Gunz41

Your score is: 40726 (GRADE: A) Your Picks: Round 1 Pick 13 (IND): Andrew Thomas, OT, Georgia (A+) Round 2 Pick 9: Xavier McKinney, SS/FS, Alabama (A+) Round 2 Pick 27 (SEA): Josh Jones, OT, Houston (A) Round 3 Pick 5 (CAR): Bradlee Anae, DE/OLB, Utah (A-) Round 3 Pick 12 (T.B.): Justin Madubuike, DT, Texas A&M (A+) Round 3 Pick 33 (N.E.): Khalid Kareem, DE/OLB, Notre Dame (A+) Round 4 Pick 7 (CAR): Ben Bredeson, OG, Michigan (A+) Round 4 Pick 9: KJ Hill, WR, Ohio State (A+) Round 4 Pick 11 (T.B.): Colby Parkinson, TE, Stanford (A+) Round 4 Pick 19 (N.E.): Brandon Jones, FS/SS, Texas (A+) Round 4 Pick 30 (G.B.): Levonta Taylor, CB, Florida State (A+) Round 5 Pick 6 (CAR): Gage Cervenka, C, Clemson (A+) Round 6 Pick 8: Evan Weaver, ILB, California (A+) Round 6 Pick 13 (G.B.): Jonathan Garvin, DE/OLB, Miami (A+) Round 7 Pick 22: Lamical Perine, RB, Florida (A+) Round 7 Pick 33 (NYG): Essang Bassey, CB, Wake Forest (A+) Round 7 Pick 41 (NYG): Nigel Warrior, FS/SS, Tennessee (A)

Actually no that isn't the case. I will use a different example. Look at what is going on right now, one side says did nothing wrong and other the exact opposite. And I am not saying anything to talk negatively about the woman, but are you honestly telling me that there is NO other reason why she couldn't have cooperated? And are you honestly saying that some athletes aren't targeted for a paycheck? And that after the fact things aren't looked at differently? Perfect example is Kristaps Porzingis. But since you seem to know my motive, please go back and find ONE WORD where I said that he didn't do it? And you seem to skip part of my post. You are the one who brought up the "mamba mentality" and saying he would never just go away. Like you KNOW what was in his head. Yet when I give just 1 reason why it might have went the way it did you don't respond? Or let's just look at how all these people have had these tributes, and not just contemporaries. You mean to tell me that all of them just gloss over that? That seems very hard to believe. And yes I don't think this is the time to discuss these things, but if you see something you think is wrong I think you speak up. I doubt you would think it was ok if you got online and announced your wife and daughter had passed and someone said "yea BUT she cheated on him and beat him." To bring it up at that time is not honoring his memory, his daughter's memory, the other victims memory, or all the good they did and would have done in the future. And its not the time as in where was this talk in the last 17 years? Nothing when he retired, nothing when he won an Oscar, etc. You go ahead and believe what you will, that is all in your rights. But just remember that everything you are saying is an opinion and that others do see it a different way and that others can read that statement and come to a different conclusion.

Smh. "I truly believe this encounter was consensual..." Kobe literally says... Again, I am NOT saying it was or wasn't, I wasn't there. But nothing in there says he "admitted to anything illegal (I guess technically in some if not all states infidelity is, but you know what I mean.) I can understand another side of an argument, yet not agree with it. And there are certainly times in all kinds of circumstances that someone thinks something and it isn't that case. For example, I can have someone staying in my home who has done time for theft. If something comes up missing I could blame them. That person says they can understand why I would accuse them but they didn't do it. And please stop with thinking that you know how someone would go about something because they went about it in some way in another endeavor. Nothing that has come out since he retired shows "Mamba Mentality". And at that point, when you have seriously messed up with your wife it is probably not just your decision on that. Maybe he didn't want to put his wife through even more. I will GUARANTEE that their are people throughout history who have settled on things just to be done with it. You aren't bringing up something new, you are bringing up things that happened 15+ years ago. But by your logic here, all the other men at that massage parlor were guilty because of the deal they took, but Robert Kraft is innocent because he didn't. And you are stating opinions as facts. You have NO idea as fact why the young woman didn't cooperate, why it was settled, or any of the other parts. And although the show is fictional, it is based on real things. Ever watched Law and Order SVU and someone thinks they were assaulted but weren't? Or on the other side of it that someone really believes they did nothing wrong. At least I am willing to admit that I don't know what the truth is, how about you? I'm done with this. Whether it happened or not, its not the time. There are a lot of people hurting because of this. I'll bet you there will be people hurting when OJ dies, when Aaron Hernandez died etc. And in those cases as well I don't think right after they died would be the time to discuss it.

As everyone can tell from my profile I am a Lakers fan, and Kobe was my guy. For one, now is NOT the time to be bringing up what may or may not have happened in Colorado. People are mourning, and not just because of Kobe, but also his 13 year old daughter and 7 others. And this board isn't the only place that this is being brought up. It is not right for him family and friends to have to hear about that at a time like this. As for the subject of Colorado, he wasn't convicted, and nobody here knows what really happened. You can make assumptions just like someone on the other side can, but using a settlement to prove something proves nothing. For all anyone knows the money was given to not have to put his family through any more, or himself. None of that is to say that he is innocent (because as I stated I don't know), but he certainly wouldn't be the 1st or last person wrongfully accused. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that if it were consensual that it was still wrong. But I am sure that nobody here would want their families business being discussed within 24 hrs of death.

Lol, I guess technically you could gain credit, but that answer wouldn't get you an A on a test. You would get Partial credit I guess. Just saying dividing it offers no real reason why. And you left out quite a few positions. So I have no Choice but to give you a D-. You may retake the test student to improve your grade

My post wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular. But you/others were saying that these guys that are/were still playing aren't difference makers, etc. And were referring to OL. I responded only because the way it came off was because they aren't these high profile positions. And the fact that maybe even would be closer to your "side" is that just because the Browns got rid of them and they had success elsewhere that it was an indictment on Browns. And that is certainly not always the case. With your Mostert example, it's not an indictment on the other 5 teams who previously had him. As for Schwartz, the Browns didn't "get rid of" him. He left in FA. I think the biggest indictment on the Browns is not trying to keep Shanahan.

That is easy to find out with minimal research. No he wasn't drafted by the Browns. He wasn't drafted by anyone. He has been on 7 teams in those 4 years, 4 in 2015. But I have NO CLUE why you quoted me in that? I never said one word about him.

I didn't put a full team, just a few examples to show how the "rules" applied. And while I know you aren't much for the Xs and Os, you sure know there isnt a Flex player on a team. For a simple answer, tell me which player has been declared a Flex player when going into FA/new contract? Since TE try to be classified as a WR for money, wouldn't a hybrid RB want to be classified as a Flex player to get more? But by all means use whatever rules you want to. I don't really care. I just thought it might be interesting to see how other posters would prioritize guys from teams with multiple stars. And as this great historian of the game, I am sure you know the origin of all of these positions names correct?

You can make 22 trades, but you are trading starter for starter, and position for position. So your CM trade is invalid as there is no flex position on the team. Here is just a start QB: Pat Mahomes (Baker) No more KC WR: Michael Thomas (OBJ) No more NO WR: Julio Jones (Landry) No more ATL TE: Kittle (Njoku) No more SF (which means I couldn't take N. Bosa) etc.

And you could have a great QB and a "crap OL" and not win. Its almost as if you need a well rounded TEAM. And I wasn't singling out anyone, but people who just watch football don't seem to recognize how crucial OL are. Because they aren't the "difference makers" or the sexy part of the game. But to the part of the Browns (or any team) getting rid of someone and they go on to be an important piece somewhere else, that doesn't mean they would have been that on their former team for a number of reasons, and not all are because of something to do with that former team.

With the recent talk on here about the we should have drafted X instead of Y, we shouldn't have gotten rid of X, this player would be great in Cleveland, or the we should trade him for him, got me thinking. Because of the different answers people would give. And before someone says no use in this, etc. Obviously it's all fantasy since 99% is impossible. But here is the "rules". If you could trade one player for one player and make your Starting 22, what would you do? You can't trade a player more than once, and you cant trade for more than 1 player per team (example SF, can't have Bosa and Kittle). And if you would keep just say Garrett, then he counts as one of your 2 DE. The 22 you have must be able to compete on a field (i.e. cant have 3 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, and a QB.) The trade doesn't have to make sense for both teams, salary cap doesn't matter, but you can't change a players position to fit either.

So now we seeing the case that some are downplaying these former Browns players as not that big a deal, not difference makers, etc. Because of the position they play or because they aren't one of the best players in the league? Sure sounds like the "dime a dozen..." rhetoric of a former poster.

But you are failing to answer the questions at hand. I never said that White RBs last. I never said anything about Jim Brown. And I never said anything about OBJ not being great. But if you want to be taken seriously, then answer a few questions. What is it that you have seen to show that Hunt is the most complete, dominant back (or whatever the words were you used) in the league and since Faulk? Because there is no evidence of that, as shown by the statistics. You referenced no white RB being sustained since Riggins. Have no issue agreeing with you there, but if you are going to use that to prove a point (even though I don't think his skin color applies), then how can using his violent history not be the same thing? And the thing is, there is actual evidence to support it with Hunt. And I am not saying he doesn't deserve this 2nd chance. You say Hill is great and OBJ are both great. But YOU are the one who said trade Beckham to Chiefs for Hill like it should be an easy thing. So again I will ask, WHY WOULD THE CHIEFS DO THAT? And again for posterity sake, explain how what McCaffrey did this year isn't sustainable, or how his career has been more impressive than Hunt, yet Hunt is the one you seem to bet on going forward.

From the way he has posted, I think its ONLY because he is not named Kareem Hunt

I think the mental illness aspect started while he was in Pitt. Some of the things he was doing sane people don't. Money I think started his behavioral issues there though.

That is your reply? So when you cant refute it you just throw something random out? Ok, I'll bite. White RBs don't last. Neither do RBs who are caught on camera abusing women. But you obviously missed the entire point. How did they "dominating" go when the Browns already had the 2? But nobody ever said Hunt wasn't a good player. But his best year doesn't compare to just the one person I named. You talking about him makes him sound like the best back in the league. And please try and explain why the Chiefs would want to trade Hill for OBJ? What is the benefit for them?

I'm just saying I think anyone should judge people on the same rules. For a quick example, not you in particular (I don't remember the people doing it). But when someone says "there is no evidence, wait to see what happens, etc, but then turn around and say Big Ben is a rapist. He very well could be, but wanting to wait for an outcome for someone you are for but not for someone you dislike just seems hypocritical. And I honestly don't think much of AB is because of money. He basically threw away 30 million from Raiders. I think he has some kind of medical problem.

The butt slap is much ado about nothing. The money part is more of a big deal, but probably not to the detriment of the Browns. But I don't think people want to notice a string of bad/strange decisions by Odell. That doesn't mean he doesn't produce on the field or isn't a good teammate or that he will have them going forward. But I do wonder what people would think (whether they would post about it or not) if he was on a different team. That doesn't even factor in the difference in opinion of people accused/proven with much more serious situations. I don't view something by my bias on the situation. If Nick Chubb and Saquon Barkley do the same thing (as an example), I view them both the same. I don't give NC the benefit because he is a player on my favorite team.

Not at all, but it sounds like yours is. Because it appears as if you fail to look at past statistics. I believe from your argument that you are comparing apples and oranges. Because just saying that if TB12 leaves and Patriots are SB contenders means you are right and it was about BB, then that would equate to Montana not being good because Young won after he left. Or that the entire reason for Montana's success was because of Walsh. Along those lines, I also don't think that its comparable when discussing a 43 year old QB. If this were 10 years ago then maybe, but TB12 has regressed, and that has zero to do with Belichick. But ultimately, if TB12 does leave and for example goes to the Chargers and they become contenders, does that mean that it was ALL Brady? I don't think so. I think what it means is that TB went to a team who had some good players. And if the Patriots fall on their face without Brady, I don't think that is an indictment of Belichick. The whole point I was making is that no single season result is conducive of giving the responsibility of the Patriots success.

Come on man, good try with your trolling. But KC isn't going to do that trade, and your dominance has no merit. With both, the Browns went 4-4. Just take the last 3 games (around the time he said people taking plays off). 9 carries 26 yards, 15 catches 127 yards Want the whole season? 43 carries 179 yards 2 TDs, 37 catches 285 yards 1 TD So an average of 5.4 Carries 22.4 yards, 4.6 catches 35.6 yards Care to compare to McCaffrey since you mentioned him? Average: 17.9 carries 86.9 yards, 7.3 catches 62.9 yards. Last 3 games: 41 carries 167 yards 3 TD, 30 catches 279 yards Or let's look at the best season for each: KH: 272 carries 1327 yards 8 TD, 53 catches 455 yards 3 TDs CM: 287 carries 1387 yards 15 TD, 116 catches 1005 yards 4 tds

Shannon Sharpe

I don't think that proves you right. I mean does it mean that Joe Montana wasn't any good because Steve Young won after? For you to be right, BB would have to go to SB 45% of the years remaining he coaches. And win the SB in 30% of years remaining. Anything less wouldn't that be the opposite side?

Actually you just proved an opposite point. When the Colts tanked, it obviously wasn't because of how important Peyton was, as he never played another snap for Colts. They tanked for LUCK. Yes, they were making their 1st starts, but all but Jacoby had been in the system for years. So them being aloof about it has no validity. So your premise is that BB has been cheating since he started winning, even after being caught and having more of an eye on him? And I guess you are of the mindset that Patriots are the only ones "cheating"? How did they cheat down 28-3? Or why didn't the cheating work against the Eagles? Or why didn't he cheat to best the lowly Dolphins with a BYE on the line? Or better yet on Browns topic, did BB cheat the 1 year he had a good record in Cleveland? But let's go with this premise of the 7%. How do you know that is sustainable? And yes 20 games is a large sample size of games, but in comparison its 6% of the games played by TB12. Which is less than the 7% you want to use to make a point. As for Brady being the reason they won that game/etc., he was the starter so he is credited with that win. As for the 10-5 record of Cassel, here is the teams they beat (Jets: 4-12; 49ers: 5-11; Broncos: 7-9; Rams: 2-14; Bills: 7-9 (2); Dolphins: 11-5; Seahawks: 4-12; Raiders: 4-12; Cardinals: 9-7) And just the previous season (with close to same roster) TB had went 16-0, the offense scored 589 points, had a +315 in point differential, Brady threw 4806 yards 50 TDs, Moss had 23 TD. The next year, 11-5, 410 points, a point differential of 101, Cassel 3693 yards 21 TDs, Moss 11 TDs. So using the example you used (Cassel 2008) and compared to Brady the year before: Brady +6 (or even use 5 as Cassel "winning" game 1) wins, Brady +1113 yards (about 70 yards a game), Brady +29 TDs (1.8 TDs more), and Patriots (+11.2 PPG, and +13.4 margin). Sure seems that the Patriots missed TB12 that year.

If you are going to try and prove a point or call someone out, try to use facts and not lies. 2008: Brady was credited with that 1st win as the starter, so Cassel was 10-5. But Matt was drafted in 2005, so he was NOT A ROOKIE. The 4 game suspension was in 2016, 2 games by Jimmy G and 2 by Jacoby Brissett Jimmy G: was drafted in 2014, again NOT A ROOKIE. Jacoby B: was a rookie That leaves the last game that was in 2001, and the other QB was Drew Bledsoe who TB12 replaced as the starter, so he obviously wasn't a rookie. So that makes 2 out of 20 games. A whopping 90% were NOT ROOKIES. Secondly, nobody EVER said that BB had nothing to do with it, but you are saying that BB made TB12. Statistics show that to be completely false. As BB has a sub .500 record when not utilizing TB12. And using the year without Manning is trying to skew the narrative, as you know just as well as others that they were tanking. And it also doesn't correlate to the situation in NE. I can come up with countless examples of things like that which could indicate that a subpar player is "better" than a great player based solely on the use of 1 statistical data point. By one prime example, is by data that Emmitt Smith was basically the ENTIRE reason why Aikman won games, since Troy went 0-11 without Emmitt his rookie year. And though it wasn't in reply to me, you also are referencing BB making TB12 according to his "talent". Again BB entire record without TB is sub .500 so that argument doesn't hold water. For you argument to work, then he should have been able to take Bledsoe to GOAT with more talent. Or any of the other countless QBs hes had. Not even to mention that BB is a DEFENSIVE guy. Or are you trying to assert that BB is the end all be all and he coaches everyone individually. As for saying it wasn't a big enough sample size, it really isn't. It doesn't show if he could have SUSTAINED success without TB12. History shows that he couldn't. Since that day that BB wanted to move on with Jimmy, TB has won 2 SB, been to another where he threw for 505 yards, scored the most points ever for a SB loser (35). I suspect that you are just trolling or just hate Brady that much. The truth of the matter is that even with the past evidence of BB failures without TB12, that BOTH deserve a lot of credit. And if BB wants to prove that he can win one without TB and vice versa, what does it say if NEITHER win 1 without the other? Does that mean that someone else was responsible for the dynasty?

Sure, depending on the definition of "turn around." His best season was 3 losses (1 time at Temple, this year at Baylor). And he never won a bowl game. This year, I don't see an impressive win. There are a couple games that look on the surface at Temple are major wins, such as a win over Penn State (who finished (7-6), but in his 7 years as a head coach he had 2 wins over ranked teams (according to Wikipedia, don't know if the ranking is ending rank or at time of game. I can give him some credit for Temple, but Baylor was really only down because of their scandal. As a coach, I am just not all that impressed. The way he is talked about is like Urban for turning a program into a perennial power. He hasn't stayed somewhere long enough to prove he has turned it around. As for "sounding good" in press conference, I remember hearing the same things about Hue and Freddie. Another guy who is supposedly great at the mic is Lane Kiffin. I wish the man the best, I don't root for anyone to fail, but I think at this moment he has been vastly overrated. Even if I understand the thinking behind it, l lost some respect for him to decline an interview (and no not because it's the Browns).