Gunz41

Certainly wasn't you

Think about it, and I view them completely different by the way. - Both try to appear smarter than everyone else - Both will continue to hammer a point no matter what is said against it - Both resort to foul language and insults frequently - Both take no responsibility for their actions - Both brag about their accomplishments whether in life or being right

I'm glad someone mentioned the name before me (even though I alluded to it). About the only difference I see in the two is one was trolling and the other just wants others to think they are smarter. But just because it has always stuck in my mind, we are talking a person who tells everyone they are wrong, seems to think they are smarter than everyone, but also has said in the past that they didn't know who a player was because they weren't a Brown(I can't remember who, but I believe it was someone Browns had either just signed or many rumors they were going to, and not just a depth guy). But apparently that person STILL believes that this back and forth is because of his opinion, and that it everyone else's fault. I just think that someone with an attitude of being better than others needs to be called out every now and then. But don't worry fellas, he IS the smartest guy on here. He can get all the answers for any question he asks from Google. But don't forget, if you don't answer for ANY reason you aren't smart enough. He is the only one who can answer them all, even if for some reason his question is flawed, YOU are wrong. And please gentlemen don't possibly misunderstand, if something is on official records that obviously doesn't make it a fact, because someone will argue that he doesn't agree so it isn't a fact.

Actually, not ONCE did I say your opinion was wrong, but nice try. I have said that you telling others theirs is wrong is the issue. And my goodness, you must have multiple personalities if you don't think that those things aren't true. And that statement was made from more than just this ONE thread. But to this thread: The FIRST thing you said was this IS STILL THE rivalry. After which you said historical, and then saying that this game has so much meaning. Now you are going off the premise that you said from the start that it is the longest, historical but as evidenced above, that was absolutely not your 1st comment. So yes sir, that IS changing the narrative. And I never said that you insulted ME. But if you don't want to admit that you do others then more power to you. And along those lines, are you saying you don't routinely argue with others on this board? Not saying me or anyone in particular. Whether it is something that I would agree or disagree with you on. And re you saying that you don't have strong opinions that you think you are correct on (whether that is something fact based or opinion based)? Most of us do. But when it comes to something that can be at all subjective (i.e. more than 1 possible answer), they probably feel just as strongly as you about their position. In fact, I will use an example outside of football. There are many people (agree or disagree) that believe that you can only get real news from CNN, FOX, NBC, etc. Others think it can only come from places like OAN. Both obviously have their reasons for feeling this way. And some won't believe a word that comes from ESPN, etc. Our opinions are based on a pre conceived belief. As for the common denominator part, I think you are missing the point. Lets even use a real person as to not deal in hypothetical. Larry King has been married (and divorced) to 7 women. Could all 7 women be partially responsible for the failure? Yep. But it would appear to be evident that King was more responsible since he is the one that was involved in all of them. So Gipper, I won't name any names besides you and myself, and refer to others as others. So yes, while I may be partly responsible for you and I getting into arguments, and others may be partially responsible for arguments with you,, I am not responsible for you getting into it with others. And others can have discussions on here without them turning into arguments. You are the only one who is involved in all the arguments that you have. And just to help you out, I would hope you don't think my opinion on the rivalry is wrong, because we actually do share the same overall opinion. What you failed to realize was that I was never arguing about your opinion. My point that you failed to realize is that with this being an opinion, all of our opinions have no right or wrong. And thus, you arguing that others were wrong was giving the impression that your opinion was the only valid one. The other piece I was trying to articulate is that you in fact did change your criteria as stated above. And when given an out with the "poll", instead of just saying it was your opinion and it wasn't changing, you doubled down to say that basically those who don't agree with you are irrelevant. Again, I get that you despise the Ravens and their fans, as well as Steelers and their fans. But to say that their opinions on something that involves them is irrelevant is ludicrous. So I will modify my above statement, from MY perspective as a Browns fan, CLE/PITT is the biggest rivalry in the division. BUT, I would not be surprised if Pittsburgh felt differently. And I don't think that ANY pro sports rivalry is nearly as big as it was years ago.

How exactly am I doing that sir? By pointing out that the persona being spoken of routinely argues with and insults those who he doesn't agree with? By pointing out that the same persona will certainly try to change an argument from its origin to be correct? That said individual will most certainly value only his view/opinion/theory and question another's intelligence if it doesn't align with his own? I've said it before and let me say it again, and yes take out the people who troll either on a certain subject or in totality, if someone has many arguments back and forth with many other individuals, that shows ME that there is a likelihood that the root of it comes from the common denominator. And if this "sainthood" thing comes from the issue of not insulting or using foul language, well I am certainly not above using bad words, but no I don't see a need to insult people. And to me, I look at using it in these manners as insecure in your position, so I will try and bring you down to my level. That is just my OPINION on how I view it. Again, I will say it in a reply not directly towards him. I have ZERO issue with anyone's opinion on this. Have zero with anything that is subjective. But I get tired of seeing people get bashed for having a different opinion on something that doesn't have a definitive answer, and that certainly goes beyond rivals, NFL, football, etc. If it was just left at I disagree then fine. But to continue to tell others they are wrong is another thing. And to say that anyone (including those directly involved in the discussion) are irrelevant is prototypical of being of the opinion that feels "my opinion is the only that matters." I'll say one good thing about my pal Gipper. He must have been a great lawyer. He can argue anything, and turn anything that is said (even by himself; even false) as a talking point to bolster his case. And heck, I'll even be extra nice with the holidays and say a 2nd positive thing. He could never be viewed as a troll and can be viewed as a super fan

Yikes!!! Again, maybe some reading comprehension or reasoning may benefit you. 1. Read what you replied to slowly. My ENTIRE point was that we have differing opinions, it's the fact that you are (and do quite often) telling people that their opinions are wrong. Again, not on something that has a definitive answer, but something that is absolutely subjective. 2. Obviously you forgot the point of this conversation. Not ONE person here is denying that this is a HUGE game, the BIGGEST game for Browns, and would have been BIGGEST for BOTH without the loss to Jets. That isn't the argument though. The argument is that YOU were using this game to justify your reasoning behind this still being THE rivalry. I'm just pointing out that that reasoning is extremely flawed. Because by using that as the barometer as THE, then THE biggest rivalry can change yearly, and along those same lines Cincinnati was in THE rivalry multiple times in last decade. 3. Again, not that it should be a surprise but you are moving the proverbial goalposts to fit your argument. When LAST YEAR was the topic, you are changing the subject to this year. But you aren't even comprehending why the discussion to this rivalry topic needs the context of last year. The reason is to eliminate the above bias of meaning from THIS game. So I'll explain the point with statistics. The rivalry felt stronger/more intense (or whatever word best describes it) in 1991 when both were under .500 and missing playoffs compared to last year in the same situation. But news for you, no matter what sport you want to discuss (of the 3 main), with respect to pros, NO rivalry seems as intense. Guys didn't seem then to want to hang around, chat, take pictures, exchange jerseys etc. 4. Again, you rejecting the opinion that the time gone effected it is an opinion. There is no quantitative way to prove it. 5. All I am saying is that you appear to "fight" with people in a majority of threads. And if it continued to be with the same person or even with people thought of as trolls then it would be a different story. But instead it appears that instead of just stating the reasons you disagree, you usually resort to insults. A perfect example of this is I have seen multiple times (and I'll admit I haven't looked recently) but when you do your trivia thing if people don't participate you have insulted the boards intelligence. You don't seem to account for any other multitude of factors on why they didn't answer, just that they aren't smart enough. 6. A typical response that I was expecting. Instead of just admitting that you could look at the rivalry different, that Browns fans could look at it differently, or even say that it can be subjective, you again just insult everyone else. Even calling them irrelevant because they differ from you. If that isn't your definition of narcissistic then you must have a different dictionary than me. All that YOU are saying there is that no matter what ANYONE else feels, your view is the only one that matters.

Just a few points I'll touch on. 1. I certainly have a sense of humor, but it also seems that at times people that conduct themselves as you (smarter than everyone and point out minute issues with others posts) need to be pointed out themselves. So again, there IS a BIG difference in saying historically and still. Along those same lines, I don't care one bit if by YOUR opinion it was, is currently, and will always be THE rivalry. But I take issue with you (or anyone for that matter) continuously telling someone they are wrong on something that doesn't have a definitive answer. 2. You pointing out that it is the game of year in AFCN to deduct your reasoning is asinine. A single game doesn't denote a rivalry for one, and 2 then others point that it is now Balt/Pitt would have more merit since those games have had meaning 3. Yes, obviously this game means a lot. But you chose to ignore the other information in that paragraph talking about LAST YEAR. Context really is your friend when trying to argue. So I will reword it for you so maybe you can understand. Back in the 90s and before, did a win/loss over your bitter rival seem to have more meaning than the win and loss last year vs. that same team who you would have us believe is still THE rivalry for both? 4. Nobody ever said a team can only have ONE rivalry. In fact, most have said the opposite. But you are putting emphasis on THE rivalry. 5. And if you don't want to even see a possibility that Cleveland not having a franchise made even a dent in the rivalry then that is just you refusing to explore it. But that really wouldn't surprise me. You take your opinion as the ONLY one that could be correct. Heck, I would bet that if all Steelers were polled and asked and they said Ravens you would say it's just the current players. And if it was done to include fans and they said the same you would come up with some other explanation to explain why your view of it is correct and theirs incorrect

You obviously have shown again that you are unwilling to admit to anything "wrong" with something you wrote. When your FIRST comment is, "this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN", that is NOT admitting that is based off history, i.e. still means past and present. Not even bothering with the right, wrong thing. And you have absolutely no idea on if they are still considered just as big, that is just an assumption. But go ahead and believe that. And while YOU may have never viewed Miami/VT as a big rivalry, I can assure you that it was viewed differently in those circles. But again, that points to the fact that people in those circles/areas would be more invested (i.e. Browns/Steelers). As for example of Dallas/Washington, both have been top teams in that division multiple times over last decade, and the animosity has waned from what I can see. As for the last part, that point went over your head it appears, or you purposely made it look like it. The point wasn't that the rivalry was between players and thus them moving to Baltimore just naturally moved there. It's the fact that the bitter rivalry of Cleveland ceased to have a team, i.e. no rivalry in that span. The Steelers Ravens rivalry organically grew through the competition. The point was that the time lost between Browns Steelers and rise of Ravens has effected the long standing rivalry. And it's just part of it that the competitiveness of the teams effects the view of a rivalry. Some can still seem big when one has been down, but to all it seems bigger when it is competitive. We all want our team (whoever it is) to win every time, but for examples didn't THE game seem bigger 10 years ago? Or even look at this from last year, what seemed bigger, the Ravens win or the Steelers win? Sure there are circumstances that effect the view, but you can't honestly say that 25 years ago a win over Pitt didn't mean more.

This was your 1st comment on it in this thread. don't see them letting up. I would think they would want to put the nail in our coffin if they could. As much as people may deny it....this is still THE rivalry of the AFCN.  So my statement still stands. When looking at it as historical, then yes Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Which is one POV. When looking at recent/current, then it certainly would be viewed as PITT/BALT (which is another POV). Both of those can be correct. Just from the few years of reading on here Gipper, you seem to be someone who thinks there can only be one correct answer for something, which in turn causes these disagreements. But just to further on your example with OSU/Michigan, yes that is certainly still viewed as probably the biggest rivalry in college sports, along with Duke/UNC and Army/Navy, and Auburn/Alabama. Those 3 aren't changing ever. But how about these: Nebraska/Oklahoma, Miami/Florida State, Florida/Florida State, Miami/Virginia Tech? Sure, Nebraska/Oklahoma isn't because of realignment, But Fla/FSU weren't in same conference at its height, and the others ARE in same conference. And you also are benefit to being invested in Cle/Pitt, whether viewing it as historical or current. But fans of say Dallas/Washington would have viewed that somewhat close, and now it doesn't have the same feel. Besides, college rivalries are much more deep seeded. And like it or not, some of the luster of the Pittsburgh Cleveland rivalry was taken away when one of them in fact was without a franchise, and some of that hate from the Pittsburgh side transferred with the Browns players to Baltimore.

The part you seem to be glossing over (by accident or purpose), is you are arguing history of the rivalry (which is well founded), and those arguing against you are saying recently. By saying that Browns/Steelers is still THE rivalry is only looking at history. Take out Cincinnati, you can only go from 1996 for Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which certainly has been a better rivalry in that time. You guys are arguing different points in all honesty.

I read that the WRs were in recovery pool with Goodsen and there was tape of at least one not wearing a mask properly. I think the game should have been postponed, but I think I saw that the difference with Baltimore was that there was an active outbreak that continued to produce positives. And Denver was kind of a "you got what you deserved" from the league. While saying that, I believe that it would have been handled differently with other teams. No, the Steelers didn't "lose" their bye week. Their scheduled bye week was "lost", as in moved. Now, maybe you need to learn to do a bit of research or look at a calendar. Many teams play 3 games in 12 days every year. Sunday, Sunday, Thursday is in fact 12 days.

Some of what is being said in this thread is EXACTLY what I was posting about not long ago. Guys show up only to be negative, and call themselves fans. So for you guys (you know who you are), lets actually give you a chance to appear to have some knowledge and not just a troll. Tell us how easy it is to replace the WRs, the OL and still be the same team? But let's go a step further, since you guys don't want to acknowledge that those guys were missing (and even said an idiotic comment like the Giants are better than the Jets to try and bolster your opinion). How do you think these teams would do with these guys and NO PRACTICE. Chiefs: Pringle, Deiter, Keizer, Seals Jones Bills: Roberts, Williams, Smith, Kraft Packers: Austin, Taylor, Dafney, Begelton Saints: Callaway, Carr, Fowler, Wolf Seahawks: Hart, Fuller, Thompson, Ursua Bucs: Mickens, Watson, Pearson, McElroy

Bitonio is one of them. Chubb Bitonio Garrett

Yes, I realize that. My point being that there aren't as many counting stats. I never said there were no counting stats. Gotta Remember I'm not just some guy who only looks at things through fan eyes, as the same can be said of you. I have done more than enough grading to last a lifetime. So my definition of "eye test" is meant much more than just who looks better.

Well as I said, my belief is that Decastro shouldn't have been either, but he also did play 1+ more games, and his missed games were the beginning of season. My point with Watson wasn't that he should/shouldn't be Pro Bowl. I am saying by PFF he 3rd. I know there is some way to see the full rankings, but I didn't look past the PFF website that was only showing me 3. But I believe that I remember seeing Ward as 76th or something Sunday night. Just off of that one player alone, that shows how skewed it can be. And while I have been very impressed with Teller, him being 1st of all guards is inaccurate, especially when factoring in his missed time. I think the same for Decastro, and I think the same for their 2nd guard who is Zach Martin as he has missed a bunch of time. Teller isn't even the best guard on his team, Bitonio is, and he was PFF 3rd. Honestly it is more of a tangent on PFF and how a good amount use it (not here) as a barometer. Here is last years: QB: Wilson, Mahomes, Jackson, Tannehill, Brees RB: Chubb, McCaffrey, Ekeler, Jones, Henry WR: Thomas, Godwin, Jones, Adams, Hopkins TE: Kittle, Kelce, Andrews, Waller, Higbee OT: Ramczyk, Schwartz, Stanley, Johnson, Collins OG: Brooks, Nelson, Martin, Yanda, C : Kelce, Jones, Jensen, EDGE: T Watt, Z Smith, Campbell, N Bosa, J Bosa DT: Donald, Heyward, Jarrett, Cox, Jones LB: Kendricks, Davis, David, Kuechly, A Johnson CB: Sherman, Gilmore, Hayward, Peters, Dunbar S: Harris, Simmons, Smith, Adams, Williams So there I only did top 5, but here are a couple other stats from that list The #1 overall player was Kittle. DeMarcus Lawrence (who 99.9% thought he didn't meet his contract) was ranked ahead of: Graham, Clowney, Buckner. The 6th QB was Cousins, then Rodgers, Watson, Dak There were multiple S over Fitzpatrick, multiple LB over Leonard. The MVP was the 3rd at his position, the defensive player of year 2nd at his position, the Ground (RB) player of year 5th at his position.

What I said has nothing to do with reputation. Teller could very well have not made it because he was a "no name" before the year, but that has nothing to do with MY STATEMENT. And while there are places like PFF that rank players on their performance, it isn't reliable in my opinion. And OL is more based on eye test compared to positions with counting stats. Not that it is surprising (not even wrong), but fans from any team will want to use something like PFF when it benefits their bias, but disregard it when it doesn't. That is part of being a fan and having that bias. But just as an example: RB: Damien Harris is the 2nd ranked RB, only trailing Henry. TE: Richard Rogers 2nd, only behind Kelce. DT: Steelers have 3 and 4 with Heyward and Alualu. Trails only Darnold and Vea Not to mention, while he is very good, Watson is the 3rd QB. Only behind Mahomes and Rodgers.

With regards to Teller, it's hard to put him in when he has only played 10 of 14 games, and only 19% of another. Of course I would say same about Decastro only playing 11.

As for the kisser, actually not always. I have seen him take the take against something "hot" just to have a take. While you know I am not a fan of LBJ, he took a take of him basically being done, only to change it not long after. Put it another way, while I think he is much less annoying compared to Skip Bayless, Skip usually doesn't change a stance unless it is to go even more into another stance. Colin will absolutely change MOST stances very quickly. There are also circumstances that CC will not change a stance no matter what there is to refute it, (ex. Browns). That rhyming name seems familiar. And I am not saying that Jets should or shouldn't do that, just saying that the reason he is talking about Fields now is ONLY because the Jets won.

Well SOMEBODY on here wanted to use his reporting as absolute FACT, not this topic today btw. But yes, he is only doing this for clicks and to back up past takes. Baker and OBJ has been talked about ad nauseum by him, so let's just put that to side for now, but some of the reason they are talked about by CC so much is because they actually spoke about him. Fields, that one is EASY to see through. With the Jets winning and now apparently being out of the Lawrence sweepstakes, for his image he would have the Jets keep Darnold. Let's not forget, 6 months ago or so Tua was GREAT, Herbert wasn't very good. Now Herbert is AMAZING. Tua goes in for mop up duty in a game, before a single start Colin comes out with his epiphany that Tua isn't going to be any good. Now, has reverted BACK to Tua being REALLY GOOD. But in all honesty, as ridiculous as it sounds, for actual reporting, you are better off hearing Cabot or someone else that would be considered bad. They are actually trying to report something. As for the TV guys, they all are going to have their hot takes, biases, etc. And most of it comes down to clicks.

I was going off his post, no offense meant

Now I am trying to rack my brain to figure out who is who in this lol So here is a good Gipper trivia. Identity the 10 people Unsympathetic is speaking of I think I can name 4. Gipper- Judge Nero- Engineer (I think I remember) Gumby- the tiny green bender Gunz41- the dumb jock football coach P.S.- The "presumed" high schooler that MUST know more than the aforementioned 10, apereg11. And by the way, I searched the other teams message boards that I could find, and the ONLY mention I found on rebranding was asked by a college professor I believe it was. Haha

No, you didn't predict it all. When you make a statement that will eventually be true, that is not a correct prediction. First, you said he would be gone after during his 1st year. Next, he would be gone in the off-season. Then would be gone during this season. Yes, at SOME POINT you will be correct. Whether that is today, end of this year, or in 10 years. For whatever reason you dislike him. It appears to go beyond him being a good/bad fit for the Browns. But go ahead and pat yourself on the back, you made a prediction that has ZERO chance of being wrong.... I'll even go one further for you, his is MY MAJOR PREDICTION to rival Icecube, it will snow in Cleveland.

Never ONCE was I anything but helpful to you. You just have some kind of set thoughts and will not waiver or even look at another view. And you seem to be of the opinion that someone who doesn't agree is against you or trying to break you down. But no sir, you did not explain your reasons why you considered it a rebrand. What you did say was incorrect (i.e. mentioned Stefanski). And you also did not explain AT ALL a thought process on a 2014 rebrand. If you can use any variables you want and it is just for a grade, then by all means go for it. But you stated you chose this topic because of you being interested in it. And from what I have read, 1 person on here has said something rude to you. Yet you classify everyone on here in a negative way, and even go as far as saying anyone who wouldn't help you isn't being decent.

But you see young man, you are still not understanding the point that I am trying to help you with. Others are pointing out the same thing, and Gipper is actually being very nice to you. So I will try to explain it clearer. 1. I didn't come up with the dates 2014 and 2018, you stated them. And you are using them as rebranding. But the Browns were simply bad until a little life in 2018 and then looking pretty good this year. So nothing changed in those 2 years you stated. Furthermore, in this very post I am replying to you mentioned Stefanski. Well he didn't arrive until 2020, so he had ZERO to do with 2018 and how you are trying to equate that. 2. You are trying to equate a new "mindset" etc as your rebranding, getting younger. That is why I brought up Warriors and Mountain Dew. The Warriors for sure would equate to what you have said ON HERE about rebranding as their was a major change. 3. The Jaguars point must have went over your head. You even said you would look at them the opposite. So they would still be considered rebranded. 2016: 3-13, 2017: 10-6 AFC championship game, 2018: 5-11. They certainly didn't go through 3 rebranding in 3 years, what they had in 2017 would be considered an OUTLIER. And while I don't think it to be the case, without further data to substantiate it, you can't equate the Browns to not being an outlier this year. 4. Like Gipper said, most people aren't using something tangible to pick their team. It usually comes from a physical location or some kind of tie in. There are also those that may continue to follow/like a player and thus his team from college. As a high school senior you are 17-18, so say Born 2003. So say when you were aware, 2008. So just be honest and answer this question, what is the reason YOU are a Ravens fan? Because your family is? Because you live in Maryland? Because you liked Ray Lewis? I'll guess its one of those reasons. Yet you are basing your project on some other theory and making the case that for fans of other teams that they CHOSE that. And you use the Browns (for some reason) who have been one of the worst franchises in your lifetime and think that. Again, if you can define rebranding as what you want then that is fine, more power to you. But you can't have that definition for one data point and not adhere to the same for another example. So in closing, and maybe this can help you with your project: What is the REASONING behind you declaring in YOUR terms the Browns had a rebranding in 2014 and again in 2018? What were the specific circumstances that brought you to that conclusion?

I think you missed the entire point, and I am trying to help you. Now 1st, I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you are who you say you are. And as such, you shouldn't be spoken to like a few have. Of course I do have a different view of kids that aren't mine as I have coached a long time. But, it also does seem a bit strange that you happen to do this on a week that the Browns and Ravens play. So that is why you are getting some push back from others. Now on to what you have said, you will certainly get some negative feedback for saying it is a completely different organization than the one that moved to Baltimore. That is just completely inaccurate. Everything STAYED in Cleveland aside from the current individuals in the organization. I used Jacksonville for a specific reason. They couldn't be considered a rebranding (as you described) because their 1 good year was an outlier. And I have no idea how you can use what you said in this post as evidence. In 2018 (if you are using Bakers 1st year) they did not have a new coaching staff. If you are meaning after the 2018 season when there was hope that Browns had turned a corner, they certainly didn't have a reputable staff, as they had 2 head coaches last year, and NEITHER are on the staff. Now I am certainly not in your class or your teacher, but your idea/definition of a rebrand is so off that I don't think that anyone will be able to follow including your teacher the way you are describing it. But let's use a few different things instead of football to show how this is coming off to an outsider. Lets use Basketball 1st. So in your description of a rebrand, the Golden State Warriors have went through 3 rebrand in the last 10 years. Pre Durant, With Durant, Post Durant. Or lets use a company, say Mountain Dew, when they add/remove a new flavor or change a top executive is that rebranding?