Gunz41

7 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Total 

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

On 8/9/2020 at 7:32 PM, The Gipper said:

No, I checked.  There was never a Garfield in the NFL.  I missed it.   (There have been a few McKinley's)

Like I said, Garfield is not a common name.   Only other Garfield I have heard of was actor John Garfield.   And I don't think I have ever heard of anyone else named Taft that was not associated with the William Howard Taft family..   Have any of you? 

Only Garfield I remember is the cat lol

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Hmm, I think you are right.  I must have missed that one.  Do not see any  NFL cats named  Garfield.   So make that 8 names. 

The thing is,   the names  Taft and Garfield are so ubiquitous around Ohio,  we forget that really these are very rare names.

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

How about Garfield? 

7 hours ago, gumby73 said:

Gunz, your a sharp football fan.. Look at this draft history & tell us Carroll or John Schneider really care about losing two first round picks in the 25-30th range.. https://pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/draft.htm 👀 They will make hay, about the 4th they get back...

a) I see a 32 year old QB signed thru 2023.. b.) A 68 year old 100-59-1 head coach wanting to win now &  3) a new owner replacing Paul Allen....Saying "screw the picks" our window might be closing in the NFC & Adams surely fits their Defense...  

Carroll has a history & staff of coaching kids up & it don't matter where they come from... And were still waiting Browns... 

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.

1 hour ago, Orion said:

I hear ya.  You KNOW the guy is good.  But you also know that the guy doesn't want to be where he is.  Will he want to be with us...for long?  He's gonna demand big bucks.  With two #1 picks you get two guys who are cap friendly for 4 or 5 years.  If you're lousy at drafting, then sure, trade away all of your picks...which is what we should've done for years.

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. 

58 minutes ago, Orion said:

Perhaps, (haven't seen Peppers for a while).  But I wouldn't trade 2 first round picks.  (strange as that may sound)

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? 

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

Seems fair enough.  Who are the 4 Pro Bowlers on that list? 

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. 

9 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

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. 

23 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Bottom line:  you are a disrespectful, dishonest cheat....and you offer no apology for being so. 

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.

25 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

I had just put this post up here an hour before you gave your answer upon which you cheated.  You disrespect everyone who may wish to attempt to play the trivia.  And there are several that do.   Is this indicative of the kind of character and integrity you display in your everyday life? 

Jesus to fucking Jesus, you can't even get shit right when you cheat. 

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 

39 minutes ago, Icecube said:

Your missing the point entirely.

 

1.) The protocol in NY was "Ahhh, if you think it might have been CV, then just go ahead and report at as such, no tests needed. (And we get paid 13k for every case)

 

2.) The test show false positives all the time. 

 

That's the last time I'm gonna bother telling you this. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Icecube said:

Oh geez, that's a real tough one. How about they report things ACCURATELY instead of just slapping CV19 on anyone who dies from basically everything? Isn't that a novel idea? My gosh. And how about this? Instead of just SLOPPILY LABELING ANY DEATH WITH ANY SIMILAR SYMPTOMS THEY BOTHER TO SPECIFY WHAT IS KNOWN. Not what may be, not what is close, but only what is fact. Truth is, NY basically attributed at deaths that may be flu or pneumonia deaths automatically as CV deaths, they weren't required to prove anything. 

 

Oh, and those tests are proven bull shit. They give out false positives all the time. Go try to actually learn something. Or maybe you can help set up those mobile military emergency tents (that so no patients and were taken down days after they were set up - REMAINING EMPTY THE ENTIRE TIME. 

 

Or maybe you could help putting together videos for CBS, where they used footage from Italy claiming it was in NY. 

Or maybe you could help set up the refrigerated trucks, that remained empty, but were set up for show propaganda.

Or maybe you could help edit video from 5 years ago, showing bodies in the ocean washing onshore and claim it's from recent CV deaths (That one was so stupid, I can't believe they even tried to sell that bull shit.) 

 

You're being duped. 

 

 

 

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.

39 minutes ago, Icecube said:

And, ummmm, some in here won't even grasp the significance of that. 

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 

14 hours ago, The Gipper said:

No, its what I do when I get bored.  Same as anyone really.   I am not actually contesting a lot of what Gunz says.  Of course he kind of argues out of both sides of his cheeks, which is fine.  With him, it is just somewhat tiresome. 

With you....on the other hand...while your continued mendacity can also be ponderous, it can also occasionally be so ubiquitous as to be slightly amusing. 

So, lets do this:   add to things:    Are you like certain people I know who argue that   "these coronavirus numbers should not be considered right, because most of those cases involve  prisons,  nursing homes, and meat packing plants  and should not be counted as real people dying".  (this person lives in Tennessee, and makes out how Tenn. has been so great when you don't have to count those people, which I guess he does not see as actual human beings)

https://www.the-sun.com/news/819692/kentucky-tennessee-kansas-spike-coronavirus-cases-ease-lockdowns/

 

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".

14 hours ago, Icecube said:

No worries Gunz, this is what Gip does when he is called to task: retreat and hide. 

Yeah, I haven't noticed Gip retreat and hide. He may do other things, but I don't see that

12 hours ago, nickers said:

To me.. Transmittable is about the same.. your still catching something from someone..... The brutal truth is.. it can be spread.. The vehicle in how it gets there is minute to me.. if you can sense perfume through a mask.. Chances are it (A Mask) cannot prevent much else either..

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.

31 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

 

"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

3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 

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. 

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 

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 

2 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

And I don't think this PANDEMIC is Trumps fault.

Obviously the creation of the virus is not Trump's fault, but his  dilatory policies, tactics and strategies that permitted the proliferation of it...yes, those are his fault. 

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