Gunz41

See Gip, this is another time that you appear to contradict yourself. I point it out for the simple fact that this back and forth has gone on BECAUSE of that. As in again, I have never said anything remote to ANY offensive player. The only thing I have said with it is say that I wouldn't do it no matter what the "grade". So now you say what I have said from the start. I don't think enough of myself to assume I had a thing to do with that. And you ask if it is important. I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. It doesn't really matter to me or others I am sure. But it is the reason that some of these things end up back and forth, and I don't know if it helps you with having a respected opinion. And don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of changing an opinion when presented with new data, I am speaking of to completely opposite takes in the same thread (likely day or less apart). But in your words, so be it. I don't need to post in this thread anymore. Have a good weekend

I don't know the answer on PFF. PFF can be once piece of data, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it for solid proof. They have their grading system/algorithm, but I don't trust that. Case in point, by their rankings. #11 Trent Williams, #15 Justin Jefferson, #17 Ryan Tannehill, #18 WYATT TELLER, #19 Garrett Bolles, #24 Jessie Bates, #27 Adrian Amos, #31 DJ Humphries, #35 Adam Thielen, #42 David Onyemata, #43 MYLES GARRETT, #44 DeMarcus Lawrence, #45 BAKER MAYFIELD, #46 JOEL BITONIO, #64 Jalen Ramsey, #90 David Montgomery, #91 Justin Herbert, #92 Folorunso Fatukasi And I don't remember the exact number, but in one of the last Browns games when they do their introductions at the beginning of the game, Jacob Phillips was ranked like #9 at his position (I believe it was over 75 eligible there.) As for his numbers, I believe he was going off my examples of saying that for instance all of those guys are 80 compared to examples of 90+ for the offensive guys. I believe that on the ESPN or maybe Kiper mock draft it had Slater as the 1st OL off the board, but again I used him as an example because of his versatility. You seem to not notice all of the times throughout that the word example is used. And I don't mean this to be mean, but I ha e wondered a few times now if you actually have forgotten what you wrote previously. Example: Not ONCE in this entire thread have I even hinted at an offensive player, in fact multiple times I have said the opposite. And you asked what PLAYER would give an improvement. I answered that can't be answered at this moment on multiple factors. And said you can't be focused on a position group (since you keep using LB). And then you ask if DEFENSE is a position group. NO, IDL, DE/EDGE, LB, CB, S are position groups. Trade down, sure. But in all these conversations the question has been about who to get with the Browns FIRST PICK, #26. If you want to change the conversation, then that is a different discussion

There is really no way to assess that at present, which is another reason why you can't be focused in on a certain position group. Free agency/i.e. pre draft determines a big part of a draft board. And comparing a draft grade to a NFL season/PFF will give you a false sense of value. I don't know the exact numbers, but Lawrence will have a 95+ grade (maybe even like 98). I doubt Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, etc. are there. Moreover, just take a position that has been THE need for Browns recently (now nobody would say so); OT. I would venture to guess that all the top guys in draft would have a higher number than either Wills or Conklin. And to continue with where I was and Unsympathetic added, you not only have to factor in the difference between what you have currently and what you would get, but also the corresponding parts with them, and the drop off to other needs. Again, these are just my opinions, but I absolutely don't like the only BPA idea. That is what I have been trying to say. If a Rashawn Slater is there at 26 with a 91 grade, and the best option on any defensive player is for example a 77. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I believe that Slater has played both G and T. But which of Wills, Bitonio, Teller, Conklin is replaced? Best player doesn't equate to best move or best team. Currently, with what is on the team (not factoring in FA, etc) and there are 4 guys at 4 positions all rated the same (Farley, Barmore, Collins, Rousseau), while I don't necessarily consider them THE biggest needs currently, I would probably be picking between Farley and Rousseau). That theoretically ends the look at those groups, and as referenced, will be on field more.

From my understanding (I know others on here know it better than I) is that the cap the next couple years will be altered by whatever the cap ends up at this year to offset the lower revenue from last year. Just picking numbers out of the sky, but say the cap is 180 this year, and should be 220 next year. If the revenue/offset from last year was at 160, then over the course of next couple years they will make up that 20 million. So instead of the 220 next year and year after, they would be 210. Just what I read or saw.

I think we may be using the same conclusion with different parameters. My "not 1 individual" can be simplified even more. With what the Browns currently have, I would NOT take an offensive player with the 1st pick. That includes any of those guys I used in my above example. To make it even simpler (at least in my wacky mind): Since most the "experts" have Lawrence as best prospect since... let's give him a 98 grade. Lets give those others 90+. Now, not saying they would be ranked that low, but let's say at #26 that Collins, Barmore, and Farley are available. And Those guys are at an 80 grade (as the top defensive guys left). That would be a decent grade difference. I STILL look at those guys. Sure, you may not end up with the best PLAYER, but in theory end up with a better, more balanced TEAM. Of course, none of it matters no matter who the pick is if you pick a bust.

You miss the point, not saying LB isn't a serious need, and probably the area in most need of help. What I am saying is that LB isn't the only position that contributes to stopping the run. Furthermore, what my message above was about is that even if you want to use the assumption (which again I think I proved erroneous since they were 9th) that the rush defense is absolutely horrendous/the cause of losing, can be helped multiple ways. As far as the 2nd part, In my opinion it would be a HUGE mistake to look at offense there, especially when you are already pretty good there. Look no further than the Cowboys last year. Their defense was MUCH worse than the Browns, yet they went with Lamb. He did have a better than average season, but it's more so what you are passing up to improve your TEAM, not just get the best value. But look no further, obviously not a single chance that it would happen, so purely hypothetical. Let's just say for arguments sake in this that the consensus Top 6 players available are: QB Lawrence, OT Sewell, WR Chase, TE Pitts, OT Slater, RB Harris. Now, say all 6 of them are available at that 26. And the top 3 defensive players left are your ranked 35,36,37 players. Obviously not nearly as highly ranked. You ready to get rid of Baker, especially with his progression and already being in the system? Not happy with either of the OT Browns had last year that was ranked #1 I believe. Then, which one? The one who will cost you a lot of dead money and has been a proven NFL player, or the #10 pick last year which performed well and thus then a wasted pick. WR: I can see it IF OBJ isn't a Brown, and other factors. But I do believe the compensation for OBJ will be VERY low opposed to talent. TE: Maybe, but I don't see Pitts being a Top dual player TE, and the only way this makes ANY sense is getting rid of Hooper (who is more dual threat). And then, with his contract the return would more than likely be low. RB: People complained that they didn't touch the ball enough in games last year. What do you think happens when you add another one? Chubb is easily a Top 3 RB right now, and Hunt can do anything and is pretty cheap. Then you also have to factor in what the new guys do to the chemistry to this team, that some think are right on the cusp. And their future. My point is that there is much more to think about than just the talent of 1 individual. But hey, what do I know?

Any defensive position. Don't get pigeon holed into a certain position. I may be more used to evaluating talent (not at the pro level obviously), but I can be just as wrong as anyone here. And even if you and I agreed on someone (just using us as examples), that doesn't mean that is what the team is thinking. Where you and I differ is that you seem to be focusing on one position to improve one source, I would look at what improves the overall defense (and I am not meaning that condescending). I don't know that I would subscribe to BPA even if say Chase or Smith were available (as assumed the top 2 WRs). But, assuming that the top 2 NEEDS were DE and LB, if Surtain or Farley is there, they are extremely hard to pass up. Where position specifc comes in for me is if for some wacky reason at 26 these guys are left: Parsons, Barmore, Farley/Surtain, Rousseau/Payette (just using the guys named as tops of position). At that point, I then look at position and what kind of drop off I could expect to my next pick at the other positions. But, like was said earlier in the thread by someone else, LB happens to be the RB of the defense in a lot of cases now. Really good ones are found later. For analysis, in the past 4 years: 2021: 3 OLB, 3 ILB non 1st rounders 2020: 3 and 4 (with the replacements( 2019: 2 and 2 2018: 2 and 4 That's around 50% And, it's very unrealistic to expect ANY team to be at that caliber at most positions, the cap comes a calling if it does. In all honesty, I see 2 guys for sure that are at least rotation guys in Takitaki and Phillips. If they can improve, then they will work.

Yes, and those other factors are.. more important than rush yards. So...it is just highly coincidental that the games the Browns gave up the most rushing yards are the games the lost? My goodness you must wear some combat boots because you just dig in. I will go back to your original post and use Word for word: "How many games we lost because we couldn't stop the run" You answered with those 5 games. Whether that is your INTENT or not, that is saying that the run game was the key reason in losing. Yet for passing yards you WANT to qualify that the yards are as a result of playing from behind. You don't give that same qualifier for rushing with the lead. But enough about that, if you refuse to see past anything but total rushing yards or circumstances then whatever. But I will even give you credit again, your conclusion is solid. If a team ends up with yardage at the end like that, it usually does indicate a loss. But your hypothesis that it was based mainly on the outcome is extremely flawed (in the same manner as passing yards thst you qualify). Now, as to looking too deep into it, yep that is what I do. I don't just take the final results and make a determination, I look at all the parts, all the data, all the circumstances and come up with my view. Apparently, you just look at the outcome and go no further. Perhaps that is the difference in a judge and teacher coach. But why not dive a little deeper. Heck, even put aside any kind of feelings of rivalry or whatever you think it is we have and answer this... Did you honestly know that in 10 games (including the blowout loss to Ravens) that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE held the opponent to less than their average? And would you be surprised to find out that on the season, the Browns defense was 9th in the league in rushing defense? Teams they were higher than include Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Buffalo, Tennessee, Kansas City. And let's be generous (as I don't know the exact number). Lets say that the league average is 4 ypc. The Browns would be 2 carries (6 yards total pg) away from being Top 6. They would then only have trailed TB (Super Bowl Champs, obviously the stoutest rush defense), Indianapolis (who they beat), LA Rams (which was overwhelming thought as best defense), NO (thought as a Top 3 defense), and Seattle. Even with those stats, I still believe that the Browns defense needs A LOT of improvement. But JUST by the numbers, that doesn't show that. And my other point was that if you put the bulk of blame of those losses on Rush defense, then when they outperform then they should get the credit. But just for fun: Why not go back and see how other teams did against the run in their losses. Again, CAUSE AND EFFECT. If it all depended on winning/losing based on rushing, then the league would try to adopt the Ravens offense. Or better yet, since you don't want to look any deeper, I will do it for you in ALL 6 losses. Baltimore 1- 111 total (25 of those on last possession up by 32). So 86 yards before then. Pittsburgh 1- 129 total (30 on last 2 possessions (not counting 3 kneels) up by 31). 99 before then Las Vegas- 209 total (horrible showing). 69 yards last 2 drives up by 10. So 140 before Baltimore 2- 231 total (another bad showing, but also a strange game). Most of Ravens yards late came through the air New York- 131 total (probably the worst of them as they were just BAD). Not even looking through that game Kansas City- 123 total (17 on final drive up by 5, 27 on final 2 drives up 5, 69 yards once Mahomes was injured). With Mahomes, the Chiefs rushed for 54 yards and were up 22-10). Without Mahomes, 69 yards rushing and 3 points. So using all 6 games, 2 in blowouts even, 3 of those opponents would be below 100 yards without running the clock out. As for the other 3 games: Raiders game ABSOLUTELY was lost as a result of RUSH DEFENSE being the major culprit. 2nd Ravens game- While Baltimore built up the early lead (and Stat book) early, Lamar throwing in the end actually made the difference. Jets game- defensive wise, yes I would agree that rushing played a big role (even though Jets had 0 TDs and only 6 1st downs off rushing), the main culprit of that loss was all the receivers being out, and questionable game plan to give Chubb and Hunt 15 carries TOTAL. So I look at these 6 games and when looking at the full story and not just one Stat (total rushing yards), my conclusions are: Lost 1 game on the backs of rushing D (Raiders), 1 game by a combination of rushing and late throws (2nd Ravens game), 2 games because of passing (1st Ravens game and Chiefs), 1 game from just being poor EVERYWHERE (Steelers), and one because of player availability/questionable strategy (Jets). My 2nd conclusion, the Browns need upgrades all over the defense. We have 1 for sure stud, 1 guy who is great when he plays, a few guys with promise, and some decent starter/rotation players.

You are actively trying to have it both ways, which as I said hurts credibility (and I am sure you don't care, but it goes to the reason you are called out, when coupled with the fact that you even jokingly try to sound superior). When the question was posed by someone about what games we lost because we couldn't stop the run... You didn't try to justify your stance, you simply named those 5 games. By only answering those teams, you appear (whether incidentally or not) to be saying that those games were lost being the main cause as rush defense. And when questioned about it,, instead of clarification on your stance, you double down.You don't seem to want to qualify cause and effect, just want to use one basic data point to substantiate your belief. And whether you know it or not, that is absolutely fools gold in analysis. Again, you are the one who always wants to appear so in the know and using databases to back up whatever you are trying to argue. Case in point, and I absolutely knew you would use some situational Stat for Jim Brown, which is the exact reason why I used that. You are ONLY using total rushing yards to try and bolster your point on the initial issue, not a thing more, not even a secondary rush Stat. Yet by that metric, JB isn't close. You see, you use different standards depending on your views. You see, what I have noticed with you is when you need to you will try to say that you were misunderstood (very well could be true from your initial perspective). But in that, you expect that you were misinterpreted by the other person, not because you were confusing which led to the misunderstanding. You see, just by answering the initial question without clarification, "rush defense" can be replaced with anything. Quarterback, rush offense, pass defense, etc. And even though I believe I already did, I will ask again in even simpler terms: 1. In the 1st Ravens game, the blowout, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (as your 1st comments showed) was the MAIN culprit (at least defensively) that the Browns lost? 2. In the playoff loss to the Chiefs, do you believe that the RUSH DEFENSE (again as you said the Browns lost because of) was the MAIN culprit for the loss? 3. By your OWN logic here, if those were losses because of RUSH DEFENSE, then are you also giving the Lions share of win against Titans to the RUSH DEFENSE? Again, ALL of this could be avoided by simply clarifying a position or even just saying "I see how that was misunderstood."

There are certainly many ways to categorize them, like by using your metric there, then it could easily be said in reverse that the defense was the reason they won the other games. You see how just focusing on one data point can skew an argument. In reality, there are multiple factors. I pointed out 2 games that YOU classified as games LOST as a result of RUSH DEFENSE. So again, let's look at those 2 games: 1. 1st Ravens game. The Ravens had 111 yards rushing, that is 80 yards LESS than their AVERAGE. They had an average of 171 passing, and passed for 270 in the week 1 loss, or 99 yards MORE than the average. So Gipper, in what world does your mind live in to see that and come to the conclusion that the Browns RUSH DEFENSE lost that game? 2. I again never disagreed about Raiders and Jets games. 3. The reason that rushing is lower for some games is in large part due to the opponent playing from behind, or just being a below average rushing team. But you don't want to factor in any of that into your equation. But let's just use ONE example to prove this. Would you say that the RUSH DEFENSE WON the Titans game? Their season average, 168. That day, 62. 4. Why don't we just look at where these teams ranked that they played last year. Bal-1 (Twice) Once over, once under Tenn- 2 Way under PHI-9 Under IND-11 Under LV-14 Way Over DAL- 17 Under NYG-19 Under NYJ-23 Over CIN-24 (Twice) Under Twice WASH-26 Slightly over JAX-29 Over HOU- 31 Slightly Under PITT-32 (Thrice) Over, Slightly Over, Under Chiefs-16 10 yards over Every team from Washington up averaged 100+. So in 18 games, compared to the teams average: Over: 8 Under: 10 So by pure data, it doesn't mesh. And that doesn't even factor in the multitude of other reasons. 3-5 in those over games (5 point Ravens loss, Steelers loss, Raiders, Jets, Chiefs). So do you want to say that the rush defense was mainly responsible for those 10 under games (9-1 in those games; blowout loss to Ravens)? Again, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO disagreement on the Raiders and Jets games. So that leaves your assessment that BOTH Ravens games and Chiefs games were losses as a result of the rush defense. Earlier in this post I gave the numbers for the 1st Ravens game, so not doing that one again. The omitted Steelers game (that you didn't name as a game the rush defense lost: they were way above their average, and overlooked that their 1st 5 games they were over 100 each game. Chiefs game: even if we want to completely gloss over Mahomes going out (maybe you are of the opinion Henne is equal to PM)??? Anyway, let's go off the premise that they had zero drop off from Mahomes with Henne, and that it didn't change their game plan when Mahomes went out. The Chiefs led the league in passing (no real surprise). What is a surprise, they went OVER their average. But go ahead and have the opinion that it was on the rush defense (I'll even give you the benefit of doubt and say you are meaning majority or a preponderance.) But you see sir, when you get set in a mold of being about the numbers/stats/facts, and when presented with them being a different reality it seriously hurts credibility. A conclusion can certainly be correct even with flawed data to support it. Just as in this case. The conclusion of not having adequate LBs/rush defense is true. But, the numbers do not support that. Just as the conclusion that Jim Brown is best RB ever would be correct in my opinion, but the numbers wouldn't give that conclusion.

You missed the point. I in fact specifically said that none of that was to say it wasn't bad. But I always feel that even if the conclusion is correct, if you use incomplete data to achieve that conclusion then the method is flawed. But I will say it again, Ravens led the league in rushing, that is their game. That doesn't mean that the Browns in any way didn't get beat because of their run defense. So with that single data point you are correct. And note that I didn't say a single word about the Raiders or Jets game. But since you are a person who likes history, data, etc. This should be up your alley. You mentioned BOTH Ravens games. Ravens 111 rushing, 270 passing in 1st game. Wouldn't that appear to contradict your point? Especially when you left off Steelers when they rushed for 129 in their win over Cleveland? More data needed to show you using BOTH Ravens games, Ravens highest passing game of the season, yep the 1st Browns game. And the Chiefs game, Mahomes threw the ball 30 times in 2 1/2 quarters for 255 yards. KC scored 6 points from the time Mahomes went out, and 3 of those were on the drive he went out. And 312 of their yards came with Mahomes in. So the 1st Ravens game and the Chiefs game were NOT lost because of run defense. At least not as the main reason. To me, when you have 5 examples and 2 of them don't fit into the conclusion you are using bad parameters. Had you used another metric to say how bad the rush defense was, sure no qualms because that conclusion is correct. And even with your current argument had you just omitted those games then it makes your stance.

One of these doesn't belong on the list (ahem, SB loser). Sure, if you want to isolate 1 play on a scramble then yes. But the reason for that loss was passing. Ravens led the league in rushing, and only playing the Browns twice, that isn't ALL on the Browns. None of that means the Browns didn't have a bad defense, but it also doesn't mean that every game they lost was on the run defense, in fact the only loss you didn't name was the 1 to the Steelers. And they outrushed both Ravens 1st game and Chiefs. And I believe around 5 yards lower than Jets

Who is Calvin Williams? I think Matthews AND Boselli AND Faneca have WAY more reason to be in over this Williams guy

Detroit has the 7th pick

I Into ALL of it. But let's just start with you wanting to blame this on Hopkins trade, which was pointed out the extension was signed MONTHS after. Which was the point in the mentioning he doesn't get some kind of better deal by signing that extension. And sorry Mr. Know it all, have to have some kind of strong opinion on something (even when you don't even know the subject), and refuse to admit anything is wrong with anything, but I REFUSE TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU. If you want to learn, go online and find the many articles, reports, etc. on it. It might not make you appear so uninformed. As for the guys to listen to, I dunno it was within the last month you said multiple times that the "experts" were the only people's opinions you take (aside from yourself I am sure). But of course we already know that you believe you know more than them so don't know why I even bothered. As for health, no that was not REPORTED anywhere, but it absolutely was in the post you replied to, and one of the reasons why Harden/Watson situation can be viewed differently. And you honestly have to be the dumbest smart person I have seen. Especially when you contradict yourself in the same post. So you acknowledge that it's reported that Watson wants out even if they hired his choice, yet the Texans may think it could help resolve issues if they did? And if THEY believe that, why shouldn't you???? The way you act, there is no denying why people have said they blocked you. But you won't get away with your idiotic stuff with me Ghoolump (figure it out smart guy, multiple people have said your messages remind of BOTH of them. Oh, and P.S., if it is the hour that you want to trust the "experts", people in the know, etc. Then Watson preferred destination is the Jets. And wouldn't you know it, their new head coach is NOT BLACK. Since it has been REPORTED that the final 2 for Texans was Bienemy and Frazier, lets assume one gets the job. For your "want for a Black coach" (we won't even mention GM again), he would have to Stay in HOU, Go to Pittsburgh, or Go to Miami. So since you went out of your way to want to make it racially motivated (and others besides me on here and certainly almost every report is against that as well), it appears you have a 9.375% chance of even having a conversation of it being about race.

Maybe do a little more research Gipper. Sure, Maybe trading Hopkins irked him (it would anyone), but his extension was signed after the trade. And you are entitled to any opinion you want, but when you have said on here about trusting the guys in the know then you should be held to that standard, not just when it appeases you. There are many places online you can easily find the timeline for these things. But, in fact it has been said that even if they were to in fact to hire Bienemy (sounds like his choice) that he would still want out. Now on to the other things, sure a contract is binding, I wasn't questioning that. What I was saying is that his mindset that seems to have changed since he signed the contract could have changed. That seems like a no Brainerd honestly. He wouldn't have signed it if he planned to want out, for whatever reason that is. There are no "Bird Rules" type deals in the NFL, so staying with the Texans doesn't offer him any more money. And no, James Harden isn't a good answer to me. The ONLY thing you can point to as being similar is wanting to go somewhere with a better chance to win. You obviously missed the ENTIRE point of health etc. There is no greater chance of Harden being hurt in Houston as opposed to Brooklyn, where as in the NFL there certainly is (not Houston in particular). Add to the fact that Houston tried multiple times to find guys to help Harden via big talents, and Texans made TERRIBLE moves. And I am sure that if they do get a trade pulled off that they would rather it be NFC, but a lot of things would have to fall that way. But I will end with your question about reverse racism. Sure that can be a thing, but as I ALREADY pointed out, and you didn't say minority you said BLACK, that one of the 2 guys he wanted them to INTERVIEW is in fact NOT BLACK. Add that to the fact that we aren't talking about guys who aren't qualified (All 3: Khan, Riddick, and EB are mentioned for multiple jobs each time and certainlyqualified) there is no need to question it being racially motivated.

I view it completely different (and there has been cases where it has happened, maybe just not as big a name). But anyway, the way I see it, it's more than just Hopkins, it's more than not hiring "his guy", etc. They specifically ASKED him opinion, i.e. wanted his take, and also had some kind of expensive algorithm to help with their search. And they went against both. But like you said, it's their right. All I can say is that I would feel disrespected in that circumstance. And from reporting I read (from the top in the know guys), Watson didn't even expect Texans to hire someone he endorsed, but it was the fact they didn't even talk to them. And Gipper, has nothing to do with you or your political views, but that is a HORRIBLE take with regard to wanting someone black, when one of the 2 guys he was reported to wanted Texans to interview (and the one the firm determined was the choice) was Omar Khan. He ISN'T BLACK. And you also have to factor in how screwed the franchise is with picks, cap, etc., and even factor in what it seems the view of the owner is. I don't know that there is really a way to compare the situation with anything, not even another sport. You obviously have a shelf life like in other sports, but in football you also have a greater risk of injury, especially when your team is bad (i.e. OL). Pointing out that he signed the contract becomes less substantial when circumstances change afterwards. And it's not like the Texans would be giving him away, it sounds like they would be substantially rewarded and also help the cap space.

If you want to think it's a rabbit hole then ok. Again, I am not arguing ANYTHING you said for your points there. I simply replied to you replying to him why not us and then changing the parameters of what you were replying to. It may not have even been your intent to change them, but if you don't see how you did this, then I am done trying to explain it after this post. The post you replied to (and just said why you replied) was talking about taking a discount, and I believe it said something about 10m, and said it would be 1 team, and not us. You replied with why not us, and then you used 17m. So you using 17m (current deal) is not a discount, which means you are comparing different situations. Which was my only point the entire time. So I will go a step further now. I would have ZERO issue with the Browns getting him at current deal or a reduced one. I think he certainly fits, and I would think it would be something the Browns look at. And as for the rest, I have already agreed about the stigma. This has nothing to do with your view on JJ Watt or anything like that. But only your apparent taking offense to me just pointing out that I view you using a different argument than what was originally used

You are still Missing the point. None of what you just said is wrong. But when someone lays out a topic and within that topic says 1 team, and it ain't us... When you reply why not us, that would then appear to be questioning the person you replied to, fair to say? And when you then change the terms of what was said, you are making a different argument. I.e. when Tour2ma said take a discount... you can't then discuss his current contract and why it would be fine and a fit. Those are 2 different bullet points on the same topic. None of that means he wouldn't go to Cleveland, wouldn't be a fit, that there is still a stigma, etc. What it means is that Pittsburgh can offer something that NO other team can offer. That's all it is. And like I said, I don't even have an iota of an idea why you brought up being 2 hours away. If you think that is even in the same universe as being on the same team, and thus seeing them every day, then you just appear to not understand that kind of bond. You obviously just picked out something to respond to and didn't read the rest of the thread. What you quoted had NOTHING to do with me saying yay or nay on Watt. It was pointing out the difference between discussing JJ and being willing to take a pay cut to potentially play with his brothers and then using 17 to say he could play in CLE. Those are separate arguments on the same topic.

Don't disagree. But that wasn't what you replied to with Tour. He specifically said that if JJ were to take a discount it would only be one team and it wouldn't be Cleveland. Then you replied and asked why not us? You are arguing something totally different than what you replied to. If the question is JJ at 17m and would he play in Cleveland at that price, I would think so. If the question is if he would be a good fit, I certainly believe so. But if the question (which is what Tour said and reason I replied) is would CLE be his 1 choice at a reduced cost, then I think that would be a absolute no. And I can't say I understand the logic behind the rest of that post at all. There is certainly a big difference in being 2 hours away and being teammates with your brothers. Sure, the 2 hours is closer than present, but there is a HUGE difference. A good example (not comparing the players caliber at all), but there has been some talk that LeBron may stay in the NBA long enough to play with Jr. Of course he would have to make the league. But since there is no way to know where Jr. would end up, but if those talks are correct the goal would be to play with family, not necessarily who can win, best fit, etc. And I think we would all agree that the Browns have lost the stigma and that he wouldn't be opposed to playing opposite Myles. But he also wouldn't be opposed to playing with Donald, Jones, Smiths, Barrett, etc; and aside from Donald, all those other guys would seemingly give him the better chance to win a championship (i.e. Chiefs, Packers, Bucs). Again, I am not saying JJ won't go to Cleveland, that he wouldn't be a fit, or anything like that. I am saying that by what Tour2ma posted and you subsequently replied and asked "Why Not", that is why not

You saying why not us, then bring up his current 17 million. When Tour2ma post was saying IF he were willing to take a huge paycut it wouldn't be for the Browns. From his EXACT post (which is what I replied about) he said that list is 1. If you don't want to see the reasoning behind playing with his brothers, ok. Even taking them out, there are teams that would be more likely to give JJ an opportunity to win a championship next year

And the sister of HOF Jason Taylor

He's meaning team that he would be willing to take a massive pay cut to play for.

Well, it depends on what you want to consider as at the top. Just going to go off the simple "average" When Mahomes got 10/503 , Watson 4/156, Wilson 4/140 or Mahomes: 50.3, Watson 39, Wilson 35. I could certainly be wrong, but I'll say that while Baker might end up in say Top 10 at the time, he won't go over 30. Sure still a whole lot and 20 more than currently, but putting it into perspective with Mahomes, 30 is 40% less. And I think that it could work out either way for the Browns, but Berry did say no extension yet.

I think part of something you may be overlooking with Chubb/Hunt is the discount the Browns received for multiple reasons with Hunt, i.e. negative history and being a cog. If Hunt becomes the main guy, his price probably goes up. As for Baker, he has taken a HUGE step forward, and as evidenced earlier in year I am in camp Baker and think the Browns have found their guy. And sure, some of these guys on TV just have an ulterior motive, but to this point by the numbers, the Browns are 5-15 when he throws 35+ times. Of course there are many reasons for that. In my opinion, unless it's an astronomical number, Chubb HAS to be extended if the Browns are to reach their lofty goals. Sure, most guys would have success behind the current line, but Chubb had great success when the line was thought to be very poor. There are only two guys on the team that I would say are MUST extends over Nick, and one (Myles) has already gotten his. And Baker almost certainly won't be at the top of market for QB