Thomaspro Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Well, Ghoolie is not a troll. He is an origninal on Browns message boards from the early days of the internet. And he does know a lot of what he is talking about, even though sometimes, like in this case, you or I might disagree with him. Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling. Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board. Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaspro Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board. Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll. Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then. Well, you can call Ghoolie whatever you want. A dick, a puke, a grumpy old man, a finook, whatever you want. Just not a troll because it is inapplicable. (of course, as was said about Rashard Mendenhall, you have free speech in this country, but you don't have freedom from consequences from your speech. Ghoulie has always seemed perfectly apt at extracting retribution) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefjerky Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Trolling is also when you're saying something you don't actually believe in to get people mad and to enjoy their reactions. It's also a way to flee when an argument is failing, so you were wrong right? no problem just claim trolling. "I was just trolling guys". I don't think ghoolie is trolling, I think he's saying what he believes in but I don't agree with him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Trolling is also when you're saying something you don't actually believe in to get people mad and to enjoy their reactions. It's also a way to flee when an argument is failing, so you were wrong right? no problem just claim trolling. "I was just trolling guys". I don't think ghoolie is trolling, I think he's saying what he believes in but I don't agree with him either. That is not "trolling" That is "flaming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then. I'll say this from the moderator side. Ghoolie predates this forum- by several years. Oh, he can stir stuff up all right, and he often takes a contrarian point of view- but long term, he's been right more times than he's been wrong. And you can count on this- he is a true Browns fan, and a bunch of folks on this board have met him live and in person to back up that fact. And it is possible that Hillis won't get 1,000 yards this year- the WCO and platooning him with Hardesty (assuming he's healthy) may well cut his total rushing yardage down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I'll say this from the moderator side. Ghoolie predates this forum- by several years. Oh, he can stir stuff up all right, and he often takes a contrarian point of view- but long term, he's been right more times than he's been wrong. And you can count on this- he is a true Browns fan, and a bunch of folks on this board have met him live and in person to back up that fact. Right, Ghoulie can be a first class flamer by doing exactly what you say. (Hell, all of us old regulars can do that at times). But he is not a troll. He may be a troll in the short, squat, stinking, living under a bridge, wart infested, child stealing, goat sucking, feculent humanoid sense, (and we only call him that because we like him) but not in the internet message board sense. And it is possible that Hillis won't get 1,000 yards this year- the WCO and platooning him with Hardesty (assuming he's healthy) may well cut his total rushing yardage down. And there would be nothing wrong with that. Though, maybe in this WCO, he get 1200 yard and Hardesty get 700....if it is clicking right. No sense in putting any limit on what those two could possibly do in this offense, fair to say. I mean, there is no reason to surmise that the Browns as a team will only be able to gain a max 1200 yards on the ground that has to be divided between Hillis and Hardesty. Maybe in this offense they can pull off gaining 2000 yards rushing, and another 4000 passing. Why not? Isn't that what it is designed to do? I don't know exactly what the 49ers or Packers or other teams that successfully ran the WCO got in total offense, but it wouldn't surprise me if it matched those type of numbers. Of course, you have to have the talent to carry it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Just a few stats on most well known successful teams that ran the WCO: The 1989 49ers gained 4584 yards passing and 1966 yards rushing as a team that year The 1994 49ers gained 4362 passing and 1897 rushing The 1996 Packers gained 3938 passing and 1838 rushing. These certainly are the kinds of numbers we could live with here, aren't they? Last year the SB winning Packers gained 4355 passing and 1606 rushing. The 2010 Cleveland Browns actually outrushed the Packers gaining 1646 rushing yards, but they only had 3202 passing yards. To me, the run game seems fairly adequate, maybe it only needs a couple of hundred yards boost. But we need about another 1000 yards out of our pass game to be on that level of offensive proficiency. Now, maybe the presence of a healthy Hardesty and a continuing healthy Hillis can easily squeeze out that extra 200 yards on the ground. But where is that extra 1000 yards passing going to come from? The institution of the WCO alone? A full time Colt McCoy at QB? Gregg Little and Jordan Cameron? Enquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaspro Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 A solid right side of a line and a franchis WR (Little) to catch passes from Colt will hopefully do that. Not to mention this will also free up the other WR's. And of course, do not forget about our TE's Watson and Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 A solid right side of a line and a franchis WR (Little) to catch passes from Colt will hopefully do that. Not to mention this will also free up the other WR's. And of course, do not forget about our TE's Watson and Moore. Don't forget the TE from USC we drafted either, I believe he will be Watson's heir apparent. Hillis will be seasoned, healthy, surrounded by better players ... he'll be BETTER in 2011 in the WCO than he was last year. Notice the Browns didn't draft a tailback ... they are loving the Hillis & Hardesty combo. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Mike Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 Just a few stats on most well known successful teams that ran the WCO: The 1989 49ers gained 4584 yards passing and 1966 yards rushing as a team that year The 1994 49ers gained 4362 passing and 1897 rushing The 1996 Packers gained 3938 passing and 1838 rushing. These certainly are the kinds of numbers we could live with here, aren't they? Last year the SB winning Packers gained 4355 passing and 1606 rushing. The 2010 Cleveland Browns actually outrushed the Packers gaining 1646 rushing yards, but they only had 3202 passing yards. To me, the run game seems fairly adequate, maybe it only needs a couple of hundred yards boost. But we need about another 1000 yards out of our pass game to be on that level of offensive proficiency. Now, maybe the presence of a healthy Hardesty and a continuing healthy Hillis can easily squeeze out that extra 200 yards on the ground. But where is that extra 1000 yards passing going to come from? The institution of the WCO alone? A full time Colt McCoy at QB? Gregg Little and Jordan Cameron? Enquiring minds want to know. Efficiency running OR passing sets up the other. Our problems passing last year were mostly schematic, at least in my opinion. I think Hillis will be WAY up there in combined rushing & receiving yards in the WCO. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 People worry too much how Hillis will be impacted. Last year Hillis had 270 carries for 1177 yards and 61 receptions. Last year Shurmer was the OC for the Rams. The rams running back, Steven Jackson had 330 carries for 1241 yards and 46 receptions. Both backs are similar in style and had similar numbers. It's a non story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 People worry too much how Hillis will be impacted. Last year Hillis had 270 carries for 1177 yards and 61 receptions. Last year Shurmer was the OC for the Rams. The rams running back, Steven Jackson had 330 carries for 1241 yards and 46 receptions. Both backs are similar in style and had similar numbers. It's a non story. Hillis was a one year wonder.....book that.....he was ordinary with a big heart....now he is the man......and he will be ordinary......and gone in less than three years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Buffalo Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Hillis was a one year wonder.....book that.....he was ordinary with a big heart....now he is the man......and he will be ordinary......and gone in less than three years And I wish you would be gone today. You never bring anything to a conversation but negative bullshit. In my whole time here on this forum I have never seen you say one damn positive thing. Why the hell even post on here if you can't at least be optimistic 10% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Hillis was a one year wonder.....book that.....he was ordinary with a big heart....now he is the man......and he will be ordinary......and gone in less than three years I think that is mostly wishful thinking on the part of a Steeler fan. We have been through this on how many so called "bruising" running backs have lasted many years in this league, contrary to your view. Hillis can easily have 5 more productive years. He must stay healthy, yes. But there is no reason that he should succumb to injury more than Ray Rice, or Rashad Mendenhall, or Cedric Benson, or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.