Gunz41

47-43 in college. At Temple, 28-23. At Baylor 19-20.

There is a reason that teams are looking for a new head coach (with the slight exception every now and then). Those teams SHOULD have an advantage. It's the same reason that the draft is structured the way it is. It's to try and even the playing field. Just think of it like this, the time it is taking all these teams to get coaches, add that on to after SB, where they still have to put together staffs, and upcoming draft and FA. Then look how that would compare to say KC, BAL, SF, GB, NO, NE, etc. That is giving the TOP teams the advantage

Wouldn't be much of a difference as currently. Maybe a bit, but he is coaching in Minnesota as of now.

Just what I read sometime around their Bowl game. Pretty sure it was before.

I would not have liked Rhule, not really that impressed honestly. But he WAS on the radar of Cleveland until he turned them down to interview. I give him a few years and he is gone in Carolina. And they really shelled out for him as well. Reported 7/60

I don't think it would be a black eye for Josh if he just turned down the job offer. It could be a lot of different variables in turning it down. Maybe he doesn't like the vision, maybe doesn't like the terms, maybe he doesn't like the personnel that he would be working with/not allowed his guys. Maybe he is given some assurance that he is next in line for NE. Now if he did like he did the Colts, then he certainly wouldn't get another chance.

I'm not even saying that he couldn't be the best OC, and I certainly think he is qualified to be the next HC. But, I take issue with anyone not thinking without question he is the best OC and if not they have serious problems. As with Brady/Belichick, taking one away from the other could result in significant changes in history. We have never seen Brady without BB, but I am certainly not of the mind that taking BB tenure in Cleveland to prove what he would be without Brady. Because he also had quite the success in NY, and Parcells didn't have nearly the results without BB. And if the argument is that McDaniels is the best OC left after some of the better ones left in last few years, well it didn't show this season, or really a whole lot last. What have you done for me lately. Roman took a QB who was thought of as RG3 2.0 and made him the MVP. He isn't getting the credit he deserves. And no, before its said I am not making a case for Roman. And then you have the teams where the HC is the real OC/Play caller, such as Andy Reid.

I don't know how anyone can say that McDaniels IS the best OC in NFL. That doesn't mean he isn't good, or that he couldn't/shouldn't be the next HC. But saying it as if it is a proven fact isn't right. He has had the benefit of the best QB ever, and arguably the best coach.

Missed out due to incompetence? Haslam could certainly be incompetent, but MM also went to a better organization. In fact, that organization is valued as the most valuable team in the world. There is a reason why guys schedule multiple interviews. The same reason free agents visit multiple teams (aside from the tiny amount like LBJ who are going to go to a team no matter what). And along with Daniels, McDaniels, Pettine, you can also add Garrett.

In my opinion, to reference a 20 game sample to indicate that BB is THE reason that NE is great is asinine. That year of Cassel, although a good record resulted in no playoffs. 14-6 is 70%. Respectable for sure, better than most. 249-75 including playoffs. Or .769. And if you want to go Regular season, that is 219-64. Which is .774. And that is 30-11 in the playoffs, which is a .732 in the playoffs, you know against the best teams in the league. Which is 3.2% higher record than without. To say TB12 isn't/wasn't a big reason for the Patriots success is ridiculous. Brady has more than TWICE the number of playoff wins than ANY quarterback not named Montana. And Joe is 1 win above above twice.

Wrong again. Does it hurt to be wrong so many times and look foolish. For one, when I responded in THIS thread, it wasn't to you, so that blows that theory about it being about you out the water. Two, talking about the Colts is football. Talking about Joe Brady and Joe Burrow is football. I wouldn't expect you to know that though since you thought they were the same person

Well, like usual you don't respond to the specific points mentioned, there's that deflection. And again, as usual, you take what you want out of a post and try to spin it to where nothing was said to that point. So here we go AGAIN. Nobody said the Browns weren't the champions of the AAFC. What WAS said, that by the criteria that YOU posted, the why would any team not SB champion... then those AAFC or NFL championships wouldn't count. Me, I think they count. My own source? I run Wikipedia? Dang, I must be rich, or really poor since they are always asking for money. If that is the source you refer to, let's do this since you keep bringing it up, IF they didn't win the NFL championship I will bow to your greatness and leave. And if they did you do the same. Or go even further numb skull, if I EVER said they did any of the following: won their last game, won the SB, won the Ultimate game, whatever else criteria you seem to allude that I said. If not, then do EVERYONE a favor and SHUT THE F**K UP. As for politics, I never said I knew anything about it. But you responding like that makes me KNOW that I was spot on. I don't care if you like him or not (Dutch, I didn't know that I insulted him, but that doesn't bother me), but I will guarantee that there are A LOT of people here that would agree that the way you post Gipper resembles that. As for being a runner up, I don't think I quite know what you are alluding to, but I will try to decipher it. Runner up to you in age, YEP. Runner up in career, Yep. Runner up in pissing people off, you betcha. Oh, runner up in number of posts. You betcha. Runner up in number of asinine comments on here, yep you win that one by a landslide. Runner up in number of subjects changed to try and grasp at straws. Yep, you got me, you win. But runner up in these debates/arguments, why don't we let the other people on here decide who "wins" or shows more knowledge. Or do we mean actually football knowledge? You like to result in impugning my character, or make unsubstantiated claims often. Yet when pressed about it, you never show even the 1st piece of evidence. So its VERY simple loud mouth, unless you want to be looked at as a complete joke on here (or more so than you already do), since you have said both of these things in last 2 weeks: provide one iota of either: A POOR OPINION, or an IGNORANCE ON POLITICS. Because I can substantiate every things I have said about you. Case in point, you got into a pages long debate about JOE BRADY. And instead of thinking to yourself (hmm, why do these idiots keep referring to someone as Coach) you just keep on arguing about it. While we knew EVERY SECOND WHO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. And then the resemblance to DJT, you BLAMED @Flugel and myself for how it was written. Or how about this discussion, you keep referring to all these other things. Exactly where did I (or ANYONE) else say that is what the Colts won? Or do we want to go back to last college season, where you again wrong yet blamed others. To refresh your memory, since you can't seem to keep track yourself. Paraphrasing the 1st part. Stupid Clemson bragging about being 1st team to go 15-0. Then "How is it that they... and no one else was allowed to schedule an extra regular season game?" And we the other posters are supposed to know that you meant that it could have been Alabama, or OSU in 2014, etc. So again that wasn't YOUR fault. Maybe we should put up a poll and ask a few things. 1. Who shows more knowledge on here 2. Who is a more likeable person 3. Who makes excuses when they say something incorrectly 4. Does Gipper give off a resemblance of traits to someone else

Even though I said I wouldn't, I gotta respond. So when St. Thomas Aquinas (FL) beat Saint Louis (HI) for a national championship, does that mean that Saint Louis isnt a champion? I mean they did win a state championship. Or let's look at it in legal setting. OJ Simpson was acquitted in his criminal trial. Yet he lost his civil suit. That is like saying he is GUILTY of it BECAUSE of the civil suit. And you obviously missed the point on Cleveland. "Why do we call any team champion that did not win the Super Bowl. So those AAFC championships don't qualify to you. And those NFL championships don't qualify for you. See all you want to do is argue, or try and prove that you know something. Because you initially responding was to point out that Colts didn't win the SB, Ultimate championship, etc. Clue 1 prick, NOBODY EVER said they did. Clue 2 Dunce, whether YOU want to believe it, accept it, etc. The Baltimore Colts are UNIVERSALLY recognized as the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS. Nowhere in that statement does it say ANYTHING about winning another game, etc. Clue 3 doofus, you are the ONLY one who would try and reach to call the NFL a conference. They were separate entities. In fact, those Colts won their CONFERENCE against the Vikings. Then they won their LEAGUE, the NFL against the Browns. One can now look back at it and say that it was essentially a Conference championship, yet that would be rewriting history. Clue 4 ninnyhammer: so with your criteria/facts, then aren't the Colts CHAMPIONS since they won their last game in the NFL? Wouldn't that make them the NFL CHAMPIONS. Same with Chiefs, Raiders, Vikings? Clue 5 simpleton: politics certainly aren't my thing, but it seems by that post you aren't a fan of Trump. While I don't care what you think of politics, and I find that ironic as some of your ways on here are Trumpian. You make some claim, yet when either called out on it, or proven wrong, you either deflect, play the victim, attack character or double down on the claim. So your "everyone deserves their opinion (when you don't respect others opinion) is "fake news, they hate me, etc. And your "well you misread, this is what I meant, etc" is "biggest crowd ever... well it was, but "they use the bad pictures, etc." So yep, I apologize. Here I was calling you Ghool** Jr., when you remind me more of DJT. So with that in mind, all your posts are PERFECT, BIGLY, and GREATEST EVER.

Again, nobody ever claimed they were SB or Ultimate champion. And by your logic there, Browns have ZERO championships since they didn't win a SUPER BOWL. Everyone here knows that if it were this team that did what the Colts did then you would have a different opinion. So you can keep rambling on and on to hear yourself, get your post count up, whatever you want, I am done with this one. As all you are doing is saying the exact same thing over and over and not saying a single word that anyone has disagreed with here. You just keep saying these bigger championship games when I nor anyone ever said they won them.

I'm not going to post anymore on the topic pal. Think whatever it is you want. All you have to do to see how history records them is do a quick search on NFL champions. The last I will say is that you have tried different things to prove your point, which NOBODY disagreed with. You keep bringing up SB, Ultimate game, lost last game, AFC/NFC etc. Things that NOBODY said. All I asked was show me one thing that I posted that was incorrect, yet all you are doing is bringing up the same thing that nobody is contradicting. There is NO grey area in the record books. The Colts were, are, and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS.

That is your rule then. As a quick search will generate NFL CHAMPION. But it's ok for you to change up the rules to fit your agenda. Again, since you want to continue to argue this, go back to my original post and show me one thing that I was incorrect about? Don Shula IS recognized as the NFL CHAMPION that year. Nobody ever said SB, Ultimate champion, won last game, etc. And since there was no AFC/NFC there is no way to say that is what the Colts won. In Hindsight yes that is what the equivalent would appear to be, but the Colts went down as NFL CHAMPIONS

It is not a FACT that MM is the BEST candidate available. What you seem to be using as "best" is more so most accomplished. If MM were factually the BEST candidate then every team would be in a bidding war for him. Best and most accomplished are different things. That doesn't mean that MM can't be both, but stating it as a FACT is incorrect.

Nope, not all all. Semantics my friend. In hindsight sure its like a conference championship, but since they were 2 separate leagues at the time they were champions. It's the same argument that many (including you) have used to count the number of championships the Browns have in comparison to others. Again, if I had used the words: World champion, ultimate champion, SB champion, etc then I would be wrong.

According to Wikipedia, Don Shula won the 1968 NFL championship with the Colts, and 72 and 73 seasons were Super Bowls (technically 73 and 74 SB champion). As for you responding, I NEVER claimed he won SUPER BOWLS with 2 teams. It was never stated he won an "ultimate title", but since this was pre merger, he did win a championship of the NFL in 68

Technically correct, but Shula did win championships with 2 different franchises. But there really is no science to this. From that statement, it would be better to have someone who didn't win one or never made it. Or take it a step further, look at last 20 years (a lot of older coaches wouldn't be in league anymore). Belichick: not happening Pederson: not happening Kubiak: Possible? Carroll: Not happening Harbaugh: Not happening Coughlin: retired McCarthy: The issue here Payton: Not happening Tomlin: Not happening Dungy: retired Cowher: retired Gruden: Not happening or would want Billick: retired Vermeil: retired I would guess that everyone would want: Belichick, Pederson, Carroll, Harbaugh, Payton, Tomlin. They would ALL go against that trend referenced. So I don't think that should be a good reason to be against MM.

Yep exactly. Tuck tail and run (not accept). Another EILOOHG trait

"Probably" and "flaw in the writing" You have just proven the point. You refuse to take responsibility. Here is Flugel original post "I wouldn't mind seeing LSU's Joe Brady get some consideration with all I'm reading and hearing about how much he has helped Joe Burrow progress from last year.  Prior to that, he worked on Sean Payton's staff with Drew Brees. I'd rather see Brees as Baker's role model than Favre. I've seen 1 throw off the backwards hop too many to like hearing the Favre resemblance. We also need some brain cells in our coaching staff that understand we need to bury the shuffle pass once and for all. Back to Joe Brady, he has NFL and college experience. Again, if I want hiring criteria to improve I'd rather see more than 2 candidates (with a gut feeling they are already leaning toward the 1 they worked with in GB). I like Mike McCarthy as a candidate; but Joe Brady's work at LSU transcended the program and the QB to the National Championship Game. Not a bad resume when you can say I was the only one that tapped Joe Burrow's QB talent; especially when we see how much he did so..." So please Mr. Know it all, where is the flaw in that writing? Since they are BOTH named there, and there would be very minuscule chance that Joe Burrow, the QB (who was at OSU) would have worked with Payton and Brees. And I am STILL waiting for you to reference ONE poor opinion I have had

And you don't see the problem here? Multiple times from multiple people Joe Brady was referred to as a coach and separate from Burrow. Yet you continued on with it. The majority of that could have been avoided had you actually read what was being said, or even just getting the facts when it kept coming up

A. No bud, you actually just showed exactly why this was brought up. No PLAYER was referred to as coach haha. Joe Burrow is the QUARTERBACK for LSU. Joe BRADY is co offensive coordinator/passing game coordinator. Two COMPLETELY different people. B. Again, I don't see ANYTHING wrong with a good debate. But when results in name calling, not even listening to a shred of evidence, or beating the same point over and over isn't just a debate. Here is the difference, instead of saying I disagree with you on that, agree to disagree, etc you result to the "f you, you're an idiot if you think that, etc." Yet when you have a minority take you go with the, I get to have an opinion stuff. Whether you are right or wrong, when you use both sides of that argument you look disingenuous and that your opinion is the only that matters. C. Nobody is perfect man. I have been wrong once before. Or was it that I was wrong about being wrong? As for your other 3 posts that mentioned me: I think that you or anyone else is allowed to believe whatever religion they want, or none at all. And I for sure wouldn't make a smart comment if someone on here posted about Buddha. But that doesn't mean that it will change my view. And it is MY belief that unless ANYONE who hasn't accepted Jesus does then they will not like the result when they pass. That doesn't mean I will be a prick to them for their beliefs/or lack thereof. And maybe I am not as smart as you or can't read between the lines, but you highlighting me asking you to show 1 poor opinion and saying there ya go. How exactly is that showing one? It looks like you were just throwing stuff against the wall seeing what will stick. As you can't find a "poor opinion" of mine. And no Gipper, I don't dislike you. I don't think you are a bad person. I just think that you don't pay attention (or don't care) how you post. Because as little as I get on (as you referenced) I still see you get into "spirited arguments" with multiple people. And I don't think from my perspective that it has to do with the content in which you post. It has more to do with the perception of the manner in which you post that content. As for the comparison to Gho..... ask yourself why that would even be thought of, think back on his posts and decipher whether it had more to do with the content he posted or the manner in which he posted it, or even go a step further on a cold snowy day and look back at some of your "conflicts" on here and see if there is either some kind of pattern of behavior and/or a reason why it often results in more than just a difference in opinion.

You obviously have missed the point pal. But then again, in your mind the ONLY reason I come on here is because of you. I didn't read weekly. But then again, you didn't want to take the challenge, so your actions speak as well. I couldn't care less about you using a curse word, but exactly what is the point in calling someone a pussy? Does it make someone feel tough? I just don't get it. If I were to call you that does that mean I am tougher than you? And no, I would think that you being so smart with semantics and legal jargon that you could discern a discussion and argument. When you have to resort to calling people idiots, telling them how wrong they are, etc. I take that as being unwilling to listen to another side. That happens A LOT in society today. And on occasions (no not all the time) when you post something incorrectly, when called out instead of just saying yep I was wrong, you try to finagle your way out of being wrong. I have even seen on here where you have blamed the other person why you were wrong. I know I have been wrong before, but you will never see me trying to explain why I was wrong. Again NONE of this is just me saying it, as the same things have been said by others in the past. I'm sure it is because I am just reading you wrong, we are always the one instigating it, etc. You have absolutely no culpability in any of it. But all you have to do is go back to the reason I replied in this thread. The condescending way in which you went on about Brady, Burrow, etc. Ahh, there it is, apparently I am not as big a fan as you because I don't live or been to Cleveland. It doesn't matter if I or anyone else has been, I have as much right as you. But the ENTIRE point of that part went over your head. I will absolutely GUARANTEE that if you polled the membership here that a majority would have issue with the way you post sometimes. They would also backup what is being said here. But I guess that is a me problem and a them problem. But since YOU reference it, show me ONE poor opinion? As for your last question. God, Jesus father. The one who sent his son to die for ALL of our sins. I pray that before you perish that you accept that. I am sure you have a smart comment there, but on THAT I will act like you and not change my opinion no matter what you say.