Skip to content

Jimmy Garoppolo Speculation

Locked The Browns Board
665 52 23.6k
  • Gipper...If it isn't business as usual the problem is likely on your end.

    Agree to pay what the Bengals are asking and I'm guessing your team will soon have a brand new starting QB who already knows your offense.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Gipper...If it isn't business as usual the problem is likely on your end.

    Agree to pay what the Bengals are asking and I'm guessing your team will soon have a brand new starting QB who already knows your offense.

    Tell me any time the Bengals have ever made a trade with the Browns/Steelers/Ravens...or going back to Houston etc.

  • Who's Dick Shiner?

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @wargograw said:

    Who's Dick Shiner?

    Aren't you one?

    Nevertheless: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ShinDi00.htm

  • Who's Dick Shiner?

    Z Zombo wrote on last edited by

    @wargograw said:

    Who's Dick Shiner?

    96498.jpg

  • U Umadogg1 wrote on last edited by

    Gipper --You're missing the point either accidentally or deliberately. The fact there are no intradivision trades is only proof of at least one teams reluctance to trade. I'm telling you the reluctant team wouldn't be Cincinnati. The compensation they receive would be the same regardless. Rather, the reluctant party would be Cleveland, and for proof...just listen to your fellow brownie fans. McCarron isn't worth this, that or the other thing they say. Don't trade the draft picks to a rival.

  • Gipper --You're missing the point either accidentally or deliberately. The fact there are no intradivision trades is only proof of at least one teams reluctance to trade. I'm telling you the reluctant team wouldn't be Cincinnati. The compensation they receive would be the same regardless. Rather, the reluctant party would be Cleveland, and for proof...just listen to your fellow brownie fans. McCarron isn't worth this, that or the other thing they say. Don't trade the draft picks to a rival.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Gipper --You're missing the point either accidentally or deliberately. The fact there are no intradivision trades is only proof of at least one teams reluctance to trade. I'm telling you the reluctant team wouldn't be Cincinnati. The compensation they receive would be the same regardless. Rather, the reluctant party would be Cleveland, and for proof...just listen to your fellow brownie fans. McCarron isn't worth this, that or the other thing they say. Don't trade the draft picks to a rival.

    I am not missing any point. You are just being obtuse and delusional if you think that there is not major reluctance on the part of teams to make intradivisional trades.

    Again....show me an instance where the Bengals made a trade with a team in the division.

    Why don't the Pats just go ahead and trade Garropolo to the Jets. They are desperate for a QB.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @ghoolie said:

    Dick Shiner, AJ Mc-Care-less.

    Hey, while we are discussing meaningless shit and watching paint dry, let's make a list of the things Joe Thomas has done for the Browns.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    10 Pro Bowls

  • U Umadogg1 wrote on last edited by

    Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

  • B browns52 wrote on last edited by

    @boo-fagley said:

    Defense wins championships.

    You can say it. Its OK.

    defense wins championships...ask dan fouts....guy was great but man did his defenses suck ass big time...if they stunk he would have won a superbowl..they were that bad...

  • Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    I'm pretty sure we are all aware of our QB need...

    It's just that we also know that flailing around for one is not productive... and it was a hard lesson to learn.

  • Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    We don't have a QB, doofus....and we ain't getting one with a trade with the Bengals.

    Again, show me where the Bengals have ever made a trade with the Browns/Ravens/Steelers.

    It would be a very rare happening. Like we said, we went from the late 60s to 2016 to find a trade with the Browns and Steelers.

  • @boo-fagley said:

    Defense wins championships.

    You can say it. Its OK.

    defense wins championships...ask dan fouts....guy was great but man did his defenses suck ass big time...if they stunk he would have won a superbowl..they were that bad...

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @browns52 said:

    defense wins championships...ask dan fouts....guy was great but man did his defenses suck ass big time...if they stunk he would have won a superbowl..they were that bad...

    Sure, Dan Fouts could have used a better defense.....but how close would DAn Fouts's team have come without Dan Fouts?

  • Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    Tim Couch Pulls OutT Tim Couch Pulls Out wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Sometimes it's funny the way you guys act like you've already got a QB.

    I fail to see where trading for McCarron would net us a QB.

    The dude is butt

  • U Umadogg1 wrote on last edited by

    Gipper---Yeah, you're missing the point. Bengals could trade McCarron to any team and the results are exactly the same. Browns will want to control which draft picks are traded and where their draft picks go. If there's a problem making an intra-division trade it's on the Cleveland side.

  • Gipper---Yeah, you're missing the point. Bengals could trade McCarron to any team and the results are exactly the same. Browns will want to control which draft picks are traded and where their draft picks go. If there's a problem making an intra-division trade it's on the Cleveland side.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Gipper---Yeah, you're missing the point. Bengals could trade McCarron to any team and the results are exactly the same. Browns will want to control which draft picks are traded and where their draft picks go. If there's a problem making an intra-division trade it's on the Cleveland side.

    I am not missing a goddamn thing. You are just double dumbass wrong. And, Since when do you speak for the Bengals front office? You really have oatmeal for brains.

    Sure...the Bengals are going to trade a QB to about their closet rival....and that guy is going to come back and beat your teams brain out for the next 5 years.

    Sure....like the Bengals are gonna do that.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @boo-fagley said:

    The Giants sucked that year.

    No defense.

    They sucked well enough to make it to the Super Bowl.

  • @choco said:

    I don't really remember anyone crying over Gabriel at the time of his release. Think a large majority of people were tired of the Smurfs. Considering how poor his second year was, followed by a poor camp, thought the move was fine.

    So he blossomed whilst having a fqb and true #1 across from him. Think the real lesson is to ease up on expectations...Players are deemed all-pro or busts by this fanbase after their first few games, so maybe the way to look at this would be that's players often need time before the light goes on.

    Not here tho...Produce from your first game on or you'll be replaced by another guy that'll be given 4 games to prove it.

    Well, they released Gabriel and kept every one of their rookie wr draft picks. I thought that was FO arrogance. Coleman produced little, and the rest of the crew virtually nothing. So keep Coleman and DeValve, and get rid of the rest of the crew. 🙂

    There's a few of us who thought (notably Tour) who felt cutting Gabriel was a mistake.

    chocoC choco wrote on last edited by

    @hoorta said:

    Well, they released Gabriel and kept every one of their rookie wr draft picks. I thought that was FO arrogance. Coleman produced little, and the rest of the crew virtually nothing. So keep Coleman and DeValve, and get rid of the rest of the crew. 🙂

    There's a few of us who thought (notably Tour) who felt cutting Gabriel was a mistake.

    I see both sides I guess...

    Knowing it was likely a teardown, would have also preferred TG over hawk, but saw the logic in Hue choosing hawk due to familiarity. But I thought TG just needed some more time, sophomore slump so to speak, to figure out the game. I try my best to analyze with as little hindsight as possible, and also keep in mind that maybe Hollywood or Payton see the same development....Just gotta wait for it...

    @flugel said:

    HA! Glad to see you back here Choco.

    Colt McCoy has to be thinking "where was Choco when I had about 60,000 Hatfields ready to kill me during my 3rd start?"

    Thanks fluges! Football is fun to prognosticate, but even more so to watch playout. I do really hate the hindsight game... Particularly when backed by an agenda. Makes the subject matter and arguement rather than a discussion.

    Interesting you chose .45 there...?

    @tour2ma said:

    Nice of you to "notab".... 😉

    I think I was making a case for his youth over Hawk, who you might also remember I wanted to trade after his "career" year with us. Just seemed the better fit with our youth movement and Hawk had a couple injury issues in 2015. However, the counter-case of keeping Hawk as a vet presence in the WR room had merit. Unfortunately now his concussed 2016 campaign has him considering retirement.

    That said.... I do agree with Osiris that Gabe would not have had the kind of year here that he posted in ATL.

    Well stated!

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @boo-fagley said:

    But defense wins championships

    Not without a good offense as well.

    Again....51 SBs....defense was priority in just 3.

  • U Umadogg1 wrote on last edited by

    Gipper---You may be as stupid as I think you're pretending to be if you think any team worries about the Browns beating their brains out for 5 years in a row.

    Your team is the worst in football and at least two years away from being two years away.

  • Gipper---You may be as stupid as I think you're pretending to be if you think any team worries about the Browns beating their brains out for 5 years in a row.

    Your team is the worst in football and at least two years away from being two years away.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @umadogg1 said:

    Gipper---You may be as stupid as I think you're pretending to be if you think any team worries about the Browns beating their brains out for 5 years in a row.

    Your team is the worst in football and at least two years away from being two years away.

    Maybe, maybe not. That remains to be seen. The Bengals WOULD be in fear of the opposite if they traded McCarron to the Browns.

    But no one is as stupid as you who thinks they will make a trade in the division.

    Again....come up with one. Show me ONE trade made between the Bengals and the Browns/Steelers/Ravens. One trade.

  • U Umadogg1 wrote on last edited by

    The Browns are barely relevant and you think another team would be afraid to trade with them?

    Yeah, that's the smoke shoveler I remember.

    Always quick to answer the trivia question nobody bothered to ask.

    Dayton Triangles! Dick Shiner! The Cleveland Browns!