Gunz41

34 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

 

I may not agree with your stance, but I have no issue with you feeling that way.

But you seem to not answer on if/when the Browns are on the other end. Like he said, "tanking" for draft picks would be a different form of integrity no? Even if you don't call that tanking, isn't trading some of your best players for future draft picks a form of it?

Again, do you feel the same thing when it doesn't involve a playoff spot? Or do you feel the same way when a player has been cleared but sits out the next game to preserve them?

Unless you have no issue being a hypocrite, they are all the same, either bad integrity or justified.

I dislike the Colts A LOT more than the Patriots. But I don't see how you can condemn them for one instance and not others, go in so hard on the issue, and yet say if the Browns are in the same position you have to wait and see how you will feel

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I will give you my answer when I am confronted with that situation....because right now I don't know.  Hopefully we will be 13-2 this year and have the #1 seed locked in.....and we will be playing the Bengals...who, if we win will knock them out of a playoff spot and put the Steelers or Ravens in the playoffs. 

Could you ever see tanking a game that would allow one of those teams to make the playoffs....but which by winning would knock them out?  

I would love to say no...I would not want the Browns to do that.

But, Ask me then....hopefully!!

But by your stance on it it doesn't have to be this year (since it is unlikely that the Bengals will be able to make playoffs).

Or let's look at it another way, so maybe you can understand the point. IF the Browns are locked into a playoff spot and win or lose makes no difference for the spot, and the Bengals game doesn't matter for it, would you be okay with the Browns sitting the starters to preserve them?

Because whether it effects the playoffs or not, ANY time sitting the starters would be against the integrity no? Or let's go even more; say Baker gets hurt and misses Week 15 and 16, the Browns are in playoff position, and Baker has been cleared. Should they send him out there for the game after missing the past 2 games in a game that won't matter in the grand scheme of things, or rest him to make sure he is ready for the postseason? Remember he has been cleared, so him not playing by your feelings is the Browns not playing with integrity.

Can always check out the good ole ebay. You will at least see a picture of what you will get.

4 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Well....as I said...it depends really on the situation their opponent is in.  If they are playing another team that has their  playoff slot locked in...or, if they are playing a run of the mill team that locked out of the playoffs and is doing nothing but playing for draft positioning...I have no real problem. But...if they are playing a team that is locking horns  for the right to make the playoffs...I think they have an obligation to the other team....to the league, to try their best to prevail in that game. 

I mean...it may be simple common courtesy.....but more than that.

I absolutely get your point, but you didn't answer the question. IF the Browns did it, would you be ranting about them doing it and not care if they lost the franchise, or would you understand the reasoning behind it?

If you would have a problem with Colts/anyone else but not the Browns, or even try to reason with the Browns doing it then that is hypocritical.

And if you would be one that would complain about them doing what you say, and then a significant injury happens and then you change your stance because of it then that is hypocritical.

1 minute ago, hoorta said:

Regarding the Patriots- no I don't condone that crap. Indy had their playoff spot locked in- and sorry, if they wanted to rest their starters, it's what smart teams do. I said don't like it? then win more games, and stop relying on other teams to get you in. Someone already said- put the shoe on the other foot and the Browns are locked in for a playoff spot, they trot out Baker and OBJ- and they both get hurt- you'd be crying a river. 

I just used Tua as an example- it has a nice ring to it. The 2020 draft is a long, long way off. You could have made a haul in Vegas turning the clock back a year betting Daniel Jones would get picked in the top 10. 

I said it Hoorta, and I will take it a step further, as like I said I believe right is right and wrong is wrong.

Since you have such an issue with it Gipper, IF the Browns are locked into a top seed and they rest their starters, will you hate them and not have a problem with the Browns "dying as a franchise"?

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 

I'm not arguing the playoff year, I am arguing the Luck year.

I just don't think it is right/fair to condemn the Colts for that and not see an issue with the Browns.

I guess I am not a fanatic. I try to look at things logically and apply the same "rules" to everyone, not look at it differently because I am a Browns fan. To me, if someone applies different standards for one over another they lose credibility. An example (and not using specific players/teams), but I can't get behind denigrating a Steeler player for DV and then turn around and not be just as harsh or make excuses for a Browns player for the same thing. 

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Of course, I understand all that.  But, again...A.  it IS against the integrity of the game to give one team vying for a playoff spot an advantage. I mean, let's say the Browns and the Titans were vying for a playoff spot.  The Browns need the Titans to lose.  The Titans are playing the Colts.  Instead of playing Peyton Manning, they play Curtis Painter.   Boom...done deal. Give the Titans the playoff spot.  Why bother playing the game?

And, again, I ask, why should it just be a team that is 13-2 that rests its players.  Again, I use the Browns last year.  Losing the game to the Rats gives them perhaps a better draft position.  Why risk getting Baker or any of our other guys hurt....just to try to help the freeking Steelers. Yet they did do their damndest to win. Fair to say. At the risk of serious injury to our best player. That is full integrity....the other is the opposite.

I agree that if its fine to do with a 13-2 team then it is for a team not going further. As I said, I wouldn't do it but I understand why others do it

6 hours ago, flyingfooldoug said:

I isn’t the players that try to lose. They’re always playing for a job. The F O makes those decisions 

Obviously, so same question applies, how did the Colts TRY to lose and the Browns TRY to win? 

The Colts played 3 different QB that year, and none were any good. But to say that either was doing anything differently because of who you follow doesn't seem right.

The Browns traded off a lot of their better players, do you think that was in an effort to win? Doesn't seem like it.

I heard the Browns were trading them off to get the draft picks. Well that would make sense that they were not worried about winning. And then that little tidbit where the team "trying to lose" won 2 games.

I have no issue believing that the Colts front office felt that way sometime during the season, what I take issue with is thinking they did something that Cleveland didn't.

8 hours ago, hoorta said:

We  may never know the details Gunz, but whatever injury Luck had, it was more than a "strained calf" this time. Irsay even mentioned a " tiny little  bone ". It shouldn't take 4 months for a calf strain to heal for an otherwise  healthy  guy in his 20s.

And regarding Gippers venom about the  Colts resting their starters denying the Browns a  playoff spot? Its not the first, and it certainly  won't be the last time a team rests their starters once they're  locked into a  playoff spot. If you don't  like it, win more games  the next time. 

O I know it was more. My point was that people feeling he should have known at the time of Draft are looking at the conclusion, while at that time it was thought to be small.

I can even see people being upset, but with anything I think everyone can see I just think should call it like it is. Any same situation can't be viewed one way for another team and differently for the Browns

11 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I assume you meant "not" trying to lose.    And no, I would not debate that.  The players that were on that team did not try to lose.  The organization however, was. 

And sure, I guess we can say that there are any number of teams that undergo a "process"....of getting worse to get better.   The Astros did it,  the 76ers are famous for it.   I understand that.    Like I said.....it was the fact that they tanked the game when there were other playoff implications involved that I feel was the more egregious display of a lack of integrity.

Who said it:  You play to win the game.  The Colts on that day, did not. Not at all.

Fuck them....let them lose forever.  The Browns have not won in 55 years now....the Cardinals in 72 years.  Let them do the same.  Do you disagree with that sentiment?

I'll just reply to this one since it is same subject. I said I was only talking about how they got Luck.

I agree with you on the other one. And I certainly don't remember the circumstances of that Colts game. But in coach mode, if the game didn't mean anything to the teams playoffs, I can see why sitting starters is something a team would do. Again, let's say the Browns are 13-2 going into the last game. They have locked up #1 seed. If they play and Baker gets hurt, can you imagine the backlash and chatter about playing in a meaningless game for the team? Again, I am not an NFL coach obviously, and all of our games do matter so I certainly would play mine, and I would like to think I would in NFL, but it is not like the reason for the Colts doing that was to screw the Browns, it was to give themselves the best opportunity to win a championship 

On 8/24/2019 at 10:54 PM, Clevfan4life said:

look i like avery....just saying, mebbe GW would like Avery in NY. I hope they dont cut him if just for the reason he could ge a valuable trade piece to a 34 team

This doesn't make sense to me. How would someone you are thinking is one the bubble (or wondering at the least) and saying looks to you that he isn't even 2nd string going to be a valuable trade piece?

30 minutes ago, flyingfooldoug said:

Difference ? Ok, the dolts were playing to intentionally lose games to acquire the number one pick... Luck.  The Browns had a load of high draft picks and were playing to win games. 

Wait, weren't people talking about how they got rid of all these vets? 

And exactly how do you quantify that one was trying to lose while the other was trying to win? I DO know that one team won 2 games and the other won 0.

And I will ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that players from EITHER that Colts team, that Browns team, or throw in the 0-16 Lions were trying to lose.

On 8/25/2019 at 2:02 PM, The Gipper said:

He has played pretty well.   I don't think that he will be in like the Top 20 QBs in this league, but he can be a starter and play decently. How far they go depends a lot of the quality of the rest of the team.

The Colts HAVE done a lot to put quality players around Luck...now they are going to have to rely on the supporting cast to pull the show together and not the star.

All that being said...Fuck them.  Let them lose.  Their tank job to get Luck was a despicable display of poor sportsmanship and in a sense was the best example of what can be wrong with the NFL these days.....letting teams tank.   Fuck them. Lose. I remember when they had their division sown up, and they were playing someone who the Browns were fighting with for a playoff spot.  This was 2007.   They tanked that game, denying the Browns a chance to make the playoffs.  Refused to play Peyton...instead played like Curtis Painter at QB.  It was the worst example of a lack of integrity in the game that I have seen.   So, nothing that team suffers breaks my heart....albeit that I did like Luck and thought he could be special.  It wasn't against him, but that organization.

Specifically referring to the 2011 season for the Colts and how they got Luck, how was what they did any different than Cleveland going 0-16?

Manning was hurt, so much so that a lot of the league thought he would never play again. He couldn't throw a ball 5 yards.

Don't let your disdain for them or love for Cleveland cloud your view on one vs. other. They had a better coach than Hue for sure, but let's not act as if Caldwell was a great coach. Most teams are going to be pretty bad when they lose one of the best QBs to ever play the game. It's not as if most teams have a situation like Young backing up Montana, Rodgers backing up Favre, or even Foles backing up Wentz.

12 hours ago, laiccm said:

I'm sorry....dude just did a very selfish move. I understand wanting to retire and retiring because of all those injuries................but don't tell me he had 0 idea pre-draft. Dude is very smart and educated...He knows what a QB means to a team and Jacoby is a back up....Dude could've rehabbed half the season and be welcomed back with open arms and let everyone know this is his last year. Colts fan had every reason to boo.....

This is one of the most asinine things I have ever read.

From all reports he suffered the latest injury sometime in April. And it was thought to be a strained calf. Refresh my memory, what month is the Draft?

He went from a minor calf strain to still being out in August. And as HE said, he got tired of injury, pain, rehab repeat. And it got to be so much that he lost the joy to play.

You know one of the FIRST things I say to players I coach? If you don't want to be here/not give it everything then leave now, its actually more dangerous for players not going all out.

But since it is apparently how things and minds are supposed to work, I think it was very selfish of you to not have made this post back in April

7 hours ago, medicineman said:

Didn't the 49ers Coach do that to the media about Vernon Davis a few years back? When they had Mike S as head coach and he had that big melt down?

Not sure? If he did I would feel the same way. I love Baker, and like I said not much issue with it once he responded back about it. But I also am not the kind of person who sees nothing wrong with something if it is something/someone I like but have an issue with it if it's not something/someone I like. If Big Ben doesn't something I dislike or don't agree with, if Baker does the same thing its just as wrong.

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 

To the 2nd part, that is obviously a different situation. That is something that would seem to need to be done. 

Completely different than just saying something negative.

But lawyer may be a bad example because of some of what the job entails. Maybe judge is a better example. I have no clue if there would ever be a reason for a judge to talk about another to be quoted? And take out differences of being on different sides of an issue (like when SCOTUS were being appointed and their views on political issues), would judges really just make their view known publicly on if a judge isnt very good, not deserving, etc?

There are certain instances in jobs where it is necessary to voice an opinion like that, i.e. recomend Drs, etc. But I don't think when an opinion isnt necessary that need to go negative. Again that is off of the original reports, not after it was clarified 

8 hours ago, medicineman said:

Very true. No coach would ever tell another team that a player is awful that they mite try to trade. 

Wasn't where I was going with it, as I couldn't and wouldn't trade my players, I was going off of the profession. Not saying something bad about an opposing coach where it could get back to him

Even though I don't care for him as a football player, I feel bad for Luck (besides the money). He has had so many injuries that have added up to this. 

Just now, bjh2130 said:

Was just coming to post. That's crazy

Yep and I bet everyone favorite media member, Cowherd is somewhere crying. He loves him as much or more than Darnold.

According to ESPN, he has informed Colts he is retiring 

23 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Lawyers talk shit about each other all the time 

Lol, I am sure they do amongst themselves, but as a lawyer/judge would you actually be able to be quoted as saying such things?

As a coach, I can think someone from an opposing team is doing a bad job with their players. I would probably talk about it amongst the other coaches with me, but I would never say it to the other guys face, in a public forum, or anywhere that I could be quoted as saying such.

14 hours ago, Flugel said:

Yeah, about 95% of Giants fans wanted to run their GM out of town when he selected Jones at #6. It was a shock to everyone.

Media does that all the time.  For example, that Colin Cowherd hack likes to attack certain things about Baker since he continued to be wrong about Baker's leadership and talent.  Hack makes sure he doesn't talk about baker and his wife delivering Christmas gifts to under-privileged kids and families in Cleveland or impacting the life of a young girl to the extent he showed up to speak at her funeral service.  Those would be far too mature to sell his audience Baker has a great side to him as well.

1 day I was home from work and changed the channel to his show while he was ranting how Baker only beat 1 winning team and blabbed that about 7 of his TD passes were against the Bengals. Meanwhile, he wanted his audience to feel sorry for Darnold going to a bad team.  In doing so, he sure stayed away from the reality Baker went to the team that was 0-16 in 2017 and 1-15 in 2016.  Meatball on spaghetti, Cleveland didn't win either of their first 2 games in 2018 while Baker entered the 3rd game with a 14-0 deficit vrs Darnold's Jets - that Baker led us to victory over.  Telling ALL of the story erases the juice he angled up against Baker. 

Cowherd isn't going to change, he is dug in. Baker could go on and break Bradys records and it would be how much talent he has around him, he NEEDS all these things to win, if Darnold had the same guys he would win even more etc.

Take Cowherd out of it because it obviously doesn't matter what Baker does, but before Baker clarified that it was somewhat taken out of context, they have a bit of a point. And its not like it is unprecedented that people are talked about being wrong for comments they made about other players. Jalen Ramsey last year was about the same thing. To me, there is a difference in most people giving negative comments and peers. I could be wrong, but I think the discussion would have happened if it were others besides Baker. I don't think it was about him. And this doesn't subject doesn't matter to me if its football or any other job. Since we know what Gipper job is/was I'll use it in an example. I could see a bit of an issue if he were talking amongst colleagues and said an opposing lawyer/judge wasnt good, but if he is quoted somewhere saying such things I would think there would be some backlash.

Once Bakers comments came out about not being what it seems and clarified I don't see much of anything wrong with it

10 hours ago, Mudfly said:

 

Again I am not suggesting anything, he may be a bust. But he also has had little playing time. That is the main point. 

And yes last year he was behind veterans in Bitonio and Zeitler and if looking at him now playing some center then Tretter. So the point is that there was a reason why he didn't play much last year. Aaron Rodgers sat for 3 years behind Brett, I imagine he learned over that time. Its also the reason that teams want to start a vet over a rookie at the QB position, even if they view the rookie as going to be better. Just look at the homegrown Haskins. There have been discussions of either Keenum or McCoy being their starter. OL is more than just running into people, there are complex schemes. And none of us know why he isn't playing the way everyone wants right now. Maybe he is a bust, or maybe he is having trouble understanding the schemes (especially when considering the moving around) and maybe once he is getting it he is thinking too much.

Have never heard me say what the Browns should do with Austin, just that he may be different in development and he hasn't played much at all. But I wouldn't have said anything about any of this if people weren't calling his a p***y because he isn't reaching their expectations

3 hours ago, Mudfly said:

Right....he could get better or he could be a bust.....I think everyone gets that and can agree to a point.

I see the examples you gave of both and my one argument would be that those other guys could at least get on the field.....most high picks(1st & 2nds for sure) get the benefit of the doubt and will get playing time to see where they are....in the case of Corbett, the fact that he cant even get a starting nod(when we have NO decent alternative) tells me he's pretty bad......Id say an average or even below average guy might get the start in this situation(no good alternate) .....but not so with Corbett....

So....until I hear(and see) otherwise, I have to assume he looks "terrible" to our coaching staff.....

How many guys on your list were so bad they were not even given a chance as a starter in their first 2 years.....any?

Ok, well some SHOULDN'T have been on field in 1st 2 years, and for different reasons some didn't see the field in 1st 2 seasons. And I didn't go through everyone, I didn't even look up drafts, I found a web page with 10 for each.

Again, you seem to be missing my bigger point. Anyone can say early they can be good or not good. The point is that while he may look bad/bust, that he could be someone who takes time to develop. We have certainly seen guys who ended up really good look bad in preseason and guys who have looked like studs in preseason end up out of the game quickly. And it certainly doesn't help the young man to get in a groove (if he can) when he is moving around without a set position.

Its not uncommon for guys with ability to sit early, as the coaches think a veteran presence will help more.

But go ahead and really think back and answer the other point honestly. If this were couple years ago when the team went 0-16 and a higher pick wasn't looking good would the talk be needing to get rid of him? If your answer is no, then you are wanting to expedite his maturation because of the lofty expectations for the team. And people can't just change themselves like that. I'm sure Corbett or anyone else would love to greatly improve every day from the start.

But take football out of it. Let's use a typical office job. I don't remember the guys exact snap number for last year I just remember it was low, let's use 30 as the example. Anyway,  say you got a new job at a sales company. They sell multiple things. You have daily meetings and practice runs on how to sell whatever the product is. You are shadowing others to get the hang of it. You get 30 phone calls where you aren't being the assistant to the guy you are shadowing. You don't make a Sale in those 30 calls. You continue to work in the meetings on improving your salesmanship. Then as you are trying to improve and learn how to sell that product, you are moved to a different product. I'm not saying you will ever be a good salesman, but considering the circumstances I don't think that customers who for a good amount of time have no clue how to do your job, and are just a user of the product should say you suck at your job.

Hopefully that makes a little sense haha. 

1 hour ago, Ibleedbrown said:

We already have a good chunk of change invested at the Tackle position, so l would be surprised if we made a move like this prior to the start of the season. If our starting Tackles do a less than acceptable job a few games in, then maybe. A few games in to the season might lower the asking price too.

That is possible, or in other instances it rises the price. Look at the Sam Bradford trade a few years ago. Yes QBs are way more valuable, but Williams is a lot better at his craft compared to Bradford