Browns to interview McCarthy
-
It is a fact and you don't have to agree...
Facts are indisputable and therefore not subject to agreement... worldwide. Whereas your opinion... not so much.
For an example in addition to the above...
... somebody I would trust for the next five years...
Pure opinion... as is my disagreement.
Facts are indisputable and therefore not subject to agreement... worldwide. Whereas your opinion... not so much.
For an example in addition to the above...
Pure opinion... as is my disagreement.
You know, it really doesn't matter what I or anybody thinks because the Browns will do what they always do and we'll be talking about this again next year. Well, you'll be talking about this. As I said, wake me when the nightmare ends.
-
I've actually coming around to the idea of McCarthy being the head coach. Saw his interview and it appears the year off has made him thirsty to coach again. Even if half of the stuff that was leaked after he was fired is true, he was basically coasting the last couple of years and expecting Aaron to bail him out. I liked most of his answers and physically it look like he lost some weight instead of somefat fuck that gets massages in his office. He would bring instant credibility and embrace analytics.
-
Well.....OK, so in your view, every coach that has won a Conference Championship game...which the NFL championship was tantamount those years from 66 to 69, but lost the Super Bowl has still "won a championship"?
Nope, not all all. Semantics my friend. In hindsight sure its like a conference championship, but since they were 2 separate leagues at the time they were champions.
It's the same argument that many (including you) have used to count the number of championships the Browns have in comparison to others.
Again, if I had used the words: World champion, ultimate champion, SB champion, etc then I would be wrong.
Nope, not all all. Semantics my friend. In hindsight sure its like a conference championship, but since they were 2 separate leagues at the time they were champions.
It's the same argument that many (including you) have used to count the number of championships the Browns have in comparison to others.
Not at all....Where I count the Browns having won championships...they won and didn't lose. They didn't have another game to play. Shula did...and he lost.
Again, if I had used the words: World champion, ultimate champion, SB champion, etc then I would be wrong.
You used the word "championship".....And by that definition then there are 54 AFC or NFC Championship game winners who did not win the World Championship, SB Championship etc. that are still called "Championship game winners". So, I say you cannot include Shula any more than you can include Bill Parcells or John Fox or Dan Reeves or Dick Vermeil, etc. etc. anyone that won a Super Bowl with one team and then won a Conference Championship with another.
-
Nope, not all all. Semantics my friend. In hindsight sure its like a conference championship, but since they were 2 separate leagues at the time they were champions.
It's the same argument that many (including you) have used to count the number of championships the Browns have in comparison to others.
Not at all....Where I count the Browns having won championships...they won and didn't lose. They didn't have another game to play. Shula did...and he lost.
Again, if I had used the words: World champion, ultimate champion, SB champion, etc then I would be wrong.
You used the word "championship".....And by that definition then there are 54 AFC or NFC Championship game winners who did not win the World Championship, SB Championship etc. that are still called "Championship game winners". So, I say you cannot include Shula any more than you can include Bill Parcells or John Fox or Dan Reeves or Dick Vermeil, etc. etc. anyone that won a Super Bowl with one team and then won a Conference Championship with another.
That is your rule then. As a quick search will generate NFL CHAMPION.
But it's ok for you to change up the rules to fit your agenda.
Again, since you want to continue to argue this, go back to my original post and show me one thing that I was incorrect about? Don Shula IS recognized as the NFL CHAMPION that year. Nobody ever said SB, Ultimate champion, won last game, etc. And since there was no AFC/NFC there is no way to say that is what the Colts won. In Hindsight yes that is what the equivalent would appear to be, but the Colts went down as NFL CHAMPIONS
-
That is your rule then. As a quick search will generate NFL CHAMPION.
But it's ok for you to change up the rules to fit your agenda.
Again, since you want to continue to argue this, go back to my original post and show me one thing that I was incorrect about? Don Shula IS recognized as the NFL CHAMPION that year. Nobody ever said SB, Ultimate champion, won last game, etc. And since there was no AFC/NFC there is no way to say that is what the Colts won. In Hindsight yes that is what the equivalent would appear to be, but the Colts went down as NFL CHAMPIONS
That is your rule then. As a quick search will generate NFL CHAMPION.
But it's ok for you to change up the rules to fit your agenda.
Again, since you want to continue to argue this, go back to my original post and show me one thing that I was incorrect about? Don Shula IS recognized as the NFL CHAMPION that year. Nobody ever said SB, Ultimate champion, won last game, etc. And since there was no AFC/NFC there is no way to say that is what the Colts won. In Hindsight yes that is what the equivalent would appear to be, but the Colts went down as NFL CHAMPIONS
No one recognizes that has a championship. He lost. He lost the Super Bowl. So you gonna tell me the Minnesota Vikings want to championship and that the Raiders and the Chiefs won the championships only despite the fact they got pounded by the Packers in the supers two Super Bowl‘s. In that way you’re thinking every Super Bowl loser is a champion
-
-
Stupid. How could anyone be anything with Freddie kitchens as their coach.
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
-
Stupid. How could anyone be anything with Freddie kitchens as their coach.
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
98%
-
That is your rule then. As a quick search will generate NFL CHAMPION.
But it's ok for you to change up the rules to fit your agenda.
Again, since you want to continue to argue this, go back to my original post and show me one thing that I was incorrect about? Don Shula IS recognized as the NFL CHAMPION that year. Nobody ever said SB, Ultimate champion, won last game, etc. And since there was no AFC/NFC there is no way to say that is what the Colts won. In Hindsight yes that is what the equivalent would appear to be, but the Colts went down as NFL CHAMPIONS
No one recognizes that has a championship. He lost. He lost the Super Bowl. So you gonna tell me the Minnesota Vikings want to championship and that the Raiders and the Chiefs won the championships only despite the fact they got pounded by the Packers in the supers two Super Bowl‘s. In that way you’re thinking every Super Bowl loser is a champion
No one recognizes that has a championship. He lost. He lost the Super Bowl. So you gonna tell me the Minnesota Vikings want to championship and that the Raiders and the Chiefs won the championships only despite the fact they got pounded by the Packers in the supers two Super Bowl‘s. In that way you’re thinking every Super Bowl loser is a champion
I'm not going to post anymore on the topic pal. Think whatever it is you want. All you have to do to see how history records them is do a quick search on NFL champions.
The last I will say is that you have tried different things to prove your point, which NOBODY disagreed with. You keep bringing up SB, Ultimate game, lost last game, AFC/NFC etc. Things that NOBODY said. All I asked was show me one thing that I posted that was incorrect, yet all you are doing is bringing up the same thing that nobody is contradicting.
There is NO grey area in the record books. The Colts were, are, and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS.
-
I’m fine with Mike. I’m so weary to this process that the only thing I want for sure is a coach who’s done this shit for a while at least at a coordinator level. I’m glad real a guy like Rhule didn’t want to interview. He may be the next great guy, but the Browns don’t need that.
We need someone who can come in and knows how to set the tone. Mike easily could do that.
-
Stupid. How could anyone be anything with Freddie kitchens as their coach.
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
Kitchens was mostly to blame by designing poor gameplans and lack of attention to detail, Dorsey as well by blacklisting Higgins, cutting Fells, trading Zeitler and firing Zampese. Baker admits he didn't train hard in the offseason but that reflects on the culture Dorsey set in the building where he crowned Baker's a** before he'd really achieved anything.
-
No one recognizes that has a championship. He lost. He lost the Super Bowl. So you gonna tell me the Minnesota Vikings want to championship and that the Raiders and the Chiefs won the championships only despite the fact they got pounded by the Packers in the supers two Super Bowl‘s. In that way you’re thinking every Super Bowl loser is a champion
I'm not going to post anymore on the topic pal. Think whatever it is you want. All you have to do to see how history records them is do a quick search on NFL champions.
The last I will say is that you have tried different things to prove your point, which NOBODY disagreed with. You keep bringing up SB, Ultimate game, lost last game, AFC/NFC etc. Things that NOBODY said. All I asked was show me one thing that I posted that was incorrect, yet all you are doing is bringing up the same thing that nobody is contradicting.
There is NO grey area in the record books. The Colts were, are, and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS.
I'm not going to post anymore on the topic pal. Think whatever it is you want. All you have to do to see how history records them is do a quick search on NFL champions.
The last I will say is that you have tried different things to prove your point, which NOBODY disagreed with. You keep bringing up SB, Ultimate game, lost last game, AFC/NFC etc. Things that NOBODY said. All I asked was show me one thing that I posted that was incorrect, yet all you are doing is bringing up the same thing that nobody is contradicting.
There is NO grey area in the record books. The Colts were, are, and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS.
No grey area in the record books. Colts were 1968 NFL champions and they are no more than the 51 Super Bowl other Super Bowl losers since then. NFC/AFC champions. Or even any more than say last year the Ravens were the AFC North Champions.
Maybe you also want to call all the "Division Championship" winners"Champions since then as well. They do call them Champions.
The better question is: Why do we call any team that did not win the Super Bowl "Champions" if they have simply won their won a step on the way to the right to get the "ultimate" championship game? Division champions? We need better terminology.
-
You can keep thinking that Kitchens was completely to blame for Mayfield regressing this season, but you'd be wrong.
Kitchens was mostly to blame by designing poor gameplans and lack of attention to detail, Dorsey as well by blacklisting Higgins, cutting Fells, trading Zeitler and firing Zampese. Baker admits he didn't train hard in the offseason but that reflects on the culture Dorsey set in the building where he crowned Baker's a** before he'd really achieved anything.
Kitchens was mostly to blame by designing poor gameplans and lack of attention to detail, Dorsey as well by blacklisting Higgins, cutting Fells, trading Zeitler and firing Zampese. Baker admits he didn't train hard in the offseason but that reflects on the culture Dorsey set in the building where he crowned Baker's a** before he'd really achieved anything.
You (hell all of us Browns fans) better hope you are right.
Because if you are not, Baker Mayfield was vastly overrated.
-
Kitchens was mostly to blame by designing poor gameplans and lack of attention to detail, Dorsey as well by blacklisting Higgins, cutting Fells, trading Zeitler and firing Zampese. Baker admits he didn't train hard in the offseason but that reflects on the culture Dorsey set in the building where he crowned Baker's a** before he'd really achieved anything.
You (hell all of us Browns fans) better hope you are right.
Because if you are not, Baker Mayfield was vastly overrated.
You (hell all of us Browns fans) better hope you are right.
Because if you are not, Baker Mayfield was vastly overrated.
Admittedly my doubts were creeping in about Baker this season but when I read about how Bienimy prepares Mahomes for games ( I linked it in the HC/GM thread) which obviously lacked here I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not endorsing Bienimy but I want someone like him who pays attention to detail and coaches his players hard.
-
I’m fine with Mike. I’m so weary to this process that the only thing I want for sure is a coach who’s done this shit for a while at least at a coordinator level. I’m glad real a guy like Rhule didn’t want to interview. He may be the next great guy, but the Browns don’t need that.
We need someone who can come in and knows how to set the tone. Mike easily could do that.
I’m fine with Mike. I’m so weary to this process that the only thing I want for sure is a coach who’s done this shit for a while at least at a coordinator level. I’m glad real a guy like Rhule didn’t want to interview. He may be the next great guy, but the Browns don’t need that.
We need someone who can come in and knows how to set the tone. Mike easily could do that.
Looks like he will "easily do it" in Dallas.
-
You (hell all of us Browns fans) better hope you are right.
Because if you are not, Baker Mayfield was vastly overrated.
Admittedly my doubts were creeping in about Baker this season but when I read about how Bienimy prepares Mahomes for games ( I linked it in the HC/GM thread) which obviously lacked here I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not endorsing Bienimy but I want someone like him who pays attention to detail and coaches his players hard.
Admittedly my doubts were creeping in about Baker this season but when I read about how Bienimy prepares Mahomes for games ( I linked it in the HC/GM thread) which obviously lacked here I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not endorsing Bienimy but I want someone like him who pays attention to detail and coaches his players hard.
Did you read about how Eric studies every play in so much detail that he knows every player's role for every play? He said he does this so he doesn't let anyone down. Freddie did nothing along the sort. Browns mirrored Freddie - loosey goosey, sloppy, ghastly short on attention to detail. A complete joke. As the season went along, it became painfully obvious just how sloppy FK was.
-
I'm not going to post anymore on the topic pal. Think whatever it is you want. All you have to do to see how history records them is do a quick search on NFL champions.
The last I will say is that you have tried different things to prove your point, which NOBODY disagreed with. You keep bringing up SB, Ultimate game, lost last game, AFC/NFC etc. Things that NOBODY said. All I asked was show me one thing that I posted that was incorrect, yet all you are doing is bringing up the same thing that nobody is contradicting.
There is NO grey area in the record books. The Colts were, are, and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS.
No grey area in the record books. Colts were 1968 NFL champions and they are no more than the 51 Super Bowl other Super Bowl losers since then. NFC/AFC champions. Or even any more than say last year the Ravens were the AFC North Champions.
Maybe you also want to call all the "Division Championship" winners"Champions since then as well. They do call them Champions.
The better question is: Why do we call any team that did not win the Super Bowl "Champions" if they have simply won their won a step on the way to the right to get the "ultimate" championship game? Division champions? We need better terminology.
No grey area in the record books. Colts were 1968 NFL champions and they are no more than the 51 Super Bowl other Super Bowl losers since then. NFC/AFC champions. Or even any more than say last year the Ravens were the AFC North Champions.
Maybe you also want to call all the "Division Championship" winners"Champions since then as well. They do call them Champions.
The better question is: Why do we call any team that did not win the Super Bowl "Champions" if they have simply won their won a step on the way to the right to get the "ultimate" championship game? Division champions? We need better terminology.
Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion.
And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL.
Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion.
So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want, I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them.
-
No grey area in the record books. Colts were 1968 NFL champions and they are no more than the 51 Super Bowl other Super Bowl losers since then. NFC/AFC champions. Or even any more than say last year the Ravens were the AFC North Champions.
Maybe you also want to call all the "Division Championship" winners"Champions since then as well. They do call them Champions.
The better question is: Why do we call any team that did not win the Super Bowl "Champions" if they have simply won their won a step on the way to the right to get the "ultimate" championship game? Division champions? We need better terminology.
Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion.
And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL.
Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion.
So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want, I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them.
Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion.
And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL.
Not by my logic, no sir: my logic says that a team has to win their last game to be champions.
Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion.
Nope, sure wouldn't. It has happened, and my criteria has not changed. You can't lose a championship game and be a champion.
So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want,
I care about neither of those.....but I do care about the facts. And the fact is: the Colts lost. The Chiefs in '66, the Raiders in '67, the Colts in '68, the Vikings in '69 do not get to claim a championship beyond what the SB loser gets to claim today....that they won a "Conference".
I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them.
Sorry if the truth makes you constipated. How Trumpian of you.
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