Skip to content

The Le'Veon Bell watch continues......... oh yeah, the soap opera goes on.

The Browns Board
94 21 1.8k 1
  • @vagitron said:

    I don't care what bell thinks. You implied an issue with the entire team. Rooney has been an owner since 2003 and inherited his dad's share when Dan passed away. Bell at the time was offered the richest running back contract in the history of the league and he turned it down. They rode with him through two suspensions and a knee injury. If he doesn't respect art II and doesn't understand its a business from both ends he can get f**ked. Bring on the Connor era.

    I am not defending Bell...by any means.  But, whatever is going on, you have the entire team acting like  Animal House apparently. 

    As for Conner, you always do this:  you always think that whomever replace Hall of Fame talent on that team will be just as good. Like when whomever replaced finger LeBeau.  And Conner to take over for Bell and be as good?  I would make a wager against that.   Why dont' you just go ahead and sit BR down?  After all, whomever would be there to replace him would become just as good, according to your philosophy.

    VagitronV Vagitron wrote on last edited by
    #57

    @the-gipper said:

    I am not defending Bell...by any means.  But, whatever is going on, you have the entire team acting like  Animal House apparently. 

    As for Conner, you always do this:  you always think that whomever replace Hall of Fame talent on that team will be just as good. Like when whomever replaced finger LeBeau.  And Conner to take over for Bell and be as good?  I would make a wager against that.   Why dont' you just go ahead and sit BR down?  After all, whomever would be there to replace him would become just as good, according to your philosophy.

    Running back is the most replaceable position in the league. Connor has had a tremendous camp. He would have been a first round pick if not for the cancer based on his collegiate production. He won't be lev bell but behind our line he doesn't need to be.

  • And gipper you are Shmucking attorney not an astronaut. I know plenty of really bad ones and law schools pump em out at an alarming rate. I have a successful business that doesn't require slaving over other peoples cowpoop and eventually will lead to me sitting back and collecting pay checks while I do what I want. You also forget I went to school for political science, I nearly went to law school. (I had a 175 on my lsat, so spare me the bs and the back handed insult)

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #58

    @vagitron said:

    And gipper you are Shmucking attorney not an astronaut. I know plenty of really bad ones and law schools pump em out at an alarming rate. I have a successful business that doesn't require slaving over other peoples cowpoop and eventually will lead to me sitting back and collecting pay checks while I do what I want. You also forget I went to school for political science, I nearly went to law school. (I had a 175 on my lsat, so spare me the bs and the back handed insult)

    So? You think that astronauts know more about human nature than attorneys? Yea, right, I can see why you went into selling popcorn and bagels.  More your intellect.

    Almost went to law school?   That is like saying " I was almost pregnant".  You didn't go to law school, and you are not pregnant.  (and I can tell you that going to law school does not really prepare you for dealing with human beings and their problems.  Only experience does that). 

    And by no means was I giving you a backhanded insult.  By no means.   It was a full, open handed frontal insult.  If I had given you a back handed insult, you likely would not have been aware of it. 

  • And the steelers don't overspend in free agency. They draft well and have players that demand substantial portions of the salary cap. They aren't the Browns who blow entire draft classes and have a bunch of nobodies that need paid until NOW where they are finally fielding a solid roster.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #59

    @vagitron said:

    And the steelers don't overspend in free agency. They draft well and have players that demand substantial portions of the salary cap. They aren't the Browns who blow entire draft classes and have a bunch of nobodies that need paid until NOW where they are finally fielding a solid roster.

    I am certainly NOT going to defend the Browns terrible draft record.  As for drafting "well"?  Well, they have hit on a few, very important picks as well.  The primary one being BR....but that was what?  14 years ago?  And yes, they don't overspend on free agency...because they are too cheap to do so, just like I said.

  • @vagitron said:

    And gipper you are Shmucking attorney not an astronaut. I know plenty of really bad ones and law schools pump em out at an alarming rate. I have a successful business that doesn't require slaving over other peoples cowpoop and eventually will lead to me sitting back and collecting pay checks while I do what I want. You also forget I went to school for political science, I nearly went to law school. (I had a 175 on my lsat, so spare me the bs and the back handed insult)

    So? You think that astronauts know more about human nature than attorneys? Yea, right, I can see why you went into selling popcorn and bagels.  More your intellect.

    Almost went to law school?   That is like saying " I was almost pregnant".  You didn't go to law school, and you are not pregnant.  (and I can tell you that going to law school does not really prepare you for dealing with human beings and their problems.  Only experience does that). 

    And by no means was I giving you a backhanded insult.  By no means.   It was a full, open handed frontal insult.  If I had given you a back handed insult, you likely would not have been aware of it. 

    VagitronV Vagitron wrote on last edited by
    #60

    @the-gipper said:

    So? You think that astronauts know more about human nature than attorneys? Yea, right, I can see why you went into selling popcorn and bagels.  More your intellect.

    Almost went to law school?   That is like saying " I was almost pregnant".  You didn't go to law school, and you are not pregnant.  (and I can tell you that going to law school does not really prepare you for dealing with human beings and their problems.  Only experience does that). 

    And by no means was I giving you a backhanded insult.  By no means.   It was a full, open handed frontal insult.  If I had given you a back handed insult, you likely would not have been aware of it. 

    It was more a knock on your supposed other worldly intelligence than it was a comparison of professions. I changed my mind on law school after preparing to go. I had no desire to throw myself into that rat race where every small town has 6-10 attorneys, who knows how many in major cities. 

  • @vagitron said:

    And the steelers don't overspend in free agency. They draft well and have players that demand substantial portions of the salary cap. They aren't the Browns who blow entire draft classes and have a bunch of nobodies that need paid until NOW where they are finally fielding a solid roster.

    I am certainly NOT going to defend the Browns terrible draft record.  As for drafting "well"?  Well, they have hit on a few, very important picks as well.  The primary one being BR....but that was what?  14 years ago?  And yes, they don't overspend on free agency...because they are too cheap to do so, just like I said.

    VagitronV Vagitron wrote on last edited by
    #61

    @the-gipper said:

    I am certainly NOT going to defend the Browns terrible draft record.  As for drafting "well"?  Well, they have hit on a few, very important picks as well.  The primary one being BR....but that was what?  14 years ago?  And yes, they don't overspend on free agency...because they are too cheap to do so, just like I said.

    They don't need to sign free agents the majority of the time. They also hit on more than BR. Lol

    Just stop gipper. I'm walking away now, have a nice weekend looking at yourself in the mirror gipper smiley.

  • @the-gipper said:

    I am not defending Bell...by any means.  But, whatever is going on, you have the entire team acting like  Animal House apparently. 

    As for Conner, you always do this:  you always think that whomever replace Hall of Fame talent on that team will be just as good. Like when whomever replaced finger LeBeau.  And Conner to take over for Bell and be as good?  I would make a wager against that.   Why dont' you just go ahead and sit BR down?  After all, whomever would be there to replace him would become just as good, according to your philosophy.

    Running back is the most replaceable position in the league. Connor has had a tremendous camp. He would have been a first round pick if not for the cancer based on his collegiate production. He won't be lev bell but behind our line he doesn't need to be.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #62

    @vagitron said:

    Running back is the most replaceable position in the league. Connor has had a tremendous camp. He would have been a first round pick if not for the cancer based on his collegiate production. He won't be lev bell but behind our line he doesn't need to be.

    Actually, I think he does, if the team wants to be serious contenders.  I mean, maybe he could be good enough to hold the water bucket for Bell, but if the Steelers expect to beat the Jags, Pats, Chargers, and other top contenders in the AFC, they would likely need a Bell...or Bell like player.  Of course, what you have should be good enough for the Steelers to take this weak division, but beyond that?  Dunno.

    As for Conner being a first round pick without having had cancer?   That is the opinion of one and only one person: you.  Like you said....RB is the most replaceable position.  Give that, give his talent, he would have been rated like a 3rd rounder, maybe.  But, at least you got one thing right, he does have the Mike Munchak OL to run behind, which is good for him. (but didn't Bell have that last year?)

  • IbleedbrownI Ibleedbrown wrote on last edited by
    #63

    You guys get the prize for most boring debate l’ve read in a while. 

  • @the-gipper said:

    I am certainly NOT going to defend the Browns terrible draft record.  As for drafting "well"?  Well, they have hit on a few, very important picks as well.  The primary one being BR....but that was what?  14 years ago?  And yes, they don't overspend on free agency...because they are too cheap to do so, just like I said.

    They don't need to sign free agents the majority of the time. They also hit on more than BR. Lol

    Just stop gipper. I'm walking away now, have a nice weekend looking at yourself in the mirror gipper smiley.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by
    #64

    @vagitron said:

    They don't need to sign free agents the majority of the time. They also hit on more than BR. Lol

    Just stop gipper. I'm walking away now, have a nice weekend looking at yourself in the mirror gipper smiley.

    Yes, they hit on Brown.  That was the ONE big hit they had (even bigger than BR...who, after all was the #11 overall pick)    Bell, a second rounder is a bit better than his draft status, sure.   But that is all I am going to give you.  If you claim that they hit on like their first and second round picks, well.....every team should hit on those, and most do.  (all but the Browns, sure). DeCastro and Pouncey and Heyward were all like first rounders, no?  If you had not hit on them you would have been in like Browns territory. 

  • You guys get the prize for most boring debate l’ve read in a while. 

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by The Gipper
    #65

    @ibleedbrown said:

    You guys get the prize for most boring debate l’ve read in a while. 

    Its called Football. Browns vs. Steelers.   Ever hear of it?

    Would you rather have another go round with Ghoolie?

  • @jrb12711 said:

    And despite that, he's been the best RB in the league. To not offer a similar contract which you clearly didn't know (see choco's post) is a slap in the face. You're not wrong about Gurley's contract, but his fully guaranteed money is north of $20 million. Maybe he could have handled the end game better, but the Steelers despite what you've said absolutely abused Bell the past three seasons. He absolutely deserves what he's asking for and the Steelers scoffed. It's their right to do it, but I'd see it as a huge slap in the face if I was Bell too. To franchise the guy twice despite all that is, put simply, a finger move.

    They offered him the richest running back contract in the history of the league and he turned it down. Gurley signed after bell. They just don't overpay. He deserves 17m per year at the most volatile position in the league?

    And how did they "abuse" him. He wants paid a Sheet load of money because of what he can do. Bell ain't the only cog in the wheel. Check the steelers record without him.

    jrb12711J jrb12711 wrote on last edited by
    #66

    @vagitron said:

    They offered him the richest running back contract in the history of the league and he turned it down. Gurley signed after bell. They just don't overpay. He deserves 17m per year at the most volatile position in the league?

    And how did they "abuse" him. He wants paid a Sheet load of money because of what he can do. Bell ain't the only cog in the wheel. Check the steelers record without him.

    He turned it down because he knew what the market was, and he was right. Gurley and Bell are of the same caliber, there's no reason that Bell should be getting over $10 million less in guaranteed money. Screw being the richest contract, that doesn't mean crap outside the guarantee and you should know that. 

    742 touches over two years is insane for a RB, so yes they abused his ability. He may not be the only cog in the machine, but they went 11-9 in games he didn't play before this season, which isn't exactly eye-popping.  When dude came back and touched the ball 20+ times in 2016 the team went 10-1. You're just being delusional if you think he's not a factor back and the best in the league over the last 4 seasons. To not pay him as such in guaranteed money is again a slap in the face whether you want to believe that or not. Using the franchise tag like that is a crappy move in lieu of offering a contract, that's not an open secret.

  • @vagitron said:

    You completely made up an issue with ownership. A complete and total fabrication based on nothing but your desire to type it out. I'm talking about ONLY that portion of your post. You do it allllllllllllllllllllllllll the time.

    Art II has been an owner since 2003.

    Jimmy Haslam was a Steeler partial owner in 2003.  That don't mean he gets respect from Steeler players, does it?

    And you have a litany of players who have had contract disputes with Steeler managment/ownership.  Sorry, but that DOES affect the respect that people have for someone.  Maybe they are all soft and cuddly with each other when times are good, but when they want paid? Not so much....as is happening now.

    And how many top free agents have signed with Pisstown?  None that I can recall.  So, apparently, among the rest of the players of the league, Pittsburgh is definitely NOT considered a prime destination for them.

    hoortaH hoorta wrote on last edited by
    #67

    @the-gipper said:

    Jimmy Haslam was a Steeler partial owner in 2003.  That don't mean he gets respect from Steeler players, does it?

    And you have a litany of players who have had contract disputes with Steeler managment/ownership.  Sorry, but that DOES affect the respect that people have for someone.  Maybe they are all soft and cuddly with each other when times are good, but when they want paid? Not so much....as is happening now.

    And how many top free agents have signed with Pisstown?  None that I can recall.  So, apparently, among the rest of the players of the league, Pittsburgh is definitely NOT considered a prime destination for them.

    Well Gip,most of the time when the Steelers let a player walk because he wants paid, they turn out to be nobodies. Plaxico Burress? We did the same with Terrell Pryor. 

  • @vagitron said:

    They offered him the richest running back contract in the history of the league and he turned it down. Gurley signed after bell. They just don't overpay. He deserves 17m per year at the most volatile position in the league?

    And how did they "abuse" him. He wants paid a Sheet load of money because of what he can do. Bell ain't the only cog in the wheel. Check the steelers record without him.

    He turned it down because he knew what the market was, and he was right. Gurley and Bell are of the same caliber, there's no reason that Bell should be getting over $10 million less in guaranteed money. Screw being the richest contract, that doesn't mean crap outside the guarantee and you should know that. 

    742 touches over two years is insane for a RB, so yes they abused his ability. He may not be the only cog in the machine, but they went 11-9 in games he didn't play before this season, which isn't exactly eye-popping.  When dude came back and touched the ball 20+ times in 2016 the team went 10-1. You're just being delusional if you think he's not a factor back and the best in the league over the last 4 seasons. To not pay him as such in guaranteed money is again a slap in the face whether you want to believe that or not. Using the franchise tag like that is a crappy move in lieu of offering a contract, that's not an open secret.

    VagitronV Vagitron wrote on last edited by
    #68

    @jrb12711 said:

    He turned it down because he knew what the market was, and he was right. Gurley and Bell are of the same caliber, there's no reason that Bell should be getting over $10 million less in guaranteed money. Screw being the richest contract, that doesn't mean crap outside the guarantee and you should know that. 

    742 touches over two years is insane for a RB, so yes they abused his ability. He may not be the only cog in the machine, but they went 11-9 in games he didn't play before this season, which isn't exactly eye-popping.  When dude came back and touched the ball 20+ times in 2016 the team went 10-1. You're just being delusional if you think he's not a factor back and the best in the league over the last 4 seasons. To not pay him as such in guaranteed money is again a slap in the face whether you want to believe that or not. Using the franchise tag like that is a crappy move in lieu of offering a contract, that's not an open secret.

    That ist't just rushing touches dip Sheet and part of the reason he wants as much as he does is because of his ability in the pass game. If those touches were minimized he would have less of a salary leg to stand on. As far as Gurley is concerned he's younger, hasn't been suspended twice and didn't blow out a knee.

  • @jrb12711 said:

    He turned it down because he knew what the market was, and he was right. Gurley and Bell are of the same caliber, there's no reason that Bell should be getting over $10 million less in guaranteed money. Screw being the richest contract, that doesn't mean crap outside the guarantee and you should know that. 

    742 touches over two years is insane for a RB, so yes they abused his ability. He may not be the only cog in the machine, but they went 11-9 in games he didn't play before this season, which isn't exactly eye-popping.  When dude came back and touched the ball 20+ times in 2016 the team went 10-1. You're just being delusional if you think he's not a factor back and the best in the league over the last 4 seasons. To not pay him as such in guaranteed money is again a slap in the face whether you want to believe that or not. Using the franchise tag like that is a crappy move in lieu of offering a contract, that's not an open secret.

    That ist't just rushing touches dip Sheet and part of the reason he wants as much as he does is because of his ability in the pass game. If those touches were minimized he would have less of a salary leg to stand on. As far as Gurley is concerned he's younger, hasn't been suspended twice and didn't blow out a knee.

    jrb12711J jrb12711 wrote on last edited by jrb12711
    #69

    @vagitron said:

    That ist't just rushing touches dip Sheet and part of the reason he wants as much as he does is because of his ability in the pass game. If those touches were minimized he would have less of a salary leg to stand on. As far as Gurley is concerned he's younger, hasn't been suspended twice and didn't blow out a knee.

    LOL what? So getting tackled after a pass catch is some great difference between after a rush? Honestly, now you're just sounding moronic. Yes, of course he wants the money based on his ability to catch the ball-that's the whole point. If the touches were down he would get less money, but they weren't. They were at all all-time highs and he should get paid for it. That's what organization largely do to reward players who have shown to be elite and worked for them.

    Gurley's extension is for when he turns 26, exactly where Bell is now so that's not a valid argument either. You have any other straws to grasp at (of course noting you glanced right past the point about wins/losses)? Just face it, the organization doesn't wanna pay the guy despite him being worth the market value at the position. Bell has absolutely every right to be slighted by that. I'm not even necessarily calling out the Steelers for that, but stop beating around the bush. You're just wrong.

  • Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #70

    Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

  • Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

    VagitronV Vagitron wrote on last edited by Vagitron
    #71

    @tour2ma said:

    Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

    I'm aware they are the same and I think it's ridiculous that people think he was "run into.the ground" or that the steelers would run him into the ground again. Fact of the matter is the steelers have a bunch of mouthes to feed, not just his and they offered him a huge contract and he shot it down. I don't have a problem with him holding out at all. He's not being paid until he does report BUT did say he was going to report like last year and now he isn't so the offensive line is pissed off. I don't care if he plays another down for the steelers. I also don't want the team to mortgage the farm to pay him what he wants, the market isn't what he's asking. You aren't going to suddenly see a slew of running backs asking for 17m per.

  • Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

    chocoC choco wrote on last edited by
    #72

    @tour2ma said:

    Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

    Now, that's just in the Superbowl era, right? Stats don't count prior to that...

  • @tour2ma said:

    Touches = Carries + Receptions

    Amazingly Bell's 406 season total in 2017 is only the 35th highest in NFL history.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/touches_single_season.htm

    Now, that's just in the Superbowl era, right? Stats don't count prior to that...

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by
    #73

    @choco said:

    Now, that's just in the Superbowl era, right? Stats don't count prior to that...

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

  • @choco said:

    Now, that's just in the Superbowl era, right? Stats don't count prior to that...

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by
    #74

    @mjp28 said:

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

    For now... 😉

  • @choco said:

    Now, that's just in the Superbowl era, right? Stats don't count prior to that...

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

    FlugelF Flugel wrote on last edited by
    #75

    @mjp28 said:

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

    Not bad!  Compare that to a 65 year old Ghoolie that can't remember what he posted yesterday.

  • @mjp28 said:

    Well you pretty much have to be at least 60+ years old to remember the whole super bowl era personally so that is what most matters to most of us.

    I do remember every one! 

    Not bad!  Compare that to a 65 year old Ghoolie that can't remember what he posted yesterday.

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by
    #76

    @flugel said:

    Not bad!  Compare that to a 65 year old Ghoolie that can't remember what he posted yesterday.

    Well I'll be 68 this month and still can remember a whole lot......including how to spell and behave like an adult.  😆