@tour2ma said:

Still creating arguments?

No I'm confused as to how us giving them a 7th rounder more than makes up for the pics spanning turn me 5th round.

@bjh2130 said:

By the way if the Patriots had given us a 5th round and a 7th round pick that again would be the best deal over just a fifth-round from the Raiders for example.

Still creating arguments?

@tour2ma said:

Pats got Vrabeled... saw that one coming. Should they meet again in the playoffs, the results will likely be quite different.

You ignored part of the deal that more than equalizes picks spanning the 5th round.

I pointed that out.

Now I'm out...

By the way if the Patriots had given us a 5th round and a 7th round pick that again would be the best deal over just a fifth-round from the Raiders for example.

@unsympathetic said:

People also believe "Deflategate" was actually a thing when the following week the Vikings were putting balls in microwaves on live TV the week their dome fell and they played at UW stadium.  News flash: Carnegie Mellon showed the difference was within the natural variance PURELY due to temperature.

You're welcome to your own emotions, you're not welcome to your own facts.

Unless and until you show proof of another offer.... it didn't exist, period.  I've shown my proof --- either show your proof or be an adult, buck up, and drop your assumption that anyone else offered more for Gordon. 

I'm so damn tired of this nonsense... it's binary: Either the offer existed or it didn't.  One of the two is true.

Put up or shut up.

There's no way there was a better offer. If there were John Dorsey would have taken it. He doesn't care enough about Josh Gordon to take a lesser offer just so that puffy's in a better situation.

@mark-o said:

I agree with you.   I don't think there was a better offer.

Beyond that why would there be a better offer

@unsympathetic said:

People also believe "Deflategate" was actually a thing when the following week the Vikings were putting balls in microwaves on live TV the week their dome fell and they played at UW stadium.  News flash: Carnegie Mellon showed the difference was within the natural variance PURELY due to temperature.

You're welcome to your own emotions, you're not welcome to your own facts.

Unless and until you show proof of another offer.... it didn't exist, period.  I've shown my proof --- either show your proof or be an adult and change your assumption.

I agree with you.   I don't think there was a better offer.

@mark-o said:

That's what I believe but no one will ever know.

People also believe "Deflategate" was actually a thing when the following week the Vikings were putting balls in microwaves on live TV the week their dome fell and they played at UW stadium.  News flash: Carnegie Mellon showed the difference was within the natural variance PURELY due to temperature.

You're welcome to your own emotions, you're not welcome to your own facts.

Unless and until you show proof of another offer.... it didn't exist, period.  I've shown my proof --- either show your proof or be an adult, buck up, and drop your assumption that anyone else offered more for Gordon. 

I'm so damn tired of this nonsense... it's binary: Either the offer existed or it didn't.  One of the two is true.

Put up or shut up.

@tour2ma said:

Pats got Vrabeled... saw that one coming. Should they meet again in the playoffs, the results will likely be quite different.

Vrabls  dad taught at my high school 

@tour2ma said:

Pats got Vrabeled... saw that one coming. Should they meet again in the playoffs, the results will likely be quite different.

You ignored part of the deal that more than equalizes picks spanning the 5th round.

I pointed that out.

Now I'm out...

We gave them a conditional 7th they didn't give us a 7th unless im missing something. So how does that equalize the picks spanning the 5th round?

@londonbrown said:

Looks like Brady’s road playoff performances have crept into the regular season...

Pats got Vrabeled... saw that one coming. Should they meet again in the playoffs, the results will likely be quite different.

@bjh2130 said:

Because you implied by your post that Dorsey would trade Josh to New England to put him in a better situation rather than trade him to Oakland because the value in between the two pics was less than that of a late 7th rounder. So I used your logic and your values to show you that even the first pick of the 5th round and the 14th pic of the third round had equal value to the last pick in the NFL draft. So according to your logic that there's less than a 7th round pick in value between a late 5th and early 5th the same can be said for anything after the 14th pick of the third round and an early 5th. So by your logic he wouldn't care to take a mid third-rounder or early fifth as long as Josh Gordon got put in a better situation. That is not changing an argument that is debating your argument.

Saying that your logic of well the difference between the pics is less than a late 7th rounder so it wouldn't matter to him whether it were late 5th or early 5th is flawed.

You ignored part of the deal that more than equalizes picks spanning the 5th round.

I pointed that out.

Now I'm out...

@tour2ma said:

Because you implied by your post that Dorsey would trade Josh to New England to put him in a better situation rather than trade him to Oakland because the value in between the two pics was less than that of a late 7th rounder. So I used your logic and your values to show you that even the first pick of the 5th round and the 14th pic of the third round had equal value to the last pick in the NFL draft. So according to your logic that there's less than a 7th round pick in value between a late 5th and early 5th the same can be said for anything after the 14th pick of the third round and an early 5th. So by your logic he wouldn't care to take a mid third-rounder or early fifth as long as Josh Gordon got put in a better situation. That is not changing an argument that is debating your argument.

Saying that your logic of well the difference between the pics is less than a late 7th rounder so it wouldn't matter to him whether it were late 5th or early 5th is flawed.

Go ahead and show my two posts where I gave two different scenarios and say that I'm changing my argument but also show your post where you said that you could see him trading Josh to a better situation because the value in between the first pick and the last pick of the 5th round is less than that of a late 7th rounder. Which is where my second scenario came from. Funny how you left that part out of my second post. I know you can see the point i was making because I know you're an intelligent guy but you don't like the fact that I used your own argument against you.

@bjh2130 said:

  I'm not changing my argument.

@bjh2130 said:

If you think that John Dorsey would turn down a mid 3rd round pick for a early 5th because it's the same value as the last pick in the draft then we have the wrong GM

@bjh2130 said:

... if you mean to tell me that you think if New England offered a fifth and Oakland offered a fifth or Tampa Bay or San Francisco insert your choice there is no way that John Dorsey isn't taking the pic of one of the teams projected to finish at the bottom of the league just to appease Josh Gordon.

@clevelandwantsplayoffs said:

Will you be dissapointed if he continues to do well?

No but I prefer that the patriots not do that well. I am sick of them

@tour2ma said:

You can change your argument if you like, but that does not mean I have to chase it.

  I'm not changing my argument. I'm asking you what your point was to the fact that I stated that John Dorsey wasn't going to trade Josh Gordon for a late 5th if he could have an early 5th. And if your point was that the value difference isn't that great so it doesn't really matter then I would like to point out that the value difference between the first pick of the fifth and the 16th pick of the Third is only separated by value of the very last pick in the draft so to me if that was your point then it is not a good point because you would then be stating that he would also pass up a mid third round pick for a 5th rounder just to suit Josh and put him in a better situation.

@the-gipper said:

Prepare for disappointment

Will you be dissapointed if he continues to do well?

@bjh2130 said:

In that same thing a late 7th covers the difference between a mid 3rd and a early 5th. What's the point? Is it is to say that they don't care whether it was a late or early 5th because a 7th rounder covers the difference because if it is then that means you'd you be willing to suggest that they wouldn't care whether it were a early 5th or mid-round third also because the difference between pick 129 and pick 77 is 39.8 which is the value of pick 224. If you think that John Dorsey would turn down a mid 3rd round pick for a early 5th because it's the same value as the last pick in the draft then we have the wrong GM

You can change your argument if you like, but that does not mean I have to chase it.

@medicineman said:

I agree and I am not sad he is gone. just wondering why we didn't get a player for him? BUT maybe Dorsey will be able to draft us somebody who will still be playing in the NFL after 2 seasons. What happened to other picks we had? Mathew Dayes? or whatever his name is, Other high picks that are no where? Christ how is it we can never get a draft pick that does anything? Don't bring up Myles or Baker I am talking about 2 years ago when the player should be in his 3rd season and producing? Only in Cleveland where you can have the number 1 pick every single year and NEVER get any better.

That was part of the problem, and I'm not about to go into the litany of wasted draft picks we've had since 1999.  (or guys we COULD have drafted that went on to have HOF careers- Ladanian Tomlinson).  Two first round studs not counting '17 & '18 the Joes- Thomas and Haden.  

@hoorta said:

We've said it at least a dozen times already. Gordon ran out of strikes with the Browns. Was it intentional? Who knows. But there are things called "team rules". You can't have one set of "special" rules for Josh- and another set for everyone else.   

I agree and I am not sad he is gone. just wondering why we didn't get a player for him? BUT maybe Dorsey will be able to draft us somebody who will still be playing in the NFL after 2 seasons. What happened to other picks we had? Mathew Dayes? or whatever his name is, Other high picks that are no where? Christ how is it we can never get a draft pick that does anything? Don't bring up Myles or Baker I am talking about 2 years ago when the player should be in his 3rd season and producing? Only in Cleveland where you can have the number 1 pick every single year and NEVER get any better.

@jiggins7919 said:

I'm a Higgins myself. Rashard is my brother from a chocolate mother! 

My grandmother was a Higgins.