Free Agents Still Out There
-
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Really hope the possible gay-ness isn't the problem with getting a deal. That would make me hate the shit out of the NFL. The only thing worse than bigotry is bigots bitching that they're facing anti-bigotry bigotry. Their right to be really shitty to large segments of the population is getting trampled on!
Makes me think Lee Atwater is still working. That Orwellian fake outrage is pretty ingenious.
A blonde ponytailed rich mom in my lily white exburb sent around an e-mail about the war on Christmas. I told her to look around: If it's a war, Christmas won by a knockout. Like 250 years ago. And then the kicking began.
I'd just like to know why a guy like Rhodes coming off a season like he had is still available. I don't get it.
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
-
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
-
Zombo said:
I like our heteros, Bademosi and Gipson. Free agent is a position where someone can break through from anywhere on the roster, my money is on Bademosi, but Gipson is a good fallback, I thought he played well and showed good skills last year. I'm glad they will both be getting reps and playing time in camp and preseason. If one goes down ... then it's time to scour through veterans.
Zombo
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
My money is on Slaughter.
In 2015.
Maybe in 2015. This year i see him aprenticing behind Ward at SS and helping our special teams.
Zombo
-
By all accounts by writers outside of Cleveland, Gipson isn't anything special. I tend to trust the outside perspective a little more than the biased beat reporters everyone else quotes.
Actually, I think Gipson is a completely unknown commodity. Writers outside Cleveland don't have a clue if he is special or not...and neither do "inside" writers. . He really hasn't played that much for them.....or for us really, to know for sure. We think the coaches on this team like him. That is all we have to go by.
-
The reason we go back and forth on this is that neither is such a bad idea, it's just a matter of personnel philosophy.
1. You have three young, inexperienced candidates for FS and you like them all quite a bit, see definite potential for one or more to be a long-term starter or rotation player. They're under contract. They're here. You want the winner of the competition to play football on Sundays, not watch.
2. This team is a lot better than some people realize, or at least could be. The coaching adds, the pass rushers, the accumulation of high-end young talent... we could figure out very soon that this team is more of a contender than we thought. As in, right after we beat an equally interesting Miami team.
If that's true, and if Kerry Rhodes is 100% and ready to play at a high level for a couple years, one of those three young guys is shit out of luck and we're playing for right now.
AND: Rhodes is gay? I'd never read that. Not that I give a shit.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
There's a controversy about it. His alleged former boyfriend keeps releasing pictures of the two together in different places...including bed.
Ask him for a date then. Maybe you will find out that way
I just think that Rhodes at 100% for the next couple seasons is a better safety than anything we have on the roster.
He may be. Or maybe not. I am not opposed to bringing him in....if it seems he could really help. The "young guys" particularly a 6th round pick like Slaughter could spend a year on the Taxi Squad as far as I am concerned.
People say that only contenders make moves like this. I submit that they are only contenders because they make moves like this.
The SF 49ers once won the SB with 2 rookie CBs. I would say that there is no absolute solution.
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
-
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition. It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
-
Dbn did a film room segment on gipson, which was quite good. My problem with this argument is that the primary assumption is our 3 current options are as good as they'll ever be. That's just simply untrue.
Rhodes lost almost all of 2011 to injury, had a good 2012. He certainly isn't gonna get any better, not that he would need to. Its less that I think he's adequate at the position than I think our youngins show more promise and are worth developing. Rhodes is not gonna push us over the top, as FS is not as important in this defense as puss rusher. All signing Rhodes does is kick the can down the road....
Gipson showed some promise last year, enough to warrant another look. Same with bademosi. I'm not sure how putting them on the bench helps them develop....so if you want to explain how not playing makes one better, couch...I'm all ears. I get the feeling your opinion rides along the myopic view that unless the young guys are high draft picks, they have no business on the field. And that is simply wrong, cause it removes many factors that determine success.
It seems the browns are banking on the idea that a good pass rush makes a average secondary better. The coaches appear to like our youngins so far in shorts....which doesn't eliminate Rhodes coming aboard later. He won't need time to learn the defense as the other do, so what's the rush. Km of the opinion that youth an promise trumps age and savy, cause one has a known limit while the other is unknown....for better or worse. In other words...no risk, no reward. You chose to go the safe route, I choose the risky route. Higher payout IMO.
Signing Rhodes simply means we're having this same conversation in a year or 2. I'd rather solidify that spot sooner rather than later.....find out if the youngins can play now, scour the cuts before falling back on the last resort Rhodes. Horton's action led me to this line of thinking....years of losing led you to yours.
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
#Justsayin' -
So, you got nothing.
Thanks for playing.
So you have no response and, in true pussy fashion, you throw in a smartass one liner instead of providing any contradiction.
So far all you've said was "gr, Gipson is teh b3st because I watched him play and liked it. So did this guy who is also a Browns fan. Keep your fancy statistics and logic out, there's no room for that here"
-
You incorrectly assume that I'm of the opinion that only high draft picks become successful. Rhodes is proof otherwise.
Rhodes is a fourth round pick. Not nearly considered a high pick.
I'm only saying that he has had consistent production throughout his entire career, and has spent a majority of that playing for blitz heavy teams.
Gipson has potential in that he's young and decently athletic, but he had 4 starts and did nothing special with them. His performance thus far had been wholly unspectacular, and I feel like we're really only considering him as viable talent because he's not as bad as our FS have been for the past six years.
Being better than we've had doesn't mean much.
Bring Rhodes in and let him and Gipson battle it out. If Rhodes wins, we have a legitimate starter for the next few seasons. If Gipson wins, he deserves the job and then had a veteran mentor with experience in this system backing him up (not to mention a solid backup if he goes down).
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
Whoa whoa... "unspectacular??" Are you suggesting that Rhodes would provide us with "spectacular" play at FS. If so, I'm in. This argument is the classic "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other."
And, considering him only b/c he's better than what we've had... Really??? The coaching staff has praised Gipson... They haven't been around more than a couple months...
I haven't seen a single blurb of praise on Gipson from our coaches. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but show me where they have praised him.
I have seen a heck of a lot more praise for Bademosi than Gipson.
-
We're making this way more complicated than it has to be.
Gipson played credibly last year... and better than credibly when he returned from injury, especially in the Pittsburgh game. He looked like he belonged. He looked like a draftable player.
Dick Jauron said a lot of nice things about Tashaun. He said the more he watched him live and on film, the less he understood how he wasn't drafted, perhaps even pretty high. Jauron was a huge fan. He believed Gipson had the instincts and athleticism to be a really good starting safety in the NFL. Jauron knows a thing or two.
When the new regime came in, a few fairly benign comments were tossed out about Gipson. Nothing special, really, just that he's a promising young player who flashed ability last year. They said he would enter camp as the starter and they didn't feel overly compelled to look for a replacement in free agency (and didn't). Then we also heard Bademosi would compete. Then they waited until round 6 to take Slaughter, perhaps the biggest endorsement of all.
So far, it appears the new regime likes Gipson just like the old one did. He played good football last year. He showed some potential, a hint that he might've been a steal. We'll see. Bademosi is faster (to be fair, he's faster than almost everybody) but Gipson has really good "functional speed," plays plenty fast and some.
-
To add to this, Sobo repeatedly says the Browns like their defensive backfield and aren't wringing their hands at all (like some fans) about the talent there. They like Skrine, McFadden, and Owens. They never thought seriously about spending a first round pick on a corner and thought they could top the free agent crop early in round 3. McFadden was one of the eight they saw as early NFL starters. And they think they have a couple guys in Gipson and Bademosi who could well be better than anything they could've drafted from round 3 down or signed in free agency at a value-based price.
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
-
just came across an old Cabot article from February quoting Banner regarding the upcoming draft and his outlook on the defense at that time. still seems relevant to this discussion even now.
On the defensive overhaul: Banner made his most pointed comments to date regarding the changes made to the defensive scheme and coaching staff.
"We felt like the defense wasn't good enough, to be very direct about it," Banner said. "If you went into some of the more sophisticated breakdowns of the defense this year, and by that I mean some of these systems that take out certain plays and that truly measure your success at crucial times in crucial situations, and so on and so forth, we were ranked 20 or lower in most of those categories."
Banner said the club wanted a more aggressive defense than the one employed by former coordinator Dick Jauron. New defensive coordinator Ray Horton, while working for Arizona last season, called for the second-most blitzes in the NFL, behind only Houston.
On guard: Banner indicated that Alabama guard Chance Warmack won't be an option at No. 6.
"I wouldn't rule anything out but it wouldn't philosophically fit with how we're approaching the priorities and how we're building the team," he said.
Likewise, he said the Browns won't reach for a cornerback just because they need a starter. The only sure-fire first-rounder at the position is Alabama's Dee Milliner.
"We're not going rush and make a mistake because we have a need and leave ourselves in a position where we have to solve the same problem twice. We do have an order of what we'd like to solve if the world falls the way we want it to, but if it doesn't we're not going to force it just so that we're not going into this season with some glaring hole when it's really going to hurt us with where we want to be two, three years from now."
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