Gunz41

Nope, don't have to explain anything to anyone. But unwillingness to do so is basically just showing that you CAN'T answer them in an educated manner. But your attempt to demean by saying the answers are right in front of me, does that mean NBC? FOX? CNN? ABC? Because what you have said is those are Fake News. So what you are really saying is that your view of the answers are somewhere. The thing you aren't understanding is that you are being hypocritical and narrow minded with that line, and doing the same thing the people on the other side that you hate so much do. And picking and choosing the data or talking points you think bolster your case is doing the same thing. Picking out different viruses to say they don't have a cure, Yep you are right. Congratulations. Now, exactly how are these things transmitted? Because last I checked, you can't get HIV from the air. But that doesn't fit your narrative. And you bring up the 99% and cases being recorded as COVID even when it wasn't. I have ZERO issue believing that. But exactly how do YOU compute that Donald Trump lauded himself, his administration, and the drs. that if he hadn't acted so quickly that it could have been 1 million plus? Are you telling us that he was lying, wrong? And you and others calling it a SCAMDEMIC or FAKEDEMIC, yet proclaiming that doesn't mean its all fake. That is what those names mean. And that DOESN'T equate to THE PRESIDENT saying how serious this is, and certainly not equating to taking medication to try and prevent getting it. Why would he be doing that if its a scam, fake, etc? And again, I don't know why you keep saying Demoncrat or whatever in posts related to me. I AM NOT A DEM OR REP. And I don't think this PANDEMIC is Trumps fault. But just spitting out political rhetoric or only relying on information that you agree with is what you are so vocally against.

Again, get your big boy pants on and have a real conversation, not just use fake news and name calling (even when I have stated I don't identify as Dem or Rep). You just take the stance that since I didn't appear to agree with every word you said then I am uneducated on this and politically against your view. You STILL failed to answer most of my questions. I am sure you don't care how you are viewed on a message board, I don't know that anyone really cares how they are viewed, but you come off qs someone who just wants to state their views, not have any discussion, and villianize anyone who doesn't agree or capitulate fully. When I am not even one of those people who is trying to change your mind. I just want to see how you answer those questions. And it's ridiculous to use "these are still here." That is just trying to justify your viewpoint. There are also these things that people who contract those things take called medications. And every medication has to go through testing for efficacy and side effects. You are so set in your argument that you used an uneducated, spur of the moment talking point when its easy to just say that NOBODY knows what is going on yet, possibly in the near future we will have measures to combat this. So please sir, if you want to be taken seriously and not just a troll pushing political jargon, answer the questions in YOUR OPINION. That doesn't mean that people will agree, but when you don't answer them it makes it look as if you are purposely avoiding them because it weakens your opinion

Ah yes, you notice that I didn't mention ONE of those. You can't refute any of what I said so you change the narrative. But let's dig into what you are saying here. What makes them lies, and what makes something fake news to some? You very well know the answer, its because it goes against YOUR belief or interpretation. But tell me exactly why you didn't reply to anything I wrote? How is this "SCAMDEMIC" comparable to driving accidents or cancer? How does it happen that every news station is "fake news" and how does it work that this was here in November and that looks good on the administration? Inquiring minds want to know. Just like they want to know how there is a segment of the population that only believes what comes from the President. And even he has said how bad this is (was). So then he is a part of the scam?

Well technically, nobody knows how long it has been here. If it is your intention to take up for the President (nothing wrong with that), that hurts your argument. And I am unwilling to use the word only when talking about life. And if you are one of the people who tries to compare this virus to driving and other things that kills more people then you certainly lose all credibility. Not saying that it doesn't, but driving isn't contagious, neither is cancer, etc. And if this is much ado about nothing, or hoax or whatever you want to label it as, then exactly how do you explain places/situations/cities with closer more frequent contact being at higher risk? Not wanting to believe everything, statistics, etc is VERY different than calling it a hoax, plan, etc. And it makes ZERO sense why this would be something a political party would do when it is effecting both sides, rich and poor.

Goodness gracious, now you guys are having me "take up" for Gipper. Small world. While a majority of cases are elderly, there are still cases who are not. And since Gipper actually stated HIS reason, no need to downplay his worry over this virus. And it makes ZERO sense to say this is political (and I am neither D or R), as what would be the reason for every other country to lie for the US? Now, I don't think that you are wrong about the hospitals getting the money, and I could see a reasonable amount of inflated numbers. But to compare to the flu is ASININE, especially when you include numbers. 45-65 in a season, compared to the reports of 90 in 2 months. And another thing that makes zero sense to me is people who talk about listening to the "real news" compared to fake. Well doesn't that just indicate what news you agree with? Because I don't think anyone can convince me that almost EVERY analyst on EVERY "main stream network" is affiliated with the same political party. Heck, 2 years ago one of them was supposed to be the only "real news", then after they cover something in a different view point, they are all of a sudden fake news as well? How does that make sense. And no, I don't think this is the Presidents fault. Even IF some things could have been handled differently, there isn't a playbook on how to handle this.

Have a nice day

Wow, dig dig dig. You are the ONLY person who used ULTIMATE champion. And again, unwilling to accept truth. Multiple different places, including NFL and ESPN DO RECOGNIZE them as EXACTLY what has been said since the beginning, NFL CHAMPIONS. Tell you what jacka**, lets make a clear deal. You stfu and leave if you show ANYWHERE where I said A WORD about the Colts winning the SB, their last game, or that they did ANYTHING besides win the NFL CHAMPIONSHIP. And I guess if you hadn't have kept running your mouth and showed a narrow view then you could have been taken seriously with your AFC/NFC comparison being an extra game. But when you refused/disagreed/etc that a more comparable comparison would be NFL vs XFL then you lose all that credibility. And no pal, MLB hasn't just been around since early 2000s. That is just you trying to use some kind of asinine logic. If you are trying to use interleague play as a straw man argument, fine. But the point wasn't literally that the 2 teams didnt play common opponents, but that they were encompassed under a different umbrella. It's absolutely hilarious that thinking back how you were making fun of someone who had blocked you calling them weak or something like that (in a profane manner if I recall correctly). But when over and over you interact with the same person and they are so thick headed that they won't listen to any sound reason, facts, etc. and verbally attack you then what is the reason you would want to continue to do so? Especially when that person does it with more than a handful of others and they continue to act as if they are the smarter, and only authority. Yet can't stand to be questioned on anything or they unleash a spew of venom. Now carry on with your constant nonsense on here. Just be careful, the more you act the way you do, the more you resemble someone you seem to dislike (nope not a former poster here, think a lot bigger).

You aren't getting it... The AL and NL are in the SAME LEAGUE. But go ahead and put your reputation where your mouth is. Go back over ANY of this and quote ONE time that I said anything about the Colts won the whole thing or THE football championship. You just can't accept the fact that you were wrong. 1st by saying that NOBODY considered the Colts to be champions in 1968. When that is proven to be incorrect, you change your argument. I have continually said that the Colts did NOT WIN THE SUPER BOWL. THEY DIDNT WIN THEIR LAST GAME OF THE SEASON. You see simple minded Gipper, BOTH things can be true. They were and will always be the 1968 NFL CHAMPIONS. THEY WON THE NFL. THE JETS WON THE AFL (TWO DIFFERENT LEAGUES DUMMY.) THEN THOSE TWO CHAMPIONS PLAYED EACH OTHER. Again, for the last time, if this pandemic hadn't occurred, and the Chiefs (the NFL Champion) had the opportunity to play the The Houston Roughnecks (assuming they won the XFL), the loser of that game would STILL BE their associated LEAGUE CHAMPION. But to the point, you never said a thing about the 1965 Green Bay Packers/Buffalo Bills. That doesn't fit your agenda. But BOTH of those were champions. Or heck, lets use 1964. The Browns won the NFL AND The Buffalo Bills won the AFL. If you can't refute any of that, then just STFU. I have not once said anything incorrect in this discussion. I have never used anything but facts and never used those facts to bend the results to match my opinion.

You know that myself or anyone else ever said they didnt lose the SB. You are trying to bring things into the conversation to beat home your point. But no sir, it is not the same as AFC/NFC now. The only thing that is comparable is that there is another game afterwards. I venture to guess that you know all of this, yet since you originally made a statement you will say things just to make yourself feel correct. I don't know what you are disputing. The AFL and NFL were separate leagues. Meaning they didnt play each other during the regular season or playoffs. Their was an AFL CHAMPION and a NFL CHAMPION. Then both of those LEAGUE CHAMPIONS played each other. Last year, the Chiefs and 49ers were conference champions within the NFL.

What is he coming back from? He played the 2nd half of season after a suspension.

No that isn't true at all bub. The 2019 49ers were members of the NFL as were the Chiefs. The 68 Colts were members of the NFL, while the Jets were in fact a member of the AFL. AGAIN, Nobody said they won the SB, were the only champion or anything like that, but they won their LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP. They most certainly WITHOUT question the 1968 NFL Champions, do you dispute that? As for the analogies, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I was in no way trying to suggest that they were the exact same (lawyer and stenographer), was just merely pointing out that them being associated both with law/court/etc is the same as totally different players (positionally) being compared. I can't remember who, but someone commented on it (maybe someone that has you blocked), so yes someone else did und the point I was trying to make.

No, you obviously read something the way you go about everything else on here, through a predetermined lens. Not once did I say anything close to I would rather have a stenographer, etc. Show where anything close to that is associated with my name? What I said is that its more applicable comparing a stenographer/lawyer with your OG/CB comparison (same general field; law and football) as compared to 2 different types of lawyers (I would say that is more comparing OG vs OT for instance. Its amazing that others understood the point, but whatever. And while everyone can see that your football knowledge "skill set" would be relegated to history and mine the actual game, you trying to impune me by linking me or others as telling you to trust us (much less over ones that is their job) is asinine. But what is really telling is that you posted that you didnt read my reply, yet you knew what I wrote. I wonder how that works??? Sure seems like you just wanted to point out you didnt read it for some strange Gipper reason? And why no retort to NFL/XFL? How is Jets playing in AFL and Colts in NFL akin to AFC and NFC? Because you want it to be? Because you know what the key difference is? They played in DIFFERENT leagues, no common opponents. They were the same NFL champion in 1968 season as the Packers were in 1965 season

Incorrect. The original context of this was just plug and play a Pro Bowl G. They are in the same field, yet require very different skill sets. Again, I know little about the different types of lawyers, but just saying that some top criminal lawyers also do divorce law in Ohio is besides the point. That is just taking out a small section. Sure it can happen, just as there are players you can place in any kind of system, but to rely on that as the standard is incorrect. But good luck with that plastic surgeon when you have a serious medical issue. And when that fails and you get revenge for the botched surgery, good luck with that divorce lawyer defending you for capital crimes. But we all know at your sentencing you will say "f you guys, I was right." Good day sir

Like Steamin' Willie Beamen? Or Lance Harbor? Or how about Bo Callahn? Ronnie Bass? Or one of the 2 Buckeye QBs (coincidentally played by the same man, Keanu Reeves): Johnny Utah and Shane Falco. Tough to choose. But I say Brady, Graham, Montana, and Manning. 4th is hard, but one reason that Peyton didnt win more SBs is because of Brady

I understand the premise behind the OP question, but if all teams play the same amount of games then it isn't much different than previous. The Browns could have won all 6 division games and still not went to playoffs.

I'll take your word for it on that. I certainly don't know about different types of lawyers. Yet I am sure the point wasn't lost on even you. The point wasn't to say that either type couldn't excel in a different subsection/system, it is that just inserting someone in a specified area doesn't always end in stellar results. As an example (and to take your general field out of the equation), take the top plastic surgeon in the country, how would you expect his skills to transfer into a neurosurgeon? I guess we will have to disagree on the other point you were trying to make with CB and OG. I would actually say a better analogy would be a court stenographer and lawyer i.e. same field (law vs. Football)

EXACTLY. You showing your true colors pal. You reply all the time with people in long posts, and a lot of the time in a rude manner. But yet someone responds to you and its BS and not worth it. So again, you sir come off as a big prick on here. Not just in my opinion, but to a vast majority of the posters. And you want to act as if you are so superior in knowledge to everyone else, yet you get bent out of shape with others having a differing opinion. But let's even take me out of the equation this time. Same deal as before, let's do a poll and see who people respect more between you and the numerous other people you spew your venom at frequently. And if you win they leave, and vice versa. Or if you don't like that deal (since then where would you get to act like a narcissistic jerk), let's just see by going back through some old posts of yours and the guy you called names because he blocked you and see how many times that person said something wrong/error/etc. , and instead of admitting it dug their feet in just to "not be wrong." One example (of quite a few): NOBODY recognized Colts as a league champion. That has been PROVEN incorrect, and yet you still won't admit your error. There has ALWAYS been a difference in what you correctly were asserting (they didnt win the SB) and what was said is that they were recognized as their league champion. And even if you had said your opinion it wouldn't have been such a deal, but no with you being so set in you proclaimed that nobody thought differently than you. And you sure as heck won't read to see how my analogy of NFL/XFL is way more comparable than your conference example. But again, we all know you won't respond to this because you have such a high opinion of yourself and any indication that you aren't this all knowing, genius about everything. And your other part in this thread about system fit just shows that all you are is a little fan boy. But we can even put it in terms you DO know something about. What if we took a top of his field divorce lawyer (Pro Bowl G Warford, Saints system) and inserted him into a murder trial (Browns system).

Not making an evaluation on any one player, but players certainly are better equipped in certain systems. For example, with his skill set, you think it would be a good idea for Brady to be the QB in a Triple Option? Or how about Tebow in a West Coast offense? Or you think maybe this year the Ravens will let Lamar throw it 60 times?

I am not going to respond to all of this because you obviously don't even want to "look at yourself in the mirror". I will simply reply to a couple. Thank you for making a point against yourself. Me saying anything about your trivia is EXACTLY what you would say there, technically being critical (even though I don't know that I was ever critical). Even if I were, that doesn't mean I ever said I could do better or wanting to do it. The point with Mr. Shula isn't and never was that he won a SB with 2 teams. It was at the time of the original discussion that he won his league (which is true, and never will change). But since you brought it up, no it isn't like a conference champion, it would be like the NFL champion playing the XFL champion. But that wasn't even the point of me bringing it up in this discussion. The point of me bringing it up was the fact you stated that NOBODY (not meaning individuals) recognized that, when in fact both the NFL and ESPN certainly have. But hey, why should we listen to them when we can to Gipper. And no, I don't think you are a jerk because I disagree with you, and its not just stating your opinion. Its the way you state that opinion. You have frequently been rude/nasty to others in stating that opinion. And there have been times I agreed with your opinion and still thought you went about it in a crappy way with others. If you don't see anything wrong then it is what it is. And sorry pal, you missed a point again. I'll bet there are a vast majority of people who make errors on here and aren't called out. The difference is that they don't post with the arrogance that is perceived by others about you on here. You aren't being called out because of a difference in opinion. Having a different opinion and a discussion isn't calling out someone. And by the way, your were not compared to Ghoolie because of any variant positions. You were compared to him for having a different persona on here than in real life. That is unless what I have heard is incorrect and you are actually a rude, know it all jerk all the time. In which case then I will take back comparing you to him, as it was just meant in the sense of acting differently in real life and on the board But if you don't see anything wrong/different (whatever word you want to use) with the way you communicate on here and how it can be perceived or different from others then nothing I or anyone else says will ever change your mind. Again all I am saying is that if you get into arguments (or are blocked, etc.) with multiple people then the only common thing in all of those is you. So by pure data and fact the evidence would point to the possibility of you being the issue. For instance, if I have been married and divorced 10 times, would it seem more likely that all 10 of them was the problem or maybe me?

Sorry to burst your bubble my friend, but me not having an inkling to do it (and I actually never said anything about the quality of your trivia) does not equate in any way to anyone thinking one way or another who would do better. I could see someone weedeating a 100 acre property and think I knew a better way (whether true or not). Doesn't mean I have any interest in doing it for them. I can recall instances when yes you admitted it, and other instances when you in fact did not. And I must admit that I thought of you recently in passing. It was around the time Don Shula passed. Since he was recognized on either ESPN or Fox or maybe both as winning Championships with two different teams, something you argued against and said that nobody recognized that. And here in this very message you are saying pre post Super Bowl. And yes, that is what the board is for. But again the point is the manner in which you go about it. If you don't think that you come off as a jerk in a lot of cases then you are sadly mistaken, and maybe you should either just admit it or ask others on the board. I don't believe that anyone you have had these "altercations" with on here have any problem with you having an opinion on something. Even if those are hard set opinions that won't change no matter what is said or what evidence is provided. It is the manner in which you respond. From what I have learned is that you are a very nice man in real life, which means that some of your antics on here are a different persona, which is in fact one of the reasons that you have been compared to a certain former poster. You obviously are an intelligent man by way of your chosen career, but when you come off as someone who knows everything about everything and arrogantly at that, it causes hostility and for people to call you out at any perceived error. And then when that does happen, you then say it is because those people are so concerned and obsessed with you. In other cases that may be true (I can't speak for others), and I don't read every thread but this happens on a majority of threads I do happen to read. And again, when these things happen over and over with multiple different people it begins to show a trend. I am quite sure that none of that matters to you, which is fine, but in my opinion it is a bit hypocritical to not care what others feel but then voice displeasure when those same people attack/harass you

Haha, no you got your feelings hurt (apparently) and tried to tell me to do the trivia. I don't have any interest in doing it, and you seem to enjoy it so have at it. In fact the few times I have gotten on and read I believe I have even seen some. And the point obviously went over your head. I actually never thought you didnt know who JACOB PHILLIPS was. Its the fact that you seem to enjoy arguing with people and pointing out how wrong someone is to you (even if it is something that is an opinion). So you must be able to take it to, especially since it was all in fun. And I certainly have noticed the few times I have read things on here the past couple months here you are getting into it with multiple people. So I guess it wasn't a me (or those others) just being against you. O well. Again, I will say hope all is well and stay safe

Yes I obviously know his name. Just had to point it out since you are the one who says you only care about Browns players when someone else is brought up. All in good fun, but you should certainly be good with being "called out" when saying something wrong since you like to do it for things you just don't agree with, whether right/wrong, opinion/fact, etc. Thats the cost of acting like a jerk to people. Hope all is well and you and everyone is staying safe and well in these trying times

Who is this Jacobs LB the Browns got? I would think you SHOULD know the names of Browns players who would be expected to start

Haha. I have tried that, no Bueno. But if the Browns can get that kind of draft, wow. This quarantine has me a bit stir crazy so me doing these is relaxing (unless I don't get good offers or my next pick is taken right before me)

Can't really beat this one. Yes a pipe dream. Your score is: 45605 (GRADE: A+) Your Picks: Round 1 Pick 11 (NYJ): Isaiah Simmons, OLB/ILB, Clemson (A+) Round 1 Pick 21 (PHI): Andrew Thomas, OT, Georgia (A+) Round 2 Pick 30 (G.B.): Ashtyn Davis, SS/FS, California (A+) Round 3 Pick 33 (COMP): Troy Dye, ILB/OLB, Oregon (A+) Round 3 Pick 40 (LAR): Ben Bartch, OT/OG, St. John's (MN) (A+) Round 3 Pick 42 (BALT): Matt Peart, OT, Connecticut (A+) Round 4 Pick 9: Stanford Samuels III, CB, Florida St. (A+) Round 4 Pick 14 (NYJ): Davon Hamilton, DT, Ohio St. (A+) Round 4 Pick 15 (L.V.): Harrison Bryant, TE, FAU (A+) Round 4 Pick 21 (PHI): K'Von Wallace, FS/SS, Clemson (A+) Round 4 Pick 23 (BALT): Jonathan Garvin, DE, Miami (Fla.) (A+) Round 4 Pick 32 (K.C.): K.J. Hill, WR, Ohio St. (A+) Round 4 Pick 39 (PHI): Jordyn Brooks, ILB/OLB, Texas Tech (A+) Round 5 Pick 11 (BALT): Jake Hanson, C/OG, Oregon (A+) Round 6 Pick 16 (N.E.): Derrek Tuszka, DE, N. Dakota St. (A+) Round 6 Pick 33 (N.E.): Harrison Hand, CB, Temple (A+) Round 7 Pick 30: Kamal Martin, OLB, Minnesota (A+) Your Future Picks: 2021 Round 1 Pick 2022 Round 1 Pick