wait and see is a full accepted legal construct. Just ask Professor Sonnenfield.
-
I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.
But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?
Yea, that is different. In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.
Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?
Uhmm that is different. I have no problem with a team being cautious about an injured player. Just because he is cleared may not mean he is ready.
Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.
I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel.
Wait and see is a full accepted legal construct. Just ask Professor Sonnenfield.
Yea, that is different. In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.
Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually". The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts. The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters.
And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical.
And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already.
-
Yea, that is different. In essence....trading a veteran for a draft pick IS in reality trying to get better ultimately.
Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually". The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts. The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters.
And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical.
And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already.
Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually". The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts.
It is not disingenuous...because it is designed to get BETTER players. You always expect to get better with any trades.
The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters.
And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical.
And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already.
Give me the list of all those teams that have rested their players....when the results of their game would affect someone else's potential playoff potential...and I will rag on them. I remember the one time it affected the Browns....but I don't know every instance...because I am a Browns fan. I would say that they are pretty rare.
-
Spin away. Sorry, we don't agree there Gipper I don't give a crap about getting better "eventually". The now of it is- getting rid of better players now to improve in the future is tanking, and is just as disingenuous as your rant against the Colts.
It is not disingenuous...because it is designed to get BETTER players. You always expect to get better with any trades.
The Browns did it- and got two #1 picks in a row because of it. Cheaters.
And I did point out their desire to tank did indeed affect the other teams in the NFL. In 2016 we gifted the Steelers two wins and the Cowboys one. 2017 our 0-16 gifted every other team in the league at least one, if not two free wins that most certainly affected the final standings and playoff position. Just because the Browns did it doesn't make it any more ethical.
And we've pointed out- if you're going to rag on the Colts for resting their starters, by the same token you have to rag on every team that's ever rested their starters in preparation for the playoffs. So kindly STFU about it already.
Give me the list of all those teams that have rested their players....when the results of their game would affect someone else's potential playoff potential...and I will rag on them. I remember the one time it affected the Browns....but I don't know every instance...because I am a Browns fan. I would say that they are pretty rare.
Give me the list of all those teams that have rested their players....when the results of their game would affect someone else's potential playoff potential...and I will rag on them. I remember the one time it affected the Browns....but I don't know every instance...because I am a Browns fan. I would say that they are pretty rare.
The instances of teams resting their players happens almost every year. And like your wimpy "I haven't seen the tape" on the roughing the passer- just because you didn't see it, or haven't kept track of it- doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
My assertion is just as valid as yours. You think I'm wrong? Do some work and prove 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