Gunz41

You still aren't getting it Gip. I didn't give my assessment at all, so I certainly didn't say you were right or wrong on any of those. My ENTIRE point was that you can't expect a fan of another team to say that he would trade his team for another. And the other point I was making is that one, you certainly don't speak for everyone like you said to him multiple times, and 2 that guys that say they are fans (whether it is someone who posts a lot like you, or lesser extent me and a lot of others, or even the guys who seem to only show up negatively (which I certainly called out), have most certainly had varying degrees of negatives about guys on this team. So obviously everyone isn't on the same page for every player. I was just saying that I can recall only 10 who weren't talked about in that manner during this season. So tron having negative feelings about his guys at the moment aren't any different than what was said about Baker, OBJ, DPJ, etc. You replied to me, thus me saying nobody calling you off base. I don't know what everyone says or feels. All I know is that I read something about you bringing this topic up multiple times, and I have personally seen that the last 3 years, including at the beginning of this season. I won't go all players, but here are a few QB: Yes at this moment anyone would take Mayfield going forward, but that has to do with age. If Mayfield has anywhere close to as good of a career as BR then the Browns will be excellent for YEARS. Baker had a slightly better year this year as well. RB: There is no question here WR: By skill, the top 2 Browns are better than Steelers and next 2 are better for Pittsburgh OL: Not a question at all, especially with age. But it's not like Pittsburgh has a terrible Jets/Bengals like OL DL: Yes Browns have by far the best single player, but as a unit Pitt may have slight edge. LB: No question Pittsburgh DB: Pittsburgh has the best player (Minkah), then would be Ward. As a unit, from what we have actually seen, this isn't much different than the Browns advantage on OL or Pitt advantage at LB. Now that I went up and read yours, we don't differ that much, but I do believe in my opinion that it's a slight cop out to call DBs a wash because of injuries. Half of what is expected to be the starters is based solely on hopeful expectations. That would be like saying Green Bay has the best backup QB in the league because they have a 1st rounder and he seems to have loads of potential.

Nobody seemed to think you were off-base, you were off base because you have done it MULTIPLE times each of the past 3 years. But obviously you didn't actually read what I wrote, or failed to understand it. Even IF EVERY player would be in Cleveland favor, most people would say they wouldn't trade their team for another team. That is part of being a fan of YOUR team. As for saying Baker, OBJ, etc. My point was nowhere near that Steelers had someone better or anything close to it. My point, that has not changed whatsoever is that while our Steelers friend may be complaining about a few of his players and coaches, during THIS season, the one where NOBODY here (according to you) would trade with Steelers, the only players who I can recall not being talked about negatively by either supposedly Browns fans or even a few guys who do in fact regularly post are the OL, Chubb, Hunt, Landry, Hooper, and Garrett. That would appear then that the board collectively (no not individually, but you wanted to speak for the board as a whole) is sold on 10 out of 22.

Guys, sure there is a bit of a difference being on an opposing teams forum, but Mr. Tron is to me not a troll. He actually posts even when they aren't playing, and he certainly isn't as bad as some so called Browns fans (and no, not saying ones that post regularly). Now I completely disagreed with his talk and reasoning prior to and not long after the game, but he seems like a good guy. As for what he has said in this thread about not trading... that is what most people are going to say. I mean just take a look (in your memory) at some of the talk on here with regards to some of the Browns earlier this year. People were ready to give up on Baker, OBJ, every defensive player not named Myles and Denzel (and even a few with him), Njoku, Peoples Jones, Higgins. And if you do indeed think he is trolling, continuing to go after him would in fact be giving him exactly what he wants.

Exactly where did I say that the Steelers didn't play bad? You won't find that because it doesn't exist. But you are the one who offered up that you won't run and will eat your crow. You just firmly believed you wouldn't have to. And issue what response? You have many times said that the Steelers turned their season back around based on the 2nd half of Colts game. So by simple deduction, you were discounting the previous 3 losses as behind them. And since they sat some guys in Week 17, and since you yourself admitted how bad they were over the 3 previous games, you had 1 promising half in the last 16. Which means, going into a playoff game that you were supremely confident about, that you had no worry over, and even overlooked when discussing what you could do when playing well, you would have seen what you wanted in 6.25% in over a month. Now, to your premise about how bad the Steelers looked, yep no question about it. Some of their own doing and some of the Browns doing. But trying to get away with the "we outscored you last 3 quarters" is a HUGE excuse. And I thought honestly you were better than that. And now honestly I have lost respect for you when you are saying you are leaving. Not because you are a Steelers fan, not because you have some opinion I disagree with, but because you went out of your way to make it clear to everyone that no matter the outcome you would be here. And we know good and well that had the outcome been in your favor that you would be here hounding others, especially Gipper. Now if you want to have a real discussion about the game, then by all means we can. And you don't even have to admit that Browns are better, but you haven't really given them credit. You have said they deserved to win (which only means that for some reason they were the better team that day). But when you qualify it with "Steelers played terrible", that is not giving credit, that is explaining it off. And trying to say it's on me (anyone else) that differs in observation because you know what you saw. 1, you are seeing that from a biased perspective (nothing wrong with that), but to act like because YOU saw it that way it has to be that way is wrong. And I know, and you do as well, I KNOW how to evaluate a football game. In conclusion, I have no issue at all with you being of the opinion that had Pittsburgh played better then they would have won. All I am saying is that maybe factor in that aside from the 1st play Browns were some of the reason they played terrible in your words. And I think that your conclusion could have merit, but the evidence you are trying to use to support that view is incredibly flawed, ridiculous, and borders on excuses.

Well I guess you get credit for changing your terrible argument of 1 half to now 1 quarter. And apparently you forgot the part where you said you don't make excuses and would come eat your crow. Trying to use the excuse, "well we scored more after..." Or the "when we play our best" But let's keep going with your narrative even after losing Bush and Dupree that had best defense. Well exactly how did this GREAT defense give up 41? But we can overlook that. And this assertion (from any decent team) that IF we played our best... almost every team will win if you play your best. Most teams will win if they play their best. You wanted so bad to discredit everything that was said about the rushing, and you had 52 yards. And don't forget you saying NOBODY could run on Steelers, hmm 127 yards. And you may want people to ignore it, but at either 21 or 28 to 0, you came on here and declared it was over and you were thinking about turning it off. But now we are supposed to give credit for you outscoring them over 3 quarters? And you can pretend if it makes you feel better that the Browns didn't change up their strategy in 2nd half which allowed those scores. But at NO TIME did the game seem in doubt. And I know you want to ignore your constant assessment that the Steelers turned it around or whatever against the Colts, and got right/healthy. And since the Browns won, that means they were 2-1 against Steelers, and that the Steelers (who weren't trying to win) last week kept it CLOSER than these Steelers that were now back to the 11-0 team. Just think, the Steelers had the same amount of wins against Cleveland (and a worse win %) as did the Bengals over the Steelers Maybe, just maybe the Browns were the BETTER team.

Hmm. I guess it was like I said, one good half. Or maybe it was that the Steelers lost it again??? Oh wait, they were worn out coming into this game. See, your team, the one you wanted to tout as best in the league, they even had the same opportunity to do what they did against Colts. If it will make it easier on you, I will go out and get the crow for you, I'll even cook it. You want it Baked? Grilled? Fried? What it in a meal?

Obviously you just aren't comprehending or actively trying to avoid. 1. At NO time when you were complaining (along with A LOT of others) about the 3 games did you mention anything aside from how unfair it was to play 3 games in 12 days, in fact I have seen (maybe you, maybe somewhere else that it has never been done. Just go ahead and admit it man, you didn't think about anyone else or what those 12 days could resemble. But, since you have now moved the goalposts, lets score again. Jets AND 49ers both had week 4 Bye Weeks in 2019. And guess what, BOTH had 3 games in 12 days. So again, YOU using this as history is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Now, are you prepared for that crow that you said others would be eating? 2. Obviously with you bringing up last week to try and make your point you think that it proves it? But I am not sure what point you think you are making? IF the point you are trying to make is that the Steelers are better than the Browns based on that game (especially when you factor in full strength), I won't argue with you. If I were a betting man, I probably would say that. But trying to use it as an opposition to my point it is incredibly weak attempt. But maybe it is that you didnt understand my point and how it counteracts previous statements by you. 1. You used that ONE HALF (For whatever reason you want to use, healthy, Ben calling plays, etc), to justify them being back. And since you are at least insinuating that they are back to pre slide form, then you are now the "undefeated" Steelers. That doesn't factor in losing 2 really good LBS, lack of running game, etc. 2. It still doesn't explain how a team gets healthy at halftime of a game. 3. The other games mentioned obviously went over your head, or at the very least you just ignored. Since I said that Steelers were better than Colts, you can't say I am using it as some way to discredit your team. And my post has absolutely ZERO to do with the Browns. I am pointing out that your reasoning is extremely flawed, especially when coupled with the above games. A half or even full game can skew data and thus conclusion. So just answer this, IF the Browns were to win today, does that mean that what happened in the Colts 2nd half was an illusion? Or does it mean that the 1st 11 games was an illusion? Or conversely, if the Steelers blow the Browns out, does it mean that the 1st half vs. Titans was an illusion? Or even look at it in an even more simpler way. Since we can throw out last week since the Steelers played some backups, lets say Pittsburgh wins today 28-24 (just a random score), does that mean the Browns are better without Stefanski? I mean off of 2 halves, they made a +27 point differential. Or again, say the Browns jump to a 21-7 halftime lead, and Steelers win 28-24, does that mean that Steelers got healthy and turned season around at halftime? Or vice versa, does it mean Browns did the same and turned everything around? Or since the Browns aren't a match for Steelers, lets say that Steelers play Bills next week. If the Bills beat Steelers 12+ next week, does that mean that Steelers were actually better during that time they were so limited? Or even more, does it mean they were just out of gas by then? Maybe it's just me, and maybe I just have too much experience, but I seem to think that when someone wins its because they were better (whether it was that day or that season). So instead of some huge meaning behind one half of football (which could be true or could be false), maybe it was the fact that Pittsburgh was better than Indianapolis. I know, such a novel idea. As for the last point about Rudolph, where do I start? 1, there is a reason he isn't a starting QB, but let's look past that. 2. He certainly wasn't throwing an INT on purpose. 3. Every QB, from GOATs to 3rd stringers make mistakes. Brady, Brees, Montana, Rodgers, Mahomes, Roethlisberger, Bradshaw, etc all have thrown INTs, some of them came at terrible times and cost their team a game.

Come on man, you are making yourself look like a troll with some of these posts. 1. You never replied to being pointed out that your argument how unfair 3 games in 12 days was sooooooo unfair, when most teams do that yearly (Sunday, Sunday, Thursday or vice versa) 2. You want us to believe you that the team the 1st 11 weeks was the REAL Steelers, yet you continue to point out the amount of injuries they have had. These things can certainly be looked at as just being a fan. So you are given a pass on them as not "excuses", BUT... 3. The notion that Pittsburgh (as the example being used) has turned everything back around based on ONE HALF of football is (in my best Stephen A Smith voice, "Asinine, Asiten, Asieleven, Asitwelve" Here are some notable games THIS year of games that one half didn't tell the story: Week 2: Chargers over Chiefs Week 4: Chargers over Bucs Week 5: Vikings over Seahawks; Raiders over Chiefs; Bonus entire game: Titans by 26 over Bills Week 6: Eagles over Ravens (2nd half like yours); Bonus- Bucs by 28 over Packers Week 7: Titans 2nd half over Steelers Week 8: Vikings over Packers Week 10: Patriots over Ravens; Colts 2nd half over Titans Week 11: Colts over Packers Week 12: Falcons over Raiders by 37 Week 13: Washington over Steelers, Browns 1st half vs Titans Week 14: Eagles vs Saints Week 15: Bengals over Steelers, Jets over Rams, Falcons 1st half vs Bucs Week 16: Jets over Browns, Falcons most of game vs. Chiefs; Bonus- since you want to point that game out, what about the FIRST HALF of Colts Steelers Now, do you see how strange it seems that you want to use one half of football to say that your whole season has turned around? You see man, I think that Pittsburgh was better than both Washington and Cincinnati by A LOT. I think they are better than the Colts. But they lost those 1st two for whatever reason. I just think it is ridiculous to use one half of a football game to justify being back, just as either one half/or game above didn't show that for those teams. I mean couldn't the Colts do the EXACT same thing and say they lost it for a period of time, but "look at what we did 1st half." Or did the Chiefs "lose it" every week in playoffs last year? Or if the Browns jump to a big lead and Steelers come back, did you turn it all around again? Or if Steelers jump out and Browns come back, did they get it all back? Instead of just saying "Steelers had a great half and showed what they are capable of", you went with what you did. I don't know how a team can be worn down by all they went through and rejuvenate at halftime of a game???

Spin, spin, spin. Everyone here seems to agree with me that you do in fact act like Ghoolie, except for the fact that he didn't appear to believe his own crap. And no, I have nothing with you. I just like making people who want to think they are superior look dumb. And you do it every time. And it is actually hilarious to me (I wonder how with no sense of humor) that you specifically got called out recently and you promptly STFU. And again you have proven my point for me. Maybe 1st time (even though there was no evidence of it) you could have been joking. Not something I would think most would find funny, but hey people sometimes have dark sense of humor. But instead of even saying that the 2nd time, you dug deeper, and accused Everyone else here of it as well. Now as for your other parts, you absolutely alluded to not wanting to admit they even had the conversation. And I don't give one damn if you find me boring. Most everyone here respects me and what I have to say. I don't need to turn to typical deflecting techniques to try and prove a point/opinion. Now running along with your superfluous flummery, you got some trivia questions to look up, that you couldn't answer without the key, but use to try to prove how smart you are.

My gosh, you act more and more like Ghoolie or worst all the time. 1. I will absolutely guarantee I don't want anyone to have to go through it. All you want to call it is perverse, without thinking of those consequences. Again, over a football game. And one that you have NEVER had a single stake in as anything except a fan. 2. You obviously do now have a part of you that is in fact a troll. Because you don't even care what you have said in the past. You, along with many others have spoke of how the league wants to screw the Browns. My point was, you think that the league had all the time to sit around and think of that, but don't discuss how to operate during a pandemic. 3. Yes genius, I have as much evidence as you do lack of evidence that it was discussed. But I will even let you have you thoughts that 2 weeks or so ago when you brought it up that it was the 1st thought of doing it. Despite the fact that other sports did it MONTHS before you suggested it, and that I even saw it weeks ago being discussed about this situation all over TV. As for the 1st point, yes it is delusional for you to think that it wasn't even discussed in some manner. Even if it was something very informal. But that isn't the point of it. It is incredibly dumb, stupid, asinine, whatever word you want to use for you to want evidence of a conversation between parties that I am not a part of. Again most of this has nothing to do with some perceived rivalry you think you have with me. In this post, your little Gipper persona has displayed that HE is a disgusting person, and all over a football game. And instead of like most times when you try to spin it or even the better way and say you just took it too far , you dug in and justified feeling that way by saying others do too.

Well, how would I have evidence of conversations with the league? That is just incredibly dumb of you to ask. If you want tangible proof that something is discussed to think this wasn't some novel idea by you (apparently one who is so much smarter and looking ahead) then you won't get it. Of course, you said something about it a couple weeks ago. And every other pro sports had a version, but NO, the NFL didn't even know that. The NFL had no other business to think on, discuss, etc. except for ways to screw the Cleveland Browns. As for the rest, maybe you should reach out to the league and let them know how easy it would be to institute your plan. I'm guessing they will pay you very handsomely if you can help. And since I am an honest person that doesn't dig into a point, I will admit I had forgotten about the Colts win. But the premise behind me bringing it up still stands. If it were the Browns losing a home playoff game you would have at least a bit of pause on not caring how it effects teams. And for you (and any others thinking that way) not caring if other teams have an outbreak is absolutely despicable. For one, you have no clue what the outcome would be for them, both currently or future. But more than likely, yes, they would be OK themselves. But they could absolutely pass it on to others who wouldn't be. You really should be ashamed to have even thought that way. Over a football game. In no way with any kind of back and forth we have, or anything else even close. I am absolutely DISGUSTED by you. You just went way past Ghoolie on filth factor. Again, congratulations, you just got me to do something. You just said that disgusting comment because of a FUCKING FOOTBALL GAME.

Again, you actually thinking that they didn't explore it is delusional. And no, doing it now would be a complete logistics nightmare. But I am certainly not going to go into all of that. All I will further comment, is just imagine how you would feel as a Chiefs or Packers player that EVERYTHING changes on you last minute and 90% of the advantage you EARNED is taken away. Or even look at it in your orange colored glasses. I think everyone (even the Jets) would agree that if the Browns weren't without the WR that they would have won. Which would now have them sitting in 3rd and hosting. You think it would be right for NFL to take their EARNED PO game away? Basically, I am saying that since a move doesn't make things worse for the Browns that you don't have another thought on it. But if it did, you would show more of an inclination to dive deeper, even if you came to the same conclusion.

On top of that question, I will add another statement: Comparing the situation now to weeks ago for say Baltimore and Pittsburgh is a lot different. They actually had time built in (i.e. more weeks), AND the outcome of the games didn't effect the preparation for others. Let's just assume that the favorites win their games this weekend; remaining teams would be: 1. Chiefs 2. Bills 5. Ravens; the outcome of the Browns/Steelers effects every one of those. I'm not saying that the NFL shouldn't explore options, even moving everything back. But to just act as if they are the same is very short sighted. As for Gippers idea (no offense, but you are posting like this is a novel idea that you came up with), but anyway... In my opinion, those almost have to be done in Green Bay and Kansas City. Those teams were of the impression that they would be at home throughout playoffs. If you take that away, you are then taking away an advantage they earned. Yes, I understand that this is a serious pandemic and a very unusual situation, but it is also much different than the NBA and MLB. Those had much more time to decide on it, and also didn't have to factor in weather, and also much smaller groups. I think it is way too late to institute a full bubble. I think the best that could hope for (and still not exactly an easy thing) is a mandatory quarantine for every remaining team. That would mean only around other football personnel. And ideally that would mean ONLY virtual meetings.

I certainly am not going to get into another back and forth with you, especially when a guy (Fisher), who would still be considered one of the Top coaches made that choice, so for whatever reason HE didn't see it as a step down??? But since you asked: And I am not going back 20 years, and it certainly would be foolish to go back any further, and it certainly depends on what is considered competed for a championship, but: 2008: Utah, Texas Tech, Boise State all Top 10; no FSU OR TAM 2009: Cincinnati, Boise State, Georgia Tech Top 10; no FSU or TAM 2010: Arkansas, Boise State Top 10; TAM-17, FSU 23 2011: Arkansas, Boise State Top 10; no FSU or TAM 2012: TAM 9, FSU 12 2013: Florida State won title, TAM 21 1st 3 years of CFP, Florida State was ranked and TAM wasn't. Coincidently (sarcasm), that was with Fisher. Then in 4 years since, TAM twice in, FSU 0. But, by your logic here, whether your intention or not, Boise State is a better job than either. And I don't think you believe that. My point in showing that is that using one metric backs you into a corner when there are many variables. But just to answer your other question as to what else base it on; salary, existing roster, exposure, etc. As far as the rest, you should know me well enough to know that I am not just pulling this Harbaugh stuff out of the air. It has been discussed A LOT (which would be a media report) every year. He obviously didn't take those jobs. But there are others who have been reported the same way and didn't take the job. As far as the Urban stuff, I am not the one that brought up Arizona, you did. And you did that without any other thought about what could be seen as serious downfalls for why he would probably never do that. There is obviously nothing wrong with not thinking of those, but when they are pointed out, instead of just saying something like didn't think thst way, you dig in to further explain yourself. So ask yourself this, since Arizona was viewed that way in your mind; would you also think that way about: UCF, South Florida, San Jose State, Fresno State, etc? I picked those teams for a reason, good weather, all finished better than Arizona, and quite a few yearly finish better. And it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, for someone who has certainly had his fair share of health issues to just jump back in to coaching for a "soft spot" where as pointed out multiple times, 1. He doesn't need to and 2. Would be at a competitive disadvantage to competing for titles. I just ask for you to actually think about it, why would Urban do that? What would be his motivation? And why, if that was the best option he had (with his obviously big status and track record) would he not just wait until a better option reached out?

I think you didn't fully get my point. Like you alluded to, and that my point was pointing out to Gipper is that unless a GREAT opportunity (that would be perceived by that individual) is extended, there is no need to jump back in. For Urban, maybe that is NFL, maybe it comes with one of the top NCAA schools, but in my estimation, it wouldn't come from a BIG downgrade in college jobs. Just having a want to get back in doesn't mean you jump at the 1st decent job, where you certainly wouldn't be afforded the same opportunity as your previous gig. That's all I was pointing out. Well, I mean these things can't be "proven" unless they interview, but it would seem awfully far fetched to believe that multiple jobs every year he is one of the names brought up. Like I said, I don't think he would be the best hire, but the more likely scenario is that he in fact wants to stay where he is. Whether that is a good decision or not is debatable, but when you factor in its his Alma mater, none of us know what kind of control he would be offered in NFL, etc. As for Jimbo Fisher, I think you are looking at it too much on history and tradition. I'll say it like this, at worst it could be considered a SMALL step down (which doesn't factor in salary, etc). Florida, Texas, and California are the 3 highest producing states for prospects which is already a built in advantage, then you have the programs like Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Ohio State that can get prospects based solely on success and exposure. There is a HUGE difference in going from Florida State to Texas AM and Ohio State to Arizona. Just a rough estimate, but... ACC: Florida State is probably 3rd in their conference as the destination (Clemson, Miami). Thst can change here and there between 2-5. Big 10: That is obviously a no Brainerd Big 12: Texas and Oklahoma 1-2 every year there, usually in thst order. SEC: Texas AM probably 5, behind Alabama, Georgia, LSU and Florida Pac 12: USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford all easily ahead. I'll put it simple, I will come on and gladly accept I was wrong if Urban became the coach at ANY school other than the following. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, USC. That gives me 9 schools, you get the rest. Care to take those odds?

You answered your own question. Why would someone take a lesser job? Whatever reason (all above board or not) you want to attribute to UM leaving schools, he has absolutely improved his situation every time. He didn't leave anywhere because he was struggling. So since you like your history, go ahead and name a coach who "traded down" jobs when they weren't let go at the previous? If you want a comparison with UM currently, use Gruden. He had a very nice high paying job in the booth. 10 years between coaching jobs. Do you really think that Raiders was the only opportunity he had in those 10 years? This is just obvious OSU bias Gipper, or at the very least just disliking Harbaugh. He is routinely talked about for NFL jobs. While I don't think he is the best candidate for any of these jobs, there is no denying the success he had in the NFL. There also is no denying that he seems to wear out his welcome quickly. Take out this year, as should be done with any Big 10 and Pac 12 with the number of games played. Two losing records (both at Stanford) in 12 years in college. 0 losing records in NFL. Total record of 151-68-1. 72% win percentage. I swear it is personal feelings/judgments based on rivalries that gets you on these tangents that are based in anything but facts and then you go full defend position no matter what.

Gase out in NY

Your argument was that he is better suited for college, which could certainly be true. But guys like Urban (not meaning that negative at all) aren't just going to go anywhere. I'll explain it like this: Saban, Sweeney, Day, Kelly, Fisher, etc. Aren't going to go somewhere they don't have a chance to immediately compete for a championship in college. It's different in the NFL because of how those jobs are looked at. And it is not like Urban is out of a job. He is handsomely rewarded for his currently. And before you point out that all these guys already have jobs, something anyone can see, Fisher left FSU 3 years removed from a CFP appearance and 4 from a championship. And again, there is the HUGE part of getting the most sought after recruits, and that is much harder to do at a school like Arizona. Yes Urban was a great recruiter, but part of his (and the other top guys) getting the guys is the university, tradition, and exposure they get at them. This is a big reason why Herman is gone at Texas even with a pretty good record. He annually got Top 10 classes and then underperformed.

I wouldn't touch Arizona with a 10 foot pole if I were him. Certainly not compared to an NFL team, but even if just college. Harder to get biggest recruits, and Pac 12 just is at a disadvantage when it comes to playoff. Take Clemson out because they are just a top notch program recently. There are 4 programs in the country that would get in CFP if everything is equal (I.e. same record etc.): Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas. Not saying that everything can always match up equally, but those are probably THE top 4 programs looked at in that way

Texas doesn't have an opening, Steve Sarkisian took the job about an hour after it opened up. He is just staying with Alabama through the title game

There is where you are saying Fields spun into the crown. But I detect that you aren't understanding my point. Whether Skalski made contact with/without spin, or no contact at all, he was still going in head first. So you kept saying perfect form etc. That is FAR from perfect. He is in good position, and if he had just sunk his hips, flexed his neck it would have been about perfect. Now, since maybe someone it appears you respect has said something, maybe go back and watch the replay again. We can bicker back and forth on whether he was actually going in for tackle before the spin (it's EXTREMELY close either way), but just watch Skalski. His FIRST move is putting his head down. Now he may have been trying/anticipating getting a hat on ball, but that is the absolute worst way of doing it. I said it immediately targeting and gone. And I certainly don't think that Skalski would have been the difference in winning and losing. Whereas I think Wade last year may have (and guess what, by the rule that was correct as well). But the other controversial call last year is one of the worst calls I have ever seen. And you have seen me on here before saying a number of times that a penalty called on Browns (that most complained about) was the correct call.

This is where you said what I referred to. And yes I know that you weren't directing it to me, but you also said that NOBODY with experience would feel that way... Just pointing out that I have a whole bunch and I feel that way. And just for a bit more context: From James Skalski: "Everyone can have their opinion on it, but the bottom line is I gotta keep my head up. I have nothing but respect for the game and the people I get to compete against. I have to be better." So my point is, by his OWN words his head was down, and since I am not a mind reader, I have no way to interpret what you are saying (at least once, not going back to look or quote more) that his head is up. Now, I don't know what the happy medium is, because I think the meaning behind the rule (and thus consequence) is good. But I don't know that missing the remaining game is good. But I think that part is better than missing the 1st half of next game. I certainly don't agree with that part. But since it was brought up by someone else, and I don't think it had anything to do with the decision during the game, but his past also comes into play. By the rule, obviously it was targeting even you said that. And I honestly don't think he was trying to hurt Fields, but since his 1st action was to lower his head, I do think he was trying to do that. And while I wouldn't go as far as calling him dirty, I would say that I think by his previous actions he is a disrespectful player, especially his trash talking. I think he is a REALLY good football player, and one that I personally would not want on the Browns, Buckeyes, and I certainly wouldn't tolerate on any of my teams. But I guess I am old school too, I much prefer the Larry Fitzgerald/Nick Chubb manner than most guys today

I know exactly what high level I played AND coached at. Now sure, people can look at something with biased eyes. But come on man, you trying to say anyone not agreeing with your perception of the play obviously never played at a high level is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. 1. You notice how almost every time a player is called for targeting (HS, College, Pro) they are up in arms about it? I wonder why you didn't see that last night? 2. You can certainly give him the benefit of doubt if you want (even with his history), but maybe watch the video slowly. At best, he started by lowering his head, and probably within a frame (one way or another) of the start of the spin 3. Skalski is very lucky he himself didn't get hurt. Lowering you head is the FIRST THING a little league player is taught, much less HS or college. And if you REALLY believe he went in with his head up then you need an optometrist or more. Whether it was his fault, Fields fault, or the officials fault, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY to say his head was down (crown of helmet) with that hit, but wouldn't have been with no spin. If you wanted to make the argument that he wouldn't have made contact with his head had JF not spun then that is a logical argument, but that is NOT what you said. You argument is that his HEAD WAS DOWN because of the spin. Now you may want to call out others for lack of "experience", but I don't think you want to do that with me.

Certainly wasn't you

I think you might be a bit off base here. If you don't see a difference in having your best player (in convo for DPOY) and a backup QB for a captain then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you are in fact reading too much into it ad nauseum. In fact, couldn't the case be made than Stefanski is doing the exact opposite by wanting to move on? All I can say is that NO MATTER WHAT, even on sideline, even in locker room, Garrett better keep his helmet on, as some may take it as a sign that he is going to do it again...