10 hours ago, Apereg11 said:

Look guys I'm sorry for offending your beloved Browns, but I was just trying to clarify why I considered the past few years a rebrand for Cleveland. You all have the right to your own opinions, but so do I, and thankfully you guys aren't the ones grading my synthesis paper. I'm willing to put AFC North differences aside here and just ask a fellow human for some help with my research project. The survey only takes about 30 seconds to complete, so please consider taking some time out of your day to fill it out. Thank you again.

You see young man, like I said before, YOU are the one who changed your criteria. You 1st just went with your statement of rebranding. And as you said, that for your purposes can be defined by you.

But then you went to calling the Browns perennial losers. If you had simply quantified that as being from the resumption in 1999 then you would not have gotten the responses you did. But when YOU entered into data the 80s, then you open that up to the entire history. 

So would you quantify an organization with 8 titles as a perennial loser? Now, if I were you, you better hope that your teacher doesn't have the knowledge or does the research to quantify what a perennial loser is. Because then you would be starting on a false premise.

And speaking of, wouldn't your premise of a rebranding be a bit premature anyway? Because just a couple years ago by your original thought would have been bestowed upon the Jaguars. And look at them now. 

11 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Well...if you are going to compare cities....then you have to include the other 5 NFL titles won by teams in Northeast Ohio/Greater Cleveland.  

That means that  Cleveland and Green Bay are tied for the most Pro Football Championships in history with 13...it just that theirs has been by only one team where we have had  5 different teams.  

And, again, if we are talking about City titles......New England would have 7 including the one won by Providence.   New York 9 including the Giants 8 and the Jets one.   Chicago has 11 including the Bears 9 and the Cardinals 2. 

Other cities with multiple teams winning titles:

Philadelphia: Yellow Jackets and Eagles

Baltimore:  Colts and Ravens

Dallas:  Texans and Cowboys.

Los Angeles:  Rams and Raiders

SFO/Oakland:   49ers and Raiders

All this may not fit into  what the kid wants for his survey.....nevertheless, it sounded like he needed a football history lesson. 

I think the rub i was trying to point to for the "high schooler" went over your head. I wasn't trying to compare cities, only used Baltimore to prove a point since he referred to Browns as perennial losers. 

So his entire city pro football history would be more of a loser. Its the reason I added 6 franchises up and they didn't reach the level of the BROWNS. 

33 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Here is another fact about the identity of the Cleveland Browns, Sonny Jim:

The greatest dynasty in the history of Professional Football?  Not the Patriots, not the 49ers, not the Cowboys, not the Steelers, not the Packers, not the Bears:     None other than the Cleveland Browns.   They played in 10 consecutive Championship games.....and in 11 of 12,  winning 7.   

No team has come close to matching that record for sustained success.   That was the late 40s and 50s.   And FYI, the Browns also played in 4 "NFL Championship Games"  in the 60s..though they only won 1 of the 4.   Still, that made it  15 Championship game appearances in 25 years. To put it in terms you may understand:  for the Pats to come close to matching  that, they would need to appear in the next 6 Super Bowls when going back to 2001.

So...in fact of the matter, their period of sustained excellence lasted longer than the recent shit show has.  And lets not forget who was the producer/director of the shit show:  Arthur B. Modell  who the fucking idjits in Baltimore revere, even though  even after receiving a 75 million dollar cash bribe could not do a thing, and was  forced  out of the league by the NFL  and  to sell his next franchise (the Ravens)  before the banks foreclosed on it.

Let's give him a little credit, maybe he wants to compare the Cleveland Browns to the entire history of Baltimore.

Cleveland Browns 8 championships, Baltimore 7. 

Oops, that can't be it.

Hmm???

Ahh I got it now... Buccaneers, Seahawks, Jets, Saints, Vikings, and Ravens TOTAL is 7. Shoot, we were so close. 

Heck I give up. Here are the Top 5 championships by team.

1. Green Bay- 13

2. Chicago- 9 (one year as Staleys)

3. Cleveland- 8

3. NY Giants- 8

5. New England-6 

5. Pittsburgh- 6

So again @Apereg11, tell us again how the Browns have ALWAYS been perennial losers?

Gipper, be nice to the little fella, he is after all a high schooler.

2 hours ago, Apereg11 said:

In my research paper I have the ability to define "rebranding" as practically whatever I want considering I'm the one conducting the experiment. I'm not just thinking about team name, location, and uniform changes as rebranding, but rather the identity of a team as a whole. The personality and attitude that a team portrays is what fans cling to the most when choosing their fandom. During the 21st century and practically for their entire existence, the Browns have been perennial losers. Through the heartbreaking playoff loses in the 80's to the constant QB carousel, the Browns have been the epitome of failure and that attitude has been reflected to the public. With the changes to the team listed in my survey, I pointed out the steps that the Browns have taken to reverse their misfortunes and change the public's view of the franchise as a whole. That's why I said that the Browns have "rebranded" since 2018. Let me know if there are any mistakes in my logic (I am a Ravens fan after all), and thank you in advance for those who participate in research process. 

Now young man, you are so flawed in your assessment of perennial losers. 8 championships in their history. Now, if you wanted to use since 99 when they came back then yes, but you made sure to speak of the 80s.

And for even more evidence for you:

All time record of 522-504-14

Playoff Record 16-20

Winning Seasons 37

Playoff Seasons 28

And an added part for future, there is also no blocking below waist in NFL on any kicks or changes of possession. 

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

I know. Just joking there 

I knew you were joking, but there are people who don't know these things (not saying you)

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Aren't the playoffs now mainly held in 4 different cities?  

No, I guess not.  Last year there were playoff games in 9 different cities, including the Super Bowl in Miami. 

So, what 4 cities?  I mean, if there are to be no fans,  they could play on a high school field. Or should they play on all neutral fields....choosing only cities whose team has not made the playoffs? 

Or...how about  Tom Benson Stadium....fka Fawcett Stadium, next to the PFHOF in Canton.   Though I guarantee you they would probably want domes....after all, what says "bubble" more than a domed stadium.    I would venture that they would put games in the new  LA and Las Vegas stadiums, and probably Houston and Dallas...or Arizona.  

I guess I always found it ironic that the cities that could most use a dome for bad weather do not have one, but cities that do not have cold winter weather do have them:   No domes in New England/NY/Buffalo/Philly/Balt./Wash/Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Cinci/Chicago/Green Bay/KC.  (Only Detroit/Indy/Minn. have domes in the NE and midwest).  And is it a coincidence that Detroit and Minn. have never been to a Super Bowl when playing in a dome?  

But there are domes in LA/Vegas/Arizona/Dallas/Houston/New Orleans.  Those are probably domes in order to avoid the heat rather than to avoid the cold. 

Can't logistically on high school fields, goalposts are different sizes in HS.

11 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

Glad you understand they are void of weapons 

Obviously. Just stating he is no longer on their team because he was cut and is currently on the Chiefs

2 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

They need some offensive firepower too.  Berrios, Crowder, Mims, Lev Bell - not cutting it. 
 

Bell certainly isn't cutting it for them, as he is not on their team anymore

I think that if a game has to be moved twice, an investigation should see if it was from lack of protocol and if it was, then that team forfeits

2 hours ago, TypicalBrowns50 said:

Conklin now on the covid list 😭😢

And Myles sent home after feeling sick 

15 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Here we go again...

Browns shut down training facility after player tests positive for COVID-19

Coach Kevin Stefanski did not say if the player was on the field for Sunday’s win over the Houston Texans

Published 3 hours ago

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/browns-shut-down-training-facility-player-tests-positive-covid-19

I read it was Andy Janovich. Contact tracing is underway 

Has been placed on Covid Reserve list

1 hour ago, Icecube said:

Yes I did, go back and actually read what I wrote. 

 

See EXACTLY there man. I SPECIFICALLY put THIS MOMENT for that exact reason.

Its the same thing as your original list, as in THIS MOMENT. Unless you believe (or wherever you go this list from) that Carr and Tannehill are better than Brady and Brees throughout their careers.

Now, since you want to continue to LIE, let me put you in your place and point them out. I am sure you will try and slither your way out of these words YOU WROTE.

1. That puts him at 27, which is far below average. And looking at the order of the list, it passes my eye test as far as being accurate in determining quality of play. I'd move a few up or down a few spots, but it's pretty on the $. 

2. already said it was not the perfect rating system at the very top. And, you go on to admit Baker is realistically around 20th...there are 32 starting QBs, plus a few who later became starters later. If Baker is 20th, that would put him at below average. So, while claiming to disagree with the premise you then conclude the same thing - that Baker is below average. 

3. 

You got that part right. It's just not that important to me. These are just anonymous names in cyberspace about a sport that, come the end of the day, isn't that meaningful. It is entertainment, as is posting on sports message boards. 

I don't have the time or desire to "prove things" on the level of a court of law. As a matter of fact. I would normally base my assessment purely on the "eye test" and leave it at that, not even bothering to go into data such as QB rating. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is allowed to support previous opinions. But at the end of the day, of you use a first overall pick on any player, they really should be at least top 5 amongst their position by their 3rd season, not even in a debate about being at least average. If you think Baker is better than all but 4 QBs, then God bless, son. You have the right to your opinion. Mahomes, Russell, Rogers, Brady, Big Ben, Dak, Brees, Wentz, Carr, Herbert, Murray, etc. may not agree, but hey man, we all have our opinions. 

4. I honestly don't grasp what your point is. Somehow, you've managed to conclude I said this is a terrible team....SMH. This team is what their record says it is: can beat bad teams, can't beat the good ones. They will beat most of the Cowboys and Bengals of the league (combined 3 wins) but get curb stomped by the Steelers and Ravens of the league. And that is absolutely a HUGE improvement over the 0-16 and 1-15 type of teams, or even the myriad of 3-13 clubs. I still think their odds are good to make the playoffs. How rare is that the last 22 years? So, enjoy it. 

Now there is EVERY REPLY to me in this thread, and you did the exact things I said. And while I am not a big political person, you brought it up. Your original list there is like looking at a poll and saying "Donald Trump is going to win Florida, passes the eye test to me." Of course that same poll said he was going to win Virginia and California. And that poll also said that Pennsylvania and Georgia were going to be close. 

So I will say it AGAIN, your list is closer to right than wrong ON BAKER. But when you use THAT LIST as justification with the other BAD parts it makes THAT LIST a POOR SOURCE. And when you add in YOUR STATEMENT that Wentz is better than Baker, but your OWN SOURCE invalidates that, then that is the definition of a CONTRADICTION. 

And when you add ZERO context to assertions it makes you look like an imbecile.

Want an example? Why sure. Saying you would expect a 3rd year player to be a Top 5 player. Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson. Baker was NEVER going to be better than them. But let's take it a step further. Obviously a lot of drafting is based in NEED. The biggest need for the Browns then was a QB. They had the #1 pick. Now since you know SO MUCH, which one of those QBs in that draft is a Top 5 QB now? I won't even make you factor in system, etc. Baker? Nope he's below average. Darnold? Nope, he didn't even make the list. Josh Allen, he was your definition of average in your list I believe at #16. Rosen? I believe he is barely on someone's practice squad now. Lamar, last year he was. But according to your list he was 4 spots above Baker. So he was CLOSER to Baker than Wentz was to Baker. 

Now, if you want to just shut up then we are good. If you want to say you might have misspoke we are good. If you want me to stop using your own statements against you I can. But if you want to keep on, even though everyone can tell you would just cower at the challenge, we can talk real football not some shared opinion/stat/talk show piece and you can be taught really quick. 

Now I call Check. Your move sunshine. 

So you going to resign from this game or make a move?

1 hour ago, Icecube said:

I honestly don't grasp what your point is. Somehow, you've managed to conclude I said this is a terrible team....SMH. This team is what their record says it is: can beat bad teams, can't beat the good ones. They will beat most of the Cowboys and Bengals of the league (combined 3 wins) but get curb stomped by the Steelers and Ravens of the league. And that is absolutely a HUGE improvement over the 0-16 and 1-15 type of teams, or even the myriad of 3-13 clubs. I still think their odds are good to make the playoffs. How rare is that the last 22 years? So, enjoy it. 

No bud, I didn't conclude that. You are just refusing to see what YOU are saying. I am using YOUR words, not even going off something you post/link.

Example 1: You posted your list. Then you go on to say that by your eyes that it is accurate. I merely pointed out the inaccuracies.

Instead of just saying it's somewhat off (even if you believe that Baker is around the right spot), you LIE and say you said its off some at the VERY TOP, which you didn't say.

Example 2: You said that someone in their 3rd season should be Top 5 at his position. I posted The Top 5 at a multitude of positions to point out that there are MANY guys not in the Top 5 who are still great. 

That doesn't mean Baker is anywhere near them, its just pointing out that by YOUR logic that they are the equivalent.

Example 3: I said I would put Baker at about 20, and you then did your little math thing that 20 is still below average. I'll agree there. But you also made a list later on that Baker isn't as good as these 11 guys. One of them was Carson Wentz. And Carson on the list that YOU started this thread with to explain why Baker is below average is ranked 8 spots BELOW Baker. 

You see, you are entitled to your opinion. Your premise can even be right, but when you use the wrong source to justify your stance it makes it appear as though you will only use things to support a claim, even if the other parts of the same source contradict what you are saying. 

In summary, by your OWN WORDS AND SOURCE, Baker is below average, he is also better than Carson Wentz, but he is also worse than Carson Wentz. And by those same words, if a guy is in his 3rd season they really should be a Top 5 guy at their position. So that disqualified Aaron Rodgers, Alvin Kamara, Myles Garrett, etc. And the thing is I don't think YOU believe that. But that is WHAT YOU SAID. 

P.S.- Again, I can find some other kind of stat to justify him being Top 10, which I don't believe. But as of THIS MOMENT, he is the QB for a team in the playoffs, and according to you his #1 receiver isn't very good, his best and most helpful weapon has been out in 2 of those 3 losses, and his defense has given up the 2nd most points in the league.

But the part that gets me and isn't used enough (if ever), the STEELERS AND RAVENS ARE JUST BETTER. 

25 minutes ago, Icecube said:

32 divided by 2 = 16. 20 is lower. 16 is average. Ummmmmm, it's not complicated.  

Wow you are a genius.

Which is higher, 27 or 35?

Just not sure since your list passed the eye test and was accurate, and Baker is SO BAD, yet Wentz (who you listed him in your Top 11) is 8 spots below that Terrible Baker.

Everyone can see you are only going to post negative things, post over and over and over those same things, and refuse to reply when you are proven to be just posting asinine things.

You have no interest in posting actual football comments. And everyone here knows that I have more football knowledge in my pinky than you. Of course that isn't hard when comparing it to your knowledge.

So continue on troll. Gipper is absolutely right, you are in the image of he who should not be named. Only difference is the vulgar talk

2 hours ago, Icecube said:

You got that part right. It's just not that important to me. These are just anonymous names in cyberspace about a sport that, come the end of the day, isn't that meaningful. It is entertainment, as is posting on sports message boards. 

I don't have the time or desire to "prove things" on the level of a court of law. As a matter of fact. I would normally base my assessment purely on the "eye test" and leave it at that, not even bothering to go into data such as QB rating. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is allowed to support previous opinions. But at the end of the day, of you use a first overall pick on any player, they really should be at least top 5 amongst their position by their 3rd season, not even in a debate about being at least average. If you think Baker is better than all but 4 QBs, then God bless, son. You have the right to your opinion. Mahomes, Russell, Rogers, Brady, Big Ben, Dak, Brees, Wentz, Carr, Herbert, Murray, etc. may not agree, but hey man, we all have our opinions. 

You see sir, NOBODY has said he is in the Top 5. But you just completely blew up and proved my point in this last message.

Again, YOU said this passes your eye test on accuracy. And in this last message you listed 11 QBs, one of which is listed EIGTH SPOTS BEHIND BAKER in your original post.

But let's go ahead and go off your ASSumption that by year 3 a guy should be Top 5 at his position. Let's use the NFL Top 100 players as a reference.

QB: Lamar, Russell, Mahomes, Brees, Brady. Others who then wouldn't be worth it based on YOUR STATEMENT- Rodgers, Watson, Dak, Cousins  Tannehill, J Allen, Kyler (take him out as 2nd year)

RB: McCaffrey, Henry, Cook, Zeke, Barkley. Others- Jones, Chubb, Kamara, Ingram, Gurley, Jacobs (2nd year)

WR: Thomas, Hopkins, Jones, Hill, Evans. Others who aren't "Top 5"- Godwin, Cooper, Diggs, Adams, OBJ, Landry, Lockett, Fitzgerald, Allen, Metcalf (2nd year), Kupp, Robinson

DL: Donald, N Bosa, Jordan, J Bosa, Hunter. Those not Top 5- Clowney, JJ Watt, Jones, Buckner, Casey, Cox, Campbell, MYLES GARRETT, Heyward, Jarrett, Clark

LB: Wagner, Jones, Mack, TJ Watt, Miller. Those unworthy guys- Barrett, Z Smith, Leonard, P Smith, Davis, Warner, Kendricks, Smith, David

DB: Gilmore, Adams, Sherman, Fitzpatrick, Ramsey. Not Top 5- Mathieu, White, Peters, Ryan, Smith, Thomas, Lattimore, Humphrey, Slay, B Baker

Now do you see how ridiculous you sound by using Top 5. And by the way, these are voted on by the PLAYERS. SINCE they have been in the league at least 3 years, by your own words then this is a terrible team

Aaron Rodgers, Alvin Kamara, Chris Godwin, Devante Adams, Chandler Jones, Myles Garrett, Shaq Barrett, Tredavious White and Marlon Humphrey 

All you had to do was admit that you were wrong in equating the entire list as being accurate, but nope, just like you do with Browns players and posts you dug and made it look even worse.

2 hours ago, Icecube said:

I already said it was not the perfect rating system at the very top. And, you go on to admit Baker is realistically around 20th...there are 32 starting QBs, plus a few who later became starters later. If Baker is 20th, that would put him at below average. So, while claiming to disagree with the premise you then conclude the same thing - that Baker is below average. 

No pal, I didn't disagree with the overall premise (but there is also a decent size difference in 20 and 27) what I am disagreeing with is the resources you want to use to justify a claim, the exact thing I said about Colin. And you absolutely didn't say "not perfect at the very top", at least not in what I replied to.

YOU are the one who posted this, and this was YOUR WORDS "And looking at the order of the list, it passes my eye test as far as being accurate in determining quality of play. I'd move a few up or down a few spots, but it's pretty on the $. 

So, since you want to use the term average literally, we will use the work few literally, which is 3.

Which of these do you agree with?

Carr Top 7

Tannehill Top 8

Herbert Top 11

Josh Allen Top 13

Kyle Allen Top 16

Mullens Top 18

Lamar Highest 19

Kyler Highest Top 20

Wentz Highest 32nd.

See my issue with this and a lot of what you use is that you see one part you agree with and run with it and post. And since part of it is true then it makes it true to you. The same thing with CC. All I am saying is that a single focal point without viewing the entire picture makes you appear to have an agenda and uninformed. 

That appears to be the reason when I do get on here and read the responses to you when you post things about OBJ. It appears as if you have an agenda, as CC does with Baker. Its the reason he runs to discredit anything positive and leaps at the chance to post anything negative. 

You haven't seen me defend Baker or OBJ, all I have done is point out hypocritical statements. 

But let me point out one thing, you can call it defending if you want, but its really not. Since these rankings are based off of this year, 11 of those 26 QBs above Baker have a better record than him. 2 Teams have given up more points than the Browns (one of them winless Jets by 1 Point). 9 teams have scored more than the Browns. So couldn't I use my numbers to make him look A LOT better than 27th? 

Now I am positive you don't care how you come off, don't care what others say or reply to you, etc. 

19 hours ago, Icecube said:

By definition, to be average Baker would be somewhere around the 15th or 16th best QB in the NFL. Do you think he is? 

Let's look. By the ratings (and I realize you can argue the ratings alone doesn't always tell the full story but it's a good start)...

R. Wilson

Mahomes

Rogers

Carr

Tannehill

D. Watson

Brees

Herbert

Brady

J. Allen

Big Ben

Dak

Kyle Allen

Bridgewater

N. Mullens

M. Ryan

Rivers

Fitzpatrick

Stafford

Goff 

Minshew

L. Jackson

K. Murray

Jimmy G

Cousins

Burrow

Baker

Tua

Kaskins

Foles

Driskel

Tyrod Taylor

Dan Jones

Cam Newton

Wentz

That puts him at 27, which is far below average. And looking at the order of the list, it passes my eye test as far as being accurate in determining quality of play. I'd move a few up or down a few spots, but it's pretty on the $. 

So even if you can argue Baker maybe a few spots better, he's still around the 25th best or so. Is that acceptable for the 1st pick overall in the draft halfway through his 3rd season?  If the Browns were told,"By his 3rd season, Baker will be the 27th rated passer" would they have taken him #1 overall? 

Of course, I am in no way suggesting now would be the time for a change, no way. He gets at least this season to show what he has got, barring him just falling of a cliff, especially considering we have to see of the passing game blossoms without forcing it to OBJ so often. (But others say the passing attack will suffer sans OBJ.) The 2nd half of this season is huge in determining Baker's future. As things stand, his last year option is probably safe, but if he doesn't ascend from where he is now, a big, new franchise QB deal is not likely. Baker, it's time. You are at a crossroad. 

Hold on a full minute. While it can certainly be said Baker is below average, using this list and saying its accurate is asinine.

Especially when considering that it obviously is only factoring in this half a season. But hey, instead of just throwing out this list, lets look at a few to show how truly wrong it is.

Do you believe Carr is the #4 quarterback in the league? Tannehill 5th? Kyle Allen 13th? Mullens 15th? Lamar 22nd? Kyler 23rd? Burrow 26th? Wentz 35th?

In a real perspective, Baker is somewhere around 20.

Seriously, Minshew is RANKED AHEAD of last years MVP, Laat years #1 pick and ROY

If this passes the eye test to you, then you know very little. What my eyes tell me is that you just don't like the Browns. Everything you post is negative. Which is fine, but just go ahead and admit it or don't be offended when you continue to look like you are trolling.

7 hours ago, Icecube said:

Listen, you're from Akron, not the most sophisticated place in the world. But confusing accuracy for hatred is still not acceptable. I know, I know, from your perspective, the world is dark, dirty, gray and hate-filled. But your perspective is not the fault of others. So, you're fit for a straight jacket because I was right, that's YOUR problem. And get your meds adjusted. Something is way off. 

This is the part I am not understanding, what and how were you right???

Your premise that they may not gel together seems to have a lot of merit.

But when multiple times you have said he would be traded very soon, then only be a Brown one year etc. and it has still yet to happen then that isn't being right. And your answer to that can't be they didn't get the compensation they needed. You didn't qualify it. 

And I see you had no reply to the Colin thing. Glad I could help you see the light for him.

Whether I agree or disagree with your take on OBJ is a moot point. But I do take issue with using someone like Cowherd to be a real source for quality. When that is proven to be not even close to the truth.

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

I suppose the cost of making a trade for the rest of the season is outweighed by the

high value of drafting  a good player who might have a nice career.

   if they did trade for a player to help, it would take some time for them to learn

the defense anyways.

  With the covid, injuries, etc - any trade partner would be asking too much.

Berry is brilliant I think, and if he doesn't make any trade, it's for good reason.

  Too bad though. Sendejo is really getting on my nerves. lol

I guess Mack Wilson has been playing at less than 100%, etc,

but good ole #23 just can't do it anymore on pass coverage.

I just don't understand this fascination with draft picks (and not meaning just you or just the Browns). 

Sure there is a possibility that a pick turns out good, but most of these deals are for low round picks. So unless you are getting a GREAT player, the compensation is minimal. And you know what you are getting with that pick then.

For context: 

These are guys who at the time were young starters, whether they are now or not.

2016: Jamie Collins (coming off a Pro Bowl btw)- 3rd, Kyle Van Noy- swapped a 6th for 7th, 

2017: Kelvin Benjamin- 3rd and 7th, Marcell Dareus- 6th

2018: Clinton Dix- 4th, Dante Fowler- 3rd and 5th, Damon Harrison- 5th

2019: Aqib Talib- 7th, Leonard Williams- 3rd and 5th, Kenyan Drake- conditional pick, Quandre Diggs- 5th

Yes there are instances where teams give up too much in a trade, and also times where really good are traded, but these are usually the type of deal that happens.

The potential for the known player for having success over a pick that you have no idea who it will be is way higher. 

None of this is to say that moves should or shouldn't be made. But I have never understood the fascination with later round picks who have a much higher chance to not even make the roster compared to becoming even a decent rotational piece 

59 minutes ago, Icecube said:

I could show you just as many takes where Colin has ben dead on. What will that prove? 

Is this a serious question? Being "dead on" has NOTHING to do with it. I never ONCE said he was right or wrong. If you took out of that post his right/wrong percentage then you just don't want to see it.

But I will go through them once again, and highlight the points. 

1. Mahomes/Luck MVP. Whether Mahomes or Luck deserved the MVP isn't the point. Before they had their playoff game he said the winner was the MVP. After made excuses why Luck didn't win. Those excuses were present BEFORE they played. 

2. Baker: He didn't waver on his stance that he wouldn't draft Baker. But what else do you want to call it when he tells Baker to his face he never compared him to Manziel when he most certainly had. Did he forget? Or was he trying to save face with Baker there? 

3. The LBJ thing. Maybe he was premature in declaring he was done? 

4. The Baker/Sam thing. Are you really trying to say he doesn't have a different set of standards for the 2? You don't think he has a bias here? Tua/Burrow- what exactly do you think he used to justify the complete 180 on them? 

5. You started this thread talking about his inside sources etc. If he was hearing 0% on Durant, how accurate are his sources?

Now, I completely understand and don't fault him for having these hot takes. That is how he gets his following. But when you say you don't care if you are right and then completely show a bias based on previous takes then that makes you inauthentic. Or look at it another way. He had some thing last week about how the Browns are by far the most over discussed team in history. Yet he does it consistently, makes excuses (that can certainly be fact) when they do well and just rags on them when they struggle. I'll bet if you go back over the course of this season, he has commented an average of 5 times a game for the Browns. That may not seem like a bunch, but when there is probably only 4 other games he commented on period that week puts it in perspective. 

But if Colin (or ANY of these guys with Talk Shows) is where you want to get your info from then you're in trouble.

P.S.: And by the way, continuing to say the same thing and eventually being right does not make you right. You guaranteed us that OBJ wouldn't be back this year. But in your manner I have a prediction for you, WARNING HOT TAKE: LeBron James will leave the Lakers. You probably don't comprehend the rub there. Just like your OBJ take, eventually it WILL be right. But when you are off for months and months, over a season, then you didn't say anything more than what I just did about LBJ. 

Good gosh man, we get it you don't like OBJ, but like I said in the last few days, using Cowherd to prove ANY point makes you lose ALL credibility. Now you appear to be a troll just like him.

But since you apparently didn't see that, I will give you MANY examples of Colin and shows just how uninformed using him makes you.

1. 2018: At the end of the NFL regular season, Colin was on his huge bandwagon for his 1st NFL man crush Andrew Luck as just as deserving as Mahomes for MVP. He declared that the winner of their playoff game was the one deserving of the crown. Chiefs win. Instead of coming out and say PM, well Luck is so much at a disadvantage with what surrounding him.

2. Right before the draft, Baker was undraftable and he compared EVERY aspect of Baker to Manziel. Not long after Baker was drafted he was a guest on Colin show. He said to Bakers face that he NEVER compared the 2. 

3. Before this past season with the LAL, Colin (who is usually one of the biggest LBJ fans there is), said that James just wasn't nearly as impactful as he once was, and maybe the new league had passed him by. Now after this championship, he is by far the best player in league and the most impactful player in NBA HISTORY.

4. Back to the Browns, he never really changed his tune on Baker even after the record setting rookie year. Yet after less than a full year he is already crowning Herbert, on his way to doing it with Burrow. Speaking of Burrow, up until he played the Browns, he was just going to be a pretty good QB, but Tua was transformational. Tua plays for mop up duty and then gets named the starter and Colin has an epiphany that Tua isn't going to be decent. And don't forget that ANY success Sam Darnold has Colin calls it a positive and will not be objective. He even said recently if he were the Jets he would not get rid of Darnold for Trevor Lawrence.

5. ZERO % chance that Durant joins the Warriors and he doesn't think it is a good move. 

And there are many more. A quick YouTube search can find them.

But, if you really want to know about him and his "takes" all you have to do is hear what he said yesterday. He actually said on air that he doesn't care if he says things that are wrong or end up being wrong. What does that tell you, its ALL about creating headlines, and in some instances when it benefits him he will not change a stance because of it. 

1 minute ago, The Gipper said:

How does this offense only score 6 points?

I didn't think the weather was really that bad, was it?

Are we really missing OBJ a lot? 

But wait, that can't be, according to some, the Browns were going to be better without OBJ.

1 hour ago, Flugel said:

I don't have a problem with what you said for the most part. I think you were just trying to be honest.  Looked to me like Zombo got sick of reading all of the bitching and moaning in here like it's a sorority house on the rag; so he used your post to reply to a lot more people than just you.  

When our defense shows up to compete - we should remember Baker was the starting QB when Cleveland beat the Ratbirds in his rookie year and again last year (and that was a blowout win fwiw).  This team was 0-16 the year before Baker arrived; and it was 0-1-1 when he took his very first snap with a 10 point deficit as a rookie. He erased that deficit almost immediately and led the Browns to a W in his very first appearance.   This team went 7-7 in the 1st 14 games Baker played.  In the process, he broke the rookie record for TD passes with 27. What's to hate here?  If that didn't show people this guy has talent/skills to tap here - they simply didn't want to see it.

Some guys like Colins A. Coward that predicted he'd suck - couldn't wait to quickly announce Baker can't beat anyone good.  But apparently ONLY Sam Darnold and Josh Rosen went to bad NFL teams while Baker wasn't going to get such excuses with the 1-31 football team here in Cleveland.  BTW, Josh Rosen is now on his 3rd NFL team as a member of Tampa Bay's practice (so now he's had as many different OCs as Baker)...

FWIW, WRs like AJ Green, Tyler Boyd and Tee Higgins aren't exactly leaving Joe Burrow talent deprived.  He's also got some pretty good RBs.

 

 

And to further pile onto Mr. Coward, just to show that he just wants to have some hot take to get viewers (whether he ends up right on Baker or another), apparently after coming in for mop up duty and now being named the starter he now doesn't believe in Tua. He had an "epiphany". Just remember that Tua was "SPECIAL" and was being compared to his big man crush of Russell Wilson and Burrow was just going to be decent.

So ANYONE who wants to use Cowherd as a reference loses ALL credibility. These are just a few examples I can remember RECENTLY.

1. When Gase was hired by NYJ, they were instant SB contenders. Now, Gase is the biggest reason they are failing. I'll give him a bit of credit there as he changed a take, but only because him man crush Darnold is there.

2. A short time before the draft he called Baker undraftable and compared every aspect of him to JM. Shortly after Baker was named the backup he was a guest on his show. He told Baker he never thought or compared him to Manziel, and that Baker WOULD NOT be a bust.

3 and 4. If you ever hear Colin on the NBA, he is a big LeBron guy. But both his last year in CLE and last year with LAL, the league had passed him by and he was no longer influential or something like that. Then this year, LBJ was the MVP, and now is the most influential ever. The 2nd part of this one, last year in NBA playoffs, after game 1 of their series, Boston was head and shoulders superior to the Bucks, MIL had no chance, and Kylie was best player in East by far. After the series, Kylie is overrated and a detriment to his team