Gunz41

Where would you have Baker? You didn't mention him in that. Not that it will happen, nor that it looks like that, but we have seen QBs do really good things in 1st year and then fall off. Nothing I have seen would tell me that, but there is history. Even though he is a different QB than some of them. Certainly not just you Gip, wherever you have him ranked, but people want to point out flaws for others and not use them for their guy. Again that doesn't mean you, and not just about Baker.

Hopefully it happens, but you think you might be getting ahead of yourself? Forget about arguing playoffs or even Super Bowl, as that has been talked about enough (and I can even partially see why), and you did qualify that. But what exactly has anyone seen to call tremendous coaching?

Someone said he not to be named resurfaced under another name. Just curious what the new name was

I miss a little time and the guy I love to tell how wrong he is came back? Boo, what name?

Still with all these Duke hefty prices? If Dorsey really wanted to trade him, last weekend was the right time. Now we have Duke and a lower pick for McCoy and a higher pick. That makes zero sense, but now looking back I see who posted it (and some of the warped values previously). As for the salary, it does matter when the Browns are already over, which hurts the left over money to sign the players in the next couple years. I certainly think that Suh is more than a rotational piece now. He actually had s pretty good year last year. He just wasn't the best DT on their team. He isn't signed because he wants paid. But to say it proves he is just a piece because he hasn't signed, there are players over the years who have signed later because they were holding out to get the most money, really good players. Solomon Thomas was a top 3 pick, I seriously doubt that 49ers would give him up for a 5th rounder. He would at the very least be in the rotation like is being talked about here. I could see him being traded, but I would be surprised if it's as low as a 5th

I don't think either of those are that far off, I just don't think that would be the best they could do. IF they did get tired of Fournette, I think that if they had interest in Duke I think it would be in a backup role.

I very strongly disagree. Remember, with more evidence from a AFC championship game, they were one of the teams talked about like Browns are this season. And they obviously didn't sign Foles to that big contract with expectations of rebuilding. Here is what I see, asking if it were the other way around if you/Browns would do it. Browns get Ramsey (let's assume Browns make playoffs and lose in Wild Card round, thus highest possible pick for Jax) Jax: Duke Johnson, Carrie, 21st pick in 2020 draft for Jalen Ramsey, 24 years old and 2x pro bowler with all 3 years of 16 starts Or if its flipped, assume Jax barely finished like Browns last year. Cleveland gets Thomas Rawls or Yeldon, Cody Brown, and 17th pick in 2020 draft for Denzel Ward, 22 years old (in 2 weeks) 1x pro bowler with 12 starts and concerns expressed about concussions None of that is to say that Ward won't continue on a great path and be just as good or better than Ramsey. But to think it's a good possibility of a team getting rid of their best player, who is still very young for backups and what will probably be a lower 1st seems to me like having homer colored glasses on

I'm not questioning that part, but if you are the Jags do you accept that? Or look at it another way, would you trade Ward for Rawls, a DB not named Ramsey or Bouye and what will more than likely be a late 1st round pick?

I think you might be overvaluing Duke. If its just your opinion that Duke has more talent than the others, that is different. But Jags have 2 other backs who have shown to play at a higher level than Duke, Yeldon and Rawls. If I were the Jags, with the presented trade offer of Duke, 2020 1st rounder and one of the DBs on the team, it would only make sense if that DB was Ward. If not, I get a 3rd string back, a low 1st round pick (who couldn't be relied upon to be as good as Jalen) and make my team worse on what we hang our hat on, defense.

Well I imagine that when the players do that the teams would as well. Everyone in the NFL SHOULD have it before fans, not to think as fans that they should have it when NFL personnel does

Is this s serious question? They certainly need to know before fans, seeing as though they are the ones playing in the games

I get that part, I'm not saying being against someone opinion is wrong, its usually the same ones on the opposite side, and the key is actually arguing about it. But even worse, is when there is the same subject, and someone takes the opposite side. That is what I am speaking of

It just doesn't seem genuine to me when things like that occur. And the thing about it isnt, "I did more research and I change my opinion." Its a complete 180, and A LOT of the time it just seems as if it's just opposite of the overwhelming feeling, i.e. causing an argument. Sure we are all prone to change our mind, especially with evidence, but most don't that quickly, and that often. I have seen a couple examples recently. Perriman and hes a good resign and then, he will probably fail and be out of league. Example I can use, and you are the perfect person for it. If you were to say "I love Peppers, hes going to be great. Once traded, "he now sucks."

I won't quote anyone, but it seems that some just want to be contrary to anything. Just reading through some of the recent threads, BEFORE OBJ was traded, he was a diva. Now that he was traded, never been a diva. His past, good and bad didn't change. His future can.

Just because I still fail to see the obsession with unproven Draft picks when compared to proven players, I am listing the 3 picks at #17, #18, #19 and top WR to show. 2018- Derwin James, Jaire Alexander, Leighton Vander Esch. DJ Moore 2017- Jonathan Allen, Adore Jackson, OJ Howard. Zay Jones 2016- Keanu Neal, Ryan Kelly, Shaq Lawson. Will Fuller 2015- Arik Armstead, Marcus Peters, Cam Erving. Nelson Agholor 2014- CJ Mosley, Calvin Pryor, Ja'wuan James. Brandin Cooks 2013- Jarvis Jones, Eric Reid, Justin Pugh. DeAndre Hopkins 2012- Dre Kirkpatrick, Melvin Ingram, Shea Mcclellin. Kendall Wright The point I am making isnt that you cant get great players in the draft, it's that even the best can miss. Everyone loves Dorsey, with good reason, but there has been questions about Corbett since the Zeitler trade. We can always look back and say, "this guy should have been the pick, etc." But they are always picking one they think can help. There were some who love Baker Mayfield now who wanted Darnold, Allen, or Rosen. Here is a couple examples. 2013- Tavon Austin over Hopkins 2014- 12 teams passed on Aaron Donald 2016- Coleman, Docston, Treadwell over Michael Thomas Just a few examples. While we can all think we have a great pick, some just don't work out. Take Gilbert as an example, while he was a TERRIBLE pick, a lot of teams had him high.

Haha. You got that one wrong too. He was always wrong, just not in his head lol

Ray Lewis was NOT a 2nd round pick. He was the Ravens 2nd pick in 1st round. Pick 26

Is Baking Up Turnovers Ghoolie? He sure never says anything positive. But less nasty talk. But from his talk, I think he couldn't be Ghoolie, more like Bill Polian, Bill Parcells, and Peyton Manning all rolled into one. He knows everything. As for the trade, it has potential to be one of the best trades ever, but also has chance the interrupt the locker room. Hopefully it's a great trade, and OBJ getting out of NY helps his attitude. Certainly a great player who has proven it, as opposed to ANY of these hypothetical draft picks.

When he was suspended for a certain number of games or indefinitely. No contact when indefinitely, but when it is a set number of games I believe they can. Brady did, Edelman did I believe, some others blanking on

He cant be with team in season, but unless something has changed, he can participate in camp and preseason games, which he should have a playbook then

Yes, I guess you are just so much smarter than everyone, especially me. Me asking you about your family is the exact same thing as you saying I committed a crime. You know, there used to be another guy on here who would never admit when he was wrong and said ugly things. Hmm. And it is ironic, I have seen other people say the same thing about you with your arrogant, genius talk. Don't think I don't see at least part of the reason behind your oh so brilliant trivia. It's to make yourself look good or tell someone they are wrong. Nobody is in a winning situation. You have in the past said nobody answered because they weren't smart enough, and if someone answered all of them you can just claim they cheated. And nope, I am not saying "who me." And I would venture to guess that had that question had been posed to most others, they would have obviously seen the point. But of course most people don't see it as sexist to look at an assault on a female vs a male. But go ahead, stay classy Ron Burgundy.

No Mr. Thinks he knows it all, and also will argue with anyone when it is obvious he is wrong ( not particularly this case), what I asked was nothing stupid. I asked how you would feel IF it were. Then you want to call someone a woman beater. That is extremely mature. But hey, it's not my nature to be rude to people, more power to ya. I don't dislike you. But even insinuating that was a real jerk move.

O man, do you really think I can win a Nobel prize. I am certainly done with this. Feel free to continue thinking whatever you want. Nobody on this end EVER said anything about not understanding what is being said. I haven't said anything about being against it. But I'll play along with your question. If Hunt were related to me, I would think that it sucks for him, but be extremely upset and ashamed at his conduct that day. Yet I would hope and think he should get a 2nd chance. I wouldn't try to sully the name of the accuser because they provoked it. Was she in the wrong from reports, absolutely. Would that be a reason for the retaliation, nope. I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE NO MATTER WHAT, that I would never do that.

I'll answer some of these, but won't really delve much into the ridiculous idea that "I stopped beating my wife" as you are only trying to say this as some way to make some ridiculous point, which I have no idea what it is. I never said anything remotely about it being different legally. The point I was saying with you not using it legally, was saying that it is sexism, not that it is viewed the same by law. But I guess that statement can be viewed either way. We are good there. Again with the family, you are purposely taking that out of context, as when I first said your son or daughter you said dont bring them up. I was pointing out that I was only bringing them up as people would view their own children more so than others. My point being, I certainly wouldn't like it to happen to either (even your kids who I have never met), but I view it differently a female being hit than a male. Yes, that word may have incited the incident, but the biggest issue to me is the assault. I think the use of the word is horrible and hate, and how many times have I said something to the former board troll about things like that, but there have been many instances where this haneous word has been used and someone not assaulted. One doesn't make other right. As for release, if Mr. Hunt had gotten into a fight with a Male, he wouldn't have been released by the Chiefs in all likelihood. The point with you being a judge, and since you have had those cases, when you read what's on the docket, don't you feel differently about an assault on a female vs a Male? While they may carry the same sentence, etc. Dont you as a man view a woman beater as less than a man beater? Oops, I skipped one. One major issue is the average size difference in males vs females. That isn't a sexist thing, it's a fact. I think I would get my tail whooped by someone like Ronda Rousey skillset, but on average there is a difference. Another reason is the way society views these things, whether right or wrong in your mind. Just look at the only reason I replied, as saying it was sexist. I think women beaters are horrible, and most probably agree. People will rally more to protect them more so than men. And I also think that everyone deserves a 2nd chance. Last thing I will say about legit reasons is the documented difference in violence level in the 2. Just look at the statistics on number murders and serial killers. Why is that?

Well, I guess that kind of proves my point my friend. Legally it is the same, but nowhere in your post about it being sexist did you mention anything about legally. And the point with family was that most people would view their kids differently. But of course the way you seem to act as if you know most everything, I am not surprised you don't want to answer that. Because either you look insensitive or you are by your own definition sexist. Of course there are many legit reasons why there is a difference. And instead of just answering the question, you throw out hypocritical things to deflect. But you seem to be making the biggest issue in this situation the use of the "n word" instead of the assault. But to answer your questions, there would not have been a release if it were a male of ANY race, and the outrage and outcome would have been the same for a woman of any race. So since you wanted to deflect about your family, even though I don't see why (unless obviously trying to avoid the question), you are a judge. You're telling me that if 2 assaults came in front of you, obviously guilty, that you look at them the same when one is a Male on Male, other Male on female? No, I dont mean legally. I'll give you 2 examples. How come in their respective highs, the UFC didn't have the mega fight of Ronda Rousey vs Connor McGregor? Or maybe I just live in the wrong part of the country, I don't remember hearing the phrase, "A man should never hit a man."