But you're a Steeler fan. Sorry.

@oldcrow1945 said:

Haha, we're not even out of April and the Tribe is a non entity among fans.

What happened to all those super fans of a few year's past?

BTW, they may pull one out tonight.

@riffer-x said:

when i was a reader-only i respected shepwrite's opinion on things and when he spent my first month+plus flaming me unprovoked for asbsolutely no reason other than i posted in lower-case it apparently had a lasting effect. one could argue it helped make me the poster i am today. so this is therapy, and we're gonna hug it out.

or not.

ok i've aired it all and i'm done.

@riffer-x said:

The Cavs? Who are they?

**enter other readers** "uh really, yuh think so?!?!"

to me it's pretty obvious and i can't overlook it.

below is my post. do you really think i cast the first stone?

@sisky-fringo said:

i saw that too. lol

besides, if you guys didn't then i would've, but that's just me.

and don't act all coy like you've never dished it out shepwrite, you aint foolin' nobody.

although seemingly reformed nowadays you're the reason i bust your balls. i tend to view it as passive aggressive anyway. wanna bury the hatchet here? now's your chance.

which brought about:

Consider it buried in your fat head, you jamoke.

now you know we weren't on a level where i'd take a comment like that lightly. i was fine with it still until you tried to downplay it and inserted "Dickhead" into my line to help make your point, countering that "you're not the attacking type". this is the type of evasive rhetoric that brings about the drama you pretend you're so much above.

it would be different if you have ever quoted me, replied to me, or given thanks to anything i've ever said in 3 years but you haven't. therefore the comment could have easily been taken in a much worse way than you claim to have intended it. you did not take care to help me understand it was said in jest and are now attempting to skew it as if i brought it upon myself, yet have no recollection of previous battles. again, saying you're not that attack type is laffable to me, considering our past that you conveniently forgot all about. you always have used that defense, so if nothing else i guess i can admire the consistency.

if your memory is anything like you say chances are you'll forget we even had this conversation, but i'll still try to hold up my end as well as i can.

so as you would say "carry on".

@shepwrite said:

4. "Jamoke" is an old-school and very light putdown, the kind you toss at someone when you're not being particularly mean spirited.

Asshats.....lol...all I have done my friend is point out you post the same stuff that is in many cases already posted.....then you moan about not wanting to scroll down the page to pick up a ongoing conversation and start over

Guess what?? Quit starting so many threads and that stuff won't be buried. Simple concept really.

The jamoke comment....I agree, I use that term often....it was the part about considering the hatchet buried in his head that wasn't a light putdown and far from "not being particularly mean spirited. "

JMO

It's just the way it is when it gets busy, but I think as long as it is a good post it should be left alone. I don't know what mod is deleting Snapper's posts but I don't understand why.

It's all good guys, the Browns should be some happy mofos given the product we've suffered through to have us all bitching on here like this.

It's amazing, the Cavs are the shit and Browns talk still dominates the local media around here for you guys not living int he area.

For the most part, I think most of the regular guys who are here all the time are pretty good about not saturating the board with the same topics. I've PM'd new guys or people that just come around when it's busy and start posting before they even read a single thread and let them know. Most of it is accepted rationally cuz anybody that has ever visited forums realized many have hardcore stipulations for new posters. You know, things like sticky threads and warnings about showing respect and not being stupid?

@shepwrite said:

1. Didn't know I was ignoring you. Sorry. No offense. Once I drop into a thread a couple times and it feels stale, I usually don't run way down the list to find it again.

2. Along those lines, I've never liked putting what I consider to be new material in old threads, even if it's related. I've actually never knowingly reposted anything. On whatsisname, James Davis, there were no other threads on my screen except the one I'd already read about him and Harrison together. Nothing about him being a steal per his previous draft projection.

3. You may have gotten tossed in with a few ass hats who jump me at every turn, totally unprovoked. They insist that I start threads in spite of having read the same exact thing elsewhere because I'm an attention whore and my real life is such an unfulfilling parade of failures. When I take exception to that, I'm protesting too much. I'm just not a huge fan of dipshits. They annoy me. I'm human.

4. "Jamoke" is an old-school and very light putdown, the kind you toss at someone when you're not being particularly mean spirited.

5. Generally, I ignore being chickenshitted because I know it's about the chickenshitter, not me... but sometimes I'm just not in the mood. It happens.

thanks for making a list.....and prefacing it with the little remark. it really sells the sincerity.

1. at any rate apology accepted. i really don't care if you join in on topics or not actually, i just wanted to clear the air and find out if you were actually being passive-aggressive or not, cuz it sure seemed so. (regarding me, not regarding posting duplicate articles, obviously.)

2. i appreciate that you post articles, i've told you so in the past. if you don't mind that it's not your name in lights maybe a thread consisting of just articles could be a great way to go. there could be an understanding not to post in the article thread and casual readers could get the info very accessibly, if that's what it's about. if there's a thread associated and you have something to add, you could be like the rest of us and find said thread and post there. while it may seem inconvenient, it would avoid the comments from posters you seem to feel are coming in totally unprovoked.

3. just because something didn't happen today doesn't mean it's unprovoked. you established our rapport years ago, and have been reaping the consequences ever since. some of us are human too.

4. i know what a jamoke is, i was just giving you another opportunity. it fits the avatar somewhat and i wasn't offended, but aside from your "old shool" definition, there are some others you might want to be aware of. it also means idiot, thug (like mafia muscle but specifically a dimwit) and it also has racist connotation. there are probably others but those are the ones i'm aware of. burying a hatchet into my head and calling me a jamoke is not a particularly "light putdown" by today's standards, but i'll take you at your word that's what you really meant.

5.in our case it was all about you. for reasons unbeknownst to me you attacked me relentlessly when i first joined a few years back, you even followed me around throwing daggers. all of what i post your direction is mild compared to what you unleashed my direction back when ghoolie and erocc were here. i was known as superfansince86. that's where the passive aggressive comment from me came from, cuz you went from that to what we are today. i appreciate the reply. i would have bet money you'd ignore it, guess i was wrong.

@shepwrite said:

No, posting something I found interesting is neither egomaniacal nor passive aggressive. Attacking me over it is both of those things plus desperate and Retarded to boot.

no, i mean the way you have seemingly had me on ignore for years, that's what i found passive aggressive. occasionally i post something you could bite into so i figured it's not all dislike for the content. reread my post, this time don't make it all about you.

and real nice, jamoke.....i'm not familiar with that one. care to define it for me? or reconsider? this is a genuine peace offering, and so far you are who i thought you were.

how were you even attacked anyway? are you really that sensitive? posters have expressed their dislike of reposting articles and you continually choose to do it anyway. we understand your reasons. if you choose to take liberties for what you decide is the "greater good" then you might get some ribbing. you should expect that.

ever consider it might be insulting to the originator of the related topic, like they're being upstaged? new articles draw posts away from other topics and divide us. some might feel slighted when someone else does what you did.

a solution could be a locked thread for articles only. anyway, i admit in a post i would also try to enforce a request of the board and you name-call. is that how we want to continue this? you going to try to be funny and passive aggressively ignore this post?

@dan-in-florida said:

i saw that too. lol

besides, if you guys didn't then i would've, but that's just me.

and don't act all coy like you've never dished it out shepwrite, you aint foolin' nobody.

although seemingly reformed nowadays you're the reason i bust your balls. i tend to view it as passive aggressive anyway. wanna bury the hatchet here? now's your chance.

@shepwrite said:

No, I don't think it was....though someone else did, and I laughed.

All's cool bubba....it is what it is.

@oconrecon said:

You are one of the best...I knew there wouldn't be any gloating.

I'm with you....In the end all that matters is that the draft works out well for the Browns.

@dan-in-florida said:

NFL DRAFT

Draft grades

Browns, Eagles receive highest marks

By Nolan Nawrocki [Pro Football Weekly]

April 27, 2009

In a typical draft, the goal of NFL teams is to come away with starters in the first three rounds. In a weak draft such as this one, the draft expectation diminishes, with teams hoping to find sub-package or niche role players who can contribute their first year in Round Three.

It’s not fair to evaluate a draft class before it is given time to show how it produces, but there is an art to knowing the value of talent, moving up and down the draft board to secure targets and acquire additional picks — and the following grades are based more on the ability of teams to recognize value and manipulate the draft board to their favor than they are an evaluation of the talent acquired, which has not yet had a chance to prove its worth.

For our analysis of the draft, we will use an abbreviated scouting scale with four terms — outstanding, good, average and questionable — to evaluate draft classes. Grades were assigned based on the number of starters we believe each team can be expected to have acquired, with two starters and a nickel contributor being the expectation by which we judged each team. Those teams we think were able to meet that expectation did a good job. Anyone producing better did an outstanding job. Future picks that were acquired for the first three rounds of subsequent drafts will be counted as potential starters, and veterans acquired also need to be factored into the equation. Because of the premium placed on the QB position, the acquisition of a Pro Bowl quarterback is being considered equivalent to two starters.

To be fair, the best work of scouting departments is often done after the draft in what used to be Rounds 8-12, where many teams often produce starters. Not all undrafted free agents have even finished signing deals, making these grades very incomplete. For example, the Chargers' 2003 draft was discouraging, with the first three picks — Sammy Davis, Drayton Florence and Terrence Kiel, all drafted in the first 62 picks, turning out to be disappointments. But when taking into account an undrafted free-agent class that included not only three starters, but three Pro Bowlers — TE Antonio Gates, OG Kris Dielman and special-teams superstar Kassim Osgood — not to mention Pro Bowl P Mike Scifres in the fifth round, A.J. Smith’s 2003 draft may rank among the best ever.

The risk of picks, considering medical and character questions, was also considered and weighed into grades, as was the drafting of projections who may have a steeper learning curve and include more overall risk to make it in the NFL. Also considered is the overall number of players expected to make the 53-man roster, although that was given less weight given that it is easier to make a roster of a bad team than it is a team that has been well-stocked. Lastly, the ability to match talent to schemes and coaching staffs was also weighed.

Based on our analysis, the winners in each division this year were the Cleveland Browns in the AFC and the Philadelphia Eagles in the NFC.

AFC

Cleveland Browns — No team may have orchestrated trades and acquired more overall value better than the Browns, who traded back three times in the first round before landing their prize, Alex Mack, in front of a team (Vikings) that was considering selecting the draft’s first center. Brian Robiskie and Mohamed Massaquoi both have starter potential at receiver and could allow for a Braylon Edwards trade. David Veikune is a projected outside linebacker who has a great motor and fits the scheme. Kaluka Maiava could fill a nickel linebacker role. CBs Don Carey and Coye Francies could make the roster. DE Kenyon Coleman and DB Abram Elam, acquired from the Jets for the fifth pick, along with QB Brett Ratliff, could both be starters. Overall, the Browns may come away with six starters from this draft, while also adding character to the locker room and potentially replacing a fifth of the 53-man roster through the draft. GM George Kokinis and head coach Eric Mangini have received a fair share of criticism in their short tenure together, but they may have had the best draft of any AFC team.

Grade: Outstanding

Pro Football Weekly link

@oldcrow1945 said:

No gloating here. I'm sure I'll get the short end of the stick sometime soon with my obsessive posting on this forum! For the Browns sake, I'm glad I happen to take the "winnings".

Draft grades

Browns, Eagles receive highest marks

By Nolan Nawrocki [Pro Football Weekly]

April 27, 2009

In a typical draft, the goal of NFL teams is to come away with starters in the first three rounds. In a weak draft such as this one, the draft expectation diminishes, with teams hoping to find sub-package or niche role players who can contribute their first year in Round Three.

It’s not fair to evaluate a draft class before it is given time to show how it produces, but there is an art to knowing the value of talent, moving up and down the draft board to secure targets and acquire additional picks — and the following grades are based more on the ability of teams to recognize value and manipulate the draft board to their favor than they are an evaluation of the talent acquired, which has not yet had a chance to prove its worth.

For our analysis of the draft, we will use an abbreviated scouting scale with four terms — outstanding, good, average and questionable — to evaluate draft classes. Grades were assigned based on the number of starters we believe each team can be expected to have acquired, with two starters and a nickel contributor being the expectation by which we judged each team. Those teams we think were able to meet that expectation did a good job. Anyone producing better did an outstanding job. Future picks that were acquired for the first three rounds of subsequent drafts will be counted as potential starters, and veterans acquired also need to be factored into the equation. Because of the premium placed on the QB position, the acquisition of a Pro Bowl quarterback is being considered equivalent to two starters.

To be fair, the best work of scouting departments is often done after the draft in what used to be Rounds 8-12, where many teams often produce starters. Not all undrafted free agents have even finished signing deals, making these grades very incomplete. For example, the Chargers' 2003 draft was discouraging, with the first three picks — Sammy Davis, Drayton Florence and Terrence Kiel, all drafted in the first 62 picks, turning out to be disappointments. But when taking into account an undrafted free-agent class that included not only three starters, but three Pro Bowlers — TE Antonio Gates, OG Kris Dielman and special-teams superstar Kassim Osgood — not to mention Pro Bowl P Mike Scifres in the fifth round, A.J. Smith’s 2003 draft may rank among the best ever.

The risk of picks, considering medical and character questions, was also considered and weighed into grades, as was the drafting of projections who may have a steeper learning curve and include more overall risk to make it in the NFL. Also considered is the overall number of players expected to make the 53-man roster, although that was given less weight given that it is easier to make a roster of a bad team than it is a team that has been well-stocked. Lastly, the ability to match talent to schemes and coaching staffs was also weighed.

Based on our analysis, the winners in each division this year were the Cleveland Browns in the AFC and the Philadelphia Eagles in the NFC.

AFC

Cleveland Browns — No team may have orchestrated trades and acquired more overall value better than the Browns, who traded back three times in the first round before landing their prize, Alex Mack, in front of a team (Vikings) that was considering selecting the draft’s first center. Brian Robiskie and Mohamed Massaquoi both have starter potential at receiver and could allow for a Braylon Edwards trade. David Veikune is a projected outside linebacker who has a great motor and fits the scheme. Kaluka Maiava could fill a nickel linebacker role. CBs Don Carey and Coye Francies could make the roster. DE Kenyon Coleman and DB Abram Elam, acquired from the Jets for the fifth pick, along with QB Brett Ratliff, could both be starters. Overall, the Browns may come away with six starters from this draft, while also adding character to the locker room and potentially replacing a fifth of the 53-man roster through the draft. GM George Kokinis and head coach Eric Mangini have received a fair share of criticism in their short tenure together, but they may have had the best draft of any AFC team.

Grade: Outstanding

Pro Football Weekly link

@solon16 said:

Superstars like:

Courtney Brown?

LeCharles Bentley?

Tim Couch?

Kellen Winslow?

Braylon Edwards?

William Green?

Gerrard Warren?

Just curious - what happens when we're counting so much on the 1 X-factor and he lands on a surgery table or he doesn't pan out? We end up with cap jam and uncertainty about the guy we just threw all our marbles at. We started this project in 1999 - can you tell me how many playoff wins our round 1 superstars have led us to? Ready for reality? ZERO.

1 guy doesn't win a football game. 22 starters, 11 special teams players and however many situational rotation guys you need WIN games. That's a big sum of hearts and sweat. SOMETIMES you need that 7th round Brett Keisel to do the unglamorous blue collar stuff while the young superstar named Woodley does that X-stunt and collects another sack for his resume. Same thing on the other side, where an Aaron Smith does the blue collar stuff so the Defensive MVP can collect sacks for his resume. And the NT takes on 2-3 blockers so Farrior can enjoy the BEST years of his career. Before that Kendrell Bell enjoyed his ONLY good NFL football behind the a rock solid NT. Their front line plays ALOT of 2 gap; BUT they also mix in alot of slants to the wide side or even the short side which makes them occasionally 1 gap. ALOT of times, they'll do a slant to the wide side which will put Smith or Keisel outside and it creates the perfect scenario to pull off the x-stunt blitz from the OLBer shooting inside. They mix it up extremely well so nobody has an answer if they're 1 gap or 2 gap.

Don't take this the wrong way because I'm ALWAYS talking up Jamir Miller's impact on our leading the conference in INTs because of his pass rush. We were actually trying to build our defense around Jamir before he blew out his achilles tendon in the 2002 preseason. Easily the best Defensive Player we've had prior to Shaun Rogers. Anyway, here we were building our defense around Jamir (when he became everything the scarred up Courtney Brown was incapable of) and the season he suffers a career ending injury - we MADE the playoffs. We pulled a guy named Hambrick off the NFL unemployment line in desperation to fill Jamir's spot.

I'm not saying I DON'T want x-factors but I'd rather have a bigger core and foundation first.

- Tom F.

@sisky-fringo said:

I'll predict the Bengals will again lead the league in arrests. They never learn down there in Porkopolis.

@ballpeen said:

Very refreshing...IMO this draft made us significantly better this past weekend.

Big thumbs up in this corner.

EXACTLY! Very well said.

- Tom F.

@snatch98 said:

The Steelers did draft the Bus 2.0 in Frank "THE TANK" Summers so holes or not he'll be making em. I just hate that we have to now wait for the preseason but more importantly the actual season which is SO DAMN FAR AWAY.

You want to wish the rest of this glorious spring, summer and fall (as well as your so called life) away to watch your football team. I wouldn't be surprised if you posted on every NFL board to brag about your Sqeelers. Please leave us alone, you are not welcome here IMO.

@snatch98 said:

I really don't believe your opinion about deleting of posts matters. It still isn't your board. The admin. or whomever they have designated to moderate will delete as they see fit regardless of your opinion. It still isn't your board. They can delete anything I might post also. It isn't my board either. My opinion about deleting doesn't matter either.

The trolls I referred to were starting new (pointless) threads with memberships that appeared to be less than 24 hours old. They were trolling just for the sake of trolling. You should be happy your Steelers point of view gets the tolerance it does get.

1) Mack is not a reach at #21 if he's the highest-rated center and there's thought that he'll be gone by the time the Browns pick at #36. Hell, it's the same logic the Jets employed to go get Sanchez.

2) Veikune may not have been a projected second-rounder, but ask the draftniks if he would have been there for the Browns' FOURTH round pick and they all probably would have said no. So he's not a reach if that's the guy you want with your next pick.

The only part of the Browns' draft that I question is the back-to-back drafting of receivers. It just seemed like a bit of overkill. I have no doubts about Robiskie's ability, but I do to an extent about Massaquoi (strength, hands). Otherwise, I give this draft a B.