Gunz41

I'm still so confused how Manning couldn't be up there with the records he set. So I must not understand the question. So I am going to tap out at this point

Maybe I am confused (which is easy to do) or not even understanding the question. Is it total or one per position? Because Manning broke all of Tom's records that year in DEN, Thomas just set record for receptions, etc.

Hmm. Brady Manning LaDainian Tomlinson Just complete guesses now... Marino Lamar Jackson Jim Brown OJ Now probably wrong but would make sense. Michael Thomas Jerry Rice

Only Garfield I remember is the cat lol

I could be wrong, just don't remember that name.

How about Garfield?

Uh did you only read one line of what I wrote? My ENTIRE premise here is that just saying giving up 2 1sts doesn't mean a huge overpay or that it would be if they don't win a SB.

I guess for me it just comes down to known vs potential. This isn't the first time one of these has come up and I have said something. On paper those 2 1sts look like a lot. But you have to use them correctly, and even the best organizations hit less than half the time on 1sts. Whether he will want to be in SEA, That I can't answer. If he signs an extension at some time then yes a whole lot of money, but that is one position you don't have to worry about. And a teams objective when drafting is to get a player like him. Or to look at it with the Browns. What would your thoughts be on trading Myles to say SF for 2 1sts? Those would be 2 late 1sts more than likely. I'm not even going into the science of drafting and how teams traditionally do better etc. Or the fact on how quickly an incoming player grade changes. Or how the expected salary cap is supposed to go up a lot, etc. Now if your argument was that SEA COULD get Lamar Jackson and TJ Watt with that pick so it is an overpay, I can't argue with that. But they could also have gotten Paxton Lynch and Rueben Foster. And it looks as if the difference between a rookie contract vs. Eddie Jackson (highest paid safety) is between 8-10 million a year. I won't even double it with the 2 1sts since Adams will probably make that difference anyway. So would you rather have Adams or an 8 mil FA (Perriman, Melvin Gordon, Suh, Linval Joseph, etc) and one of those draftees above. See its only mentioned when in a good light with a rookie contract. But when its the other way around it is still there in a negative way. I really am not saying that it was good or bad either way. I am saying that just looking at it in one way doesn't tell the whole story.

No offense to you feeling that way, A LOT of people do. But to me that is overvaluing draft picks. Not like we are talking about top picks, but these lower 1sts are somewhat dependent on other teams as well. But to me, you KNOW how Adams performs in the NFL, and is considered a Top 3 S, and it is less than 50% of 1st rounders Making an impact. This is my opinion that its crazy to value potential/dependent vs. Very High productivity at the NFL level. Or look at it like this, right now would you rather have Baker Mayfield or Justin Fields?

Oops 5. Lamar, Watt, Jones, White and Clark

For those saying how big of an overpay this is, i.e. have to win a SB (Not even saying it is or isn't), context needs to be added. It really just comes down to the valuing of draft picks over proven players. Without that context, saying 2 1sts is a lot. But when those are extremely likely to be late picks it adds some perspective. But to add even more, here are the draft picks of playoff teams who didn't win SB recently (some are from non playoff teams through trades). 2019: Darnell Savage, Andre Dillard, Tutus Howard, Josh Jacobs, Marquise Brown, Montez Sweat, Jonathan Abram, Jerry Tillery, LJ Collier, DeAndre Baker, Kaleb McGary, NKeal Harry 2018: Billy Price, Rahsaan Evans, Isaiah Wynn, DJ Moore, Hayden Hurst, Calvin Ridley, Rashard Penny, Terrell Edmunds, Taven Bryan, Mike Hughes, Sony Michel, Lamar Jackson 2017: Jarrad Davis, Charles Harris, Evan Engram, Gareon Conley, Jabrill Peppers, Tank McKinley, Tredavious White, Taco Charlton, David Njoku, TJ Watt, Reubens Foster, Ryan Ramczyk 2016: Will Fuller, Josh Doctson, Laquon Treadwell, William Jackson, Artie Burns, Paxton Lynch, Kenny Clark, Josh Garnett, Robert Nkemdiche, Vernon Butler, Germain Ifedi 2015: Cedric Ogbuehi, Bud Dupree, Shane Ray, DJ Humphries, Shaq Thompson, Breshad Perriman, Byron Jones, Laken Tomlinson, Phillip Dorsett, Damarious Randall, Stephone Anthony, Malcolm Brown. 4 Pro Bowlers out of 60 players. But put it in perspective. Would you trade Peppers and Njoku for Adams? My point is that when you just evaluate it as 2 1st round picks without the perspective of when those would likely be or who you more than likely would get with those picks it isn't as simple as SB or total overpay.

See pal, you prove everything I was trying to convey in this one post. You REFUSE to admit to admit how you routinely disrespect others on here. You just deflect. Doesn't surprise me. And when I do look at your trivia (which isn't a bad thing), maybe it is just the manner in which your other posts go, but it seems like you enjoy telling others they are wrong. You just THINK you are superior. And you ACT as if you are superior. But its just a defense mechanism. Sure, there would be some subjects you would know more than the vast majority of people on here because that would be your specialty. Just like others would have over you. But please Mr. Self Righteous, go ahead and say you don't disrespect other folks on here who have the same right to be here and should expect to not be disrespected. I'll bet those folks you mentioned didn't feel disrespected by my answering it. And no hoss, I NEVER lied. I admitted that I looked up the last person. I admitted I was wrong on Montana. So exactly what did I lie about? You are just some crabby man who didn't experience any athletic talents in your glory days, so you learned to use your brain. Which is nothing wrong with that. But to be disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of bounds. All that does is show that you aren't intelligent enough to have a meaningful conversation about a topic. And you know nothing about me or others on here, which means you have no idea if you are more intelligent. I am sure you have some good retort though. I will back off this if you do what you expect others to do, be truthful and admit their faults. Admit that you have been disrespectful, tried to explain away your incorrectness, and expected things that you weren't willing to give yourself. But I'll tell ya what sport, I certainly won't hold my breath. And I am done with this conversation. Whenever I do decide to get back on here, if you have some kind of trivia up I will answer without looking (AGAIN, I LOOKED UP 1 PERSON this time, so YES I CHEATED, only to prove a point; see I admit things I do). Peace out home slice. Go yell expletives at someone else and mock something they believe in. Hmm, notice in every one of these messages I have had to you I haven't had to use one expletive.

I apologize I took the opportunity away from someone else. You calling someone disrespect is even funnier than some of the things that come out of the POTUS mouth that you hate. Dishonest, nope not at all. I never ONCE claimed that I did that without looking it up. But you overlooking your misgivings to accost someone else is lame. You come across as an internet bully, but instead of asking all big and bad, you just try to act intellectually superior. When all you are is someone who LOOKS THINGS UP, puts them into a trivia, and then get off on telling others how they are wrong. So either put up or shut up. Either admit or lie. BEFORE you start to make a trivia question, do you know all the answers? If you answer No, which everyone on here knows is the truth, then all you are doing is using a crutch to bolster your self esteem. And if you answer YES, everyone hear will call BS, as you are the same person who didn't know what position a player the Browns signed played. So that would make you everything you just called me plus a liar. So go ahead and keep disrespecting people on here, and whenever I have the inclination I will ruin something for you, or call you out on your constant crap.

Wow you are an angry old man, or a big bad ole man. You had to use the lords name there, and I know you did it EXACTLY for a reason. You want people to respect your opinion/feelings yet act in that kind of manner. I didn't disrespect anyone, yet you do it often on here. You only see a problem with it when it is at your expense. My point was made. I never once claimed to know the answers (aside from answering them, and from a previous point, without even knowing you accused me of cheating). The point wasn't to show off any knowledge, its that i answered and the accusations. What I see with you isn't what a teacher does when they give a test. They have to know the answers to give to their students. You just won't admit that you don't know all the answers to your trivia before coming up with them. But just out of pure curiosity, exactly which one of those 9 QBs actually is shocking, since before you even knew I had to find out the last 1 (in which I read 2) you knew I did? Most of these are pretty recent. I believe even with Stafford he has had 2 years close to or over 5000 yards. I'm done with you. I won't bring up any of the past things, all I will say is that until you treat others the way that you feel is deserved of you then expect occasionally to have your party ruined. So perk up sunshine, nobody mentioned anything political which should make your day.

Lol I never said I knew all of them, but nobody had answered, so I didn't want you to have to answer your own question. I will admit I wouldn't have gotten Stafford, everyone else I had written down. But I know, you knew all of these without looking. And dang, my eyes must be getting bad I must have imagined seeing Montana. Either way, this is MUCH better than seeing all these posts here and other places with nobody agreeing on anything, and the constant disrespect to the "other side"

Actually 10 Brady Brees * Luck Mahomes Manning * Marino * Montana Rogers * Stafford Warner Happy Father's day gentlemen

You are doing the same thing you accused Gipper of. You refusing to answer the question is quite telling. So if you don't want to look like a hypocrite (I'm sure you don't care, it's just a message board after all), try and answer the question that was asked in direct response to your posts and links. And I NEVER agreed or disagreed about how they are reported or false positives. The thing is that you are using these talking points just like the other side you seem to ridicule for doing that. I will try this one more time. I am actually saying 100% that flus etc. are way down. But YOU are the one who wrote and posted links about those being down and it being convenient to inflate the COVID numbers. So, with taking your own words, how should they be labeled? If 100 people die in NY that tested positive, how many of them should be labeled as Covid deaths? Since it is no surprise that flu in way down because of this, what is the % of these deaths that is acceptable to you to count as CV19? I'm not counting someone who died in a car crash and the times they are counted. But if you refuse to answer the question, but continue to push that narrative then it looks like spreading propaganda. The fact that you seem to be missing or just ignoring is that I have no political allegiance and I have no issue with believing someone saying these numbers are, they don't make sense, etc. But what I can't understand and can't respect is throwing things out there and refusing to defend their beliefs/opinions.

Wait a second here bud. You just said someone moves the goalposts, and that is EXACTLY what you did here. You deflected the question. So I will ask again. And remember YOU brought up the vast difference in flu. So JUST when it comes to flu/pneumonia/etc., the things you stated accurately are way down, what is the correct answer in what they are coded as. This question has ZERO to do with accident victims, heart attack, etc. being coded that way. When someone has TESTED POSITIVE or TESTS POSITIVE on autopsy of COVID, how do you suggest they be counted as death? You see you are using talking points, blame, false positives etc. Saying report the accurate numbers. So here is your chance. If someone has a positive test, what percentage do you suggest are counted to be accurate? You see, my questions have nothing to do with being duped. I just think that if you throw out a statement and links that you should have to defend them. And as I have stated, I am not on either side, so my question is not politically motivated.

Just to go off the talking narrative since the beginning (which for a vast majority is true) that it is like the flu, even from the Presidents mouth. So since its like the flu, most with symptoms are like the flu/pneumonia, when someone dies right now, how do YOU suggest it be classified? Do we pick half of them as Flu and half Covid? And then there is the fact that a lot of these people who "died of other causes, but are classified Covid" actually TESTED POSITIVE. And that isn't even factoring in cause and effect of how Covid could even possibly exacerbate the other conditions. I am simply going by your words/postings here about how convenient it is flu etc. is way down. So since YOU brought it up, how would YOU classify them? And since you called out Gipper for it (incorrectly), don't retreat and hide from answering

I don't know that what I have written is out of both sides of mouth. It may be that I would agree with one "side" on something and the other on another topic. To me (and maybe I have misinterpreted all my life), talking out of both sides of my mouth would be "I hate LeBron, I love LeBron". Yeah, I haven't noticed Gip retreat and hide. He may do other things, but I don't see that

You see, here is ANOTHER example of using a bad talking point for your argument. There is a BIG difference to me (and most people) in how these things are contracted. With something like AIDS, it is because of a person's ACTIONS. And with this, it can just be by leaving your house or being within 6 ft. of an infected person. Its simple cause and effect.

"Bore" yeah, lets go with that. Its obvious from history that you resort to that type of speak when you can't continue on intellectually or when you have been proven to have uttered something incorrect. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was just typos or interpreted incorrectly. Don't want to bruise that huge ego of yours. Have a good evening, stay safe, and God Bless

You obviously don't even have an inkling to expand your horizons on looking at things from both sides, and that has been evident in more things than Covid, Trump, etc. But that is besides the point. I don't think you can look at comparing leaders as it comes to this. 1. Population, demographics, etc. Vary widely. 2. In some of these countries, their isn't a governmental tier system like is in place here. 3. The population density being so diverse in the states makes it difficult. 4. The time-line in which the outbreak occurred. 5. And probably most importantly, the divide in this country is so immense that large amounts of people on both sides refuse to listen to the other. I mean all you have to do is look at the reactions in this thread. People upset about the shutdown and continuance of it in some places. It was 1st instituted by Trump. There is no way for him to be right in that scenario. And maybe not as vehemently, but would be the exact opposite if there were other members in charge. While from my understanding, in other countries the citizens listen to their leaders, and I believe some places masks are MANDATORY. You very well know that wouldn't happen here. As for "Trumps" drug, people are saying to wait out the time for a vaccine to come as it has to go through all this testing. The same thing needs to happen for a drug. Depending on what you read or hear, there has been mixed results on HC. I am not saying it will/won't work, I have no clue, but conservatively say it has been 3 months. That really isn't much time to conclude the efficacy. And if you are being honest, you very well know that there are segments of the population that would refuse to take it IF it did work just because it was touted by Trump and its reported that he has a small stake in the drug.

The entire point of you only replying to one sentence is not referring to any context whatsoever. I don't see how you or anyone can say he has/hasn't done a good job compared to how others would have. It would all be assumptions. And if you are referring to other countries, I don't think they are comparable for a huge list of reasons, including things that are present in this thread. And while I think that a bunch of the criticism brought upon Mr. Trump can be attributed to his demeanor, that adds another layer to it as well. Because you know that there are large segments of the population that will either do exactly everything he says or will refuse because he said it. In my opinion, I think that people should do their own research from either a neutral POV or from both sides. Because when people just state things without actually thinking of the counter argument just makes them look uninformed (not specifically saying anyone in particular). The most likely truth is that Mr. Trump has done some "good" things with this and some "bad" things. But along with your demeanor comment, it certainly doesn't help that everything is "perfect". Now what would be interesting to see is what the response be from people who are so set against POTUS if it was scientifically proven that hydroxychlorquine is effective if available to the masses if they would take it. If they wouldn't, then in my view they are being hypocritical by saying people are inhumane with refusing to wear masks and vice versa. Again, I can see things on both "sides" of this argument. I can certainly see the numbers being incorrect, but I also don't automatically look at that as being purposely done. But I actually look each day in my area (and its a small area so not bad at all comparably). And day to day some numbers change, even going down). So by definition one of those days had to have been misreported. That doesn't mean it was done maliciously

Hmm, I actually started this by defending you, have had multiple messages on this thread, and you single out a single sentence to give "meaning" to. Yeah, doesn't surprise me. What cannot be answered is what other leaders would have done. Me saying he isn't at fault is just that, he isn't at fault. Could some of his actions have made things better OR worse, sure. And some of his actions don't present well, but I don't think that any of this should be looked at politically from either side, and while still in the pandemic not a time for blame. Everyone should work together for the better of ALL, not just because you like Red or Blue