Kareem Hunt Signs with Browns

[Bleedin Green]

22 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

But I was saying I believed in the Browns from the moment they started to embrace analytics.  Admittedly, I was wrong about Hue Jackson, but I did think that the Browns were smart to tear everything down and go young from the start. 

Again, John Dorsey doesn't sign on to run the Browns, with their history of failure, if he didn't see something there. 

This is some flawed logic that you're relying on here, as it's questionable assumptions about another person's opinions, while disregarding the significant number of changes he's made.  You're simply attempting to justify why it's not even the same guy that was previously being credited for a brilliant plan, whom no other NFL team has any interest in, that the Browns actually saw any improvement under.

Yes, the Browns have recently shown improvement, but changes in the front office, coaching staff, and a large volume of players might just have a little more to do with it than a bunch of people from 3 years ago currently standing on the unemployment line.

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

This is some flawed logic that you're relying on here, as it's questionable assumptions about another person's opinions, while disregarding the significant number of changes he's made.  You're simply attempting to justify why it's not even the same guy that was previously being credited for a brilliant plan, whom no other NFL team has any interest in, that the Browns actually saw any improvement under.

Yes, the Browns have recently shown improvement, but changes in the front office, coaching staff, and a large volume of players might just have a little more to do with it than a bunch of people from 3 years ago currently standing on the unemployment line.

He kept Paul DePodesta.  That alone tells me he believed in a major aspect of what the Browns were doing. 

[genot]

2 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Why you guys mad at Kareem Hunt? Talk about kicking someone while they’re down

 

[JetFreak89]

11 hours ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

The "proper way" as far as the Brown's method goes was to accrue a record of 45 wins versus 130 losses since 2008.  That is an astounding record and is the key to their ability to put "building blocks" in place.  That's 11 seasons of draft picks at the top of every round, enabling them to pick the best of the "can't miss" prospects and also allowing them to consistently trade down from those lofty positions to garner extra picks.  This commitment to losing year after year is the biggest reason for their roster "superiority" that they enjoy now.  I can't celebrate that as some sort of major accomplishment, sorry.  Regards, my friend.

That's kind of proving my point though. What makes the last couple of losing seasons different from the 8 or 9 that preceded them? If the Browns were always destined to improve (which is a strawman argument, of course given enough time ANY team will improve from 0-16, which is not my point) why didn't it happen sooner? I believe it started with the hiring of DePodesta in 2016 and the changes he brought along in draft strategy and personnel. I'm not seeing many top picks from 8-10 years ago really having an impact on the Browns of last year or next.   

[JetFreak89]

11 hours ago, Bleedin Green said:

Actually, it was an absolute guarantee that a 0-win team would eventually improve upon their record, as long as the NFL didn't go out of business.  Meanwhile, they still haven't had a winning season in 11 years, but you go right on ahead and let everyone else know that, despite how terrible they were in the years you said they'd be good, it actually makes you the most right of everyone once they finally stopped being the very worst in league history, while still having accomplished absolutely nothing.

The Jets could be sporting the league's worst AAF team right now, and it would still have no impact on your need for self-celebration about something you were wrong about at the time you made the argument.  But hey, I'm sure the changes to the entire front office, coaching staff, and roster that all needed to be made between those times surely had nothing to do with any of it.  It was your unmatched foresight that really brought it all together.

Are you putting out a strawman argument or are you that dense that you don't even know the point you are arguing? I never said the Browns would be good in 2016 - 2018, I said they were setting themselves up for a brighter FUTURE with the way they were handling the draft and personnel decisions in 2016-2018. The point isn't that the Browns would eventually improve on an 0-16 season (obviously this would happen eventually) or that the Browns would be better than the Jets in 2016 or 2017. The fact is that while some fans were pointing out that Mac and Bowles should be taking a good look at what the Browns were doing and trying to emulate that (instead of patching together a roster to make a 4 win team a 5 win team), a majority of other fans were justifying Mac's moves based on the reasoning of "Herrr Derrr, the Browns are the laughingstock of the league and will never be better than us!". 

So here we are 2-3 years later. Yes, the Browns still have more improvement to be made but name one position group outside of maybe QB and Safety that you would choose the Jets over the Browns to have? 

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

4 minutes ago, JetFreak89 said:

That's kind of proving my point though. What makes the last couple of losing seasons different from the 8 or 9 that preceded them? If the Browns were always destined to improve (which is a strawman argument, of course given enough time ANY team will improve from 0-16, which is not my point) why didn't it happen sooner? I believe it started with the hiring of DePodesta in 2016 and the changes he brought along in draft strategy and personnel. I'm not seeing many top picks from 8-10 years ago really having an impact on the Browns of last year or next.   

Wish that DePodesta had such an impact when he was with the Mets. Thirty four of the current Browns on their roster were draft picks attained in the first four rounds,  picks made by Cleveland themselves. I only counted players drafted within the first four rounds, to boot.   That has to be pretty much unprecedented league wide. So your point about them improving over the past few years is valid, as is mine that the way they got there was through sucking, and sucking mightily.  Further, they only had two "successful" seasons during those eleven seasons, if you want to count seven wins as being successful, which I don't.  They haven't done anything yet, so to hold them up as the example as a well run franchise, despite the perceived improvement of the roster is somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?  Anyway I hope things are going well for you.

[JetFreak89]

3 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

Wish that DePodesta had such an impact when he was with the Mets. Thirty four of the current Browns on their roster were draft picks attained in the first four rounds,  picks made by Cleveland themselves. I only counted players drafted within the first four rounds, to boot.   That has to be pretty much unprecedented league wide. So your point about them improving over the past few years is valid, as is mine that the way they got there was through sucking, and sucking mightily.  Further, they only had two "successful" seasons during those eleven seasons, if you want to count seven wins as being successful, which I don't.  They haven't done anything yet, so to hold them up as the example as a well run franchise, despite the perceived improvement of the roster is somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?  Anyway I hope things are going well for you.

Of course, high draft picks (result of sucking mightily) play a big role in the improvement and, as I said in another post, they still need to keep improving if the last couple of years of drafting will be seen as a success. But my point is not to look back and say "I told you so" (as another poster is trying to suggest) but more so that there are things we could have done/can do to get ourselves in a similar situation. For instance, the Browns getting a draft pick for Osweiler, I thought was genius. I would compare it to how Mac signed Bridgewater and turned him into a pick. Also, I think there were opportunities the last few years (not including last draft) for us to trade down and acquire more picks. I'm hoping that is something that finally happens this year, unless Bosa somehow falls to us, things of that nature. Things are going very well over here, hope all is well with you too. 

[kdels62]

1 hour ago, genot said:

I think your looking past the two other incidents that are being looked into by the NFL.  Alot of times when you grow up around violence, you take on that behavior. Somehow, it's a normal part of daily life. If some team want's to take a chance with him, fine. I just prefer the Jets stay clear of that problem. It becomes a distraction. Hurts more than it helps.

I agree that some teams should not take the chance if they feel like they can’t deal with helping him improve himself. 

The point is that he is talented enough to play in the league. He has no criminal record. He had a bad incident he’s lost money and a portion of his career. What he did is unacceptable but ending his career is an act of excess.

[genot]

I don't have a problem with some team giving him a chance. We're Jet fans, and as a Jet fan, i think it would be too much of a distraction. At least with the Browns, they have Chubb. If Hunt screws up, they're alright. With us, he'd be a featured player, and the consequences of him screwing up are magnified.

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

3 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

O have to agree with lonelyheats. It's annoying to read your posts the way you type them.

I find it somewhat annoying to read the bulk of your posts based on what's in them.  As for " Miss Insect", I really don't care what she thinks.  She is a surly negative irritating pest.  If the posts irritate you, don't read them.  Thanks for the input.

[More Cowbell]

32 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

I find it somewhat annoying to read the bulk of your posts based on what's in them.  As for " Miss Insect", I really don't care what she thinks.  She is a surly negative irritating pest.  If the posts irritate you, don't read them.  Thanks for the input.

Your welcome and I don't

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

Just now, More Cowbell said:

Your welcome and I don't

By the way,  why don't you spend some time scrutinizing your posts for grammatical errors, punctuation marks, and fragmented sentences.  Should be time well spent.  Good Luck.

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, JetFreak89 said:

Are you putting out a strawman argument or are you that dense that you don't even know the point you are arguing? I never said the Browns would be good in 2016 - 2018, I said they were setting themselves up for a brighter FUTURE with the way they were handling the draft and personnel decisions in 2016-2018. The point isn't that the Browns would eventually improve on an 0-16 season (obviously this would happen eventually) or that the Browns would be better than the Jets in 2016 or 2017. The fact is that while some fans were pointing out that Mac and Bowles should be taking a good look at what the Browns were doing and trying to emulate that (instead of patching together a roster to make a 4 win team a 5 win team), a majority of other fans were justifying Mac's moves based on the reasoning of "Herrr Derrr, the Browns are the laughingstock of the league and will never be better than us!". 

So here we are 2-3 years later. Yes, the Browns still have more improvement to be made but name one position group outside of maybe QB and Safety that you would choose the Jets over the Browns to have? 

You accusing others of strawman is the mostly laughably hypocritical thing possible.  Literally this started by you telling everyone how impressed you were with yourself because the league's very worst team wasn't any good at all when you said otherwise, but they eventually got better.  Inspirational stuff.

If you think anything I'm saying is even the slightest bit of defense the ever-incompetent Maccagnan, that's even more ignorant than the brilliance of an 0-16 team.

[More Cowbell]

27 minutes ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

By the way,  why don't you spend some time scrutinizing your posts for grammatical errors, punctuation marks, and fragmented sentences.  Should be time well spent.  Good Luck.

You're (that was for you btw) really something. I have to applaud the way you just can't let something as stupid as my last post go. 

You're (see that, two times in a row) about the most sensitive thing on this board. 

When you can't refute the substance, look for spelling and punctuation mistakes. 

[JetFreak89]

15 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

You accusing others of strawman is the mostly laughably hypocritical thing possible.  Literally this started by you telling everyone how impressed you were with yourself because the league's very worst team wasn't any good at all when you said otherwise, but they eventually got better.  Inspirational stuff.

If you think anything I'm saying is even the slightest bit of defense the ever-incompetent Maccagnan, that's even more ignorant than the brilliance of an 0-16 team.

Man, if only everything I said was put in written form for all to see and review. Go ahead and quote the post where I said the Browns would be good in 2016 or 2017 when they ended up going 0-16....I'll wait here patiently for your reply. 

The only thing laughable here is how personally offended you are that the Browns have a better roster than the Jets right now. 

[jack48]

21 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Yes, and we also have people like you who want to impose your moral views on us. No need to look at facts, police reports or laws, just be a judge based on your moral values. But hey, if you're going to be a judge, why not be a hanging judge? No second chances! You've been offended! Do you realize your moral outrage is yours, and your need to judge others based on it is nothing but virtue signaling? 

The police interviewed all parties involved, viewed the tape, and didn't arrest or charge Hunt.

Its hard to justify Hunt's actions, and as the father of a daughter, I have no desire to try. That said, if that was my daughter in that video, I'd be as upset with her as I'd be with Hunt. She was clearly the aggressor, and her behavior escalated the situation to the point where unless hotel security could intervene, there would be  a bad outcome. She was physically violent, and out of control verbally. She struck people, and used the N word.

Explain to me how a young girl, who at the least was very drunk, out at 130 in the morning, arguing like that with strangers her age in front of the hotel room the strangers were staying in, is an innocent victim. Yes she fell to the ground, but she wasn't the one pushed. Someone was pushed into her. Then we get to Hunt's "pummeling of her" as someone described it. She is crouching, and he disgustedly knocks her off balance and she topples over.

Nobody comes out of this looking good, but as I said nobody comes out looking like a victim either. Put any group of young people in a situation like that night, and the outcome could be a lot worse. Lets save the moral outrage and virtue signaling for real victims of violence. When you choose to get on a pulpit and preach, make sure you have a viable cause. If you don't have one and preach anyway, you're hurting the cause not helping it. 

No one is imposing moral views.  Take a pill.  Stating moral views is not imposing them.  I am not a judge. The NFL is the judge in this case.  Take your preaching to a friendlier pulpit.

[JetFaninMI]

20 hours ago, joenamathwouldn'tcry said:

That was  exactly my point, he's certainly no savior, nor a villain.  I think I've always made that clear in my comments about him.  I surely expected the Jets to get him in the draft, Sam was, and  is a gift,  As far as the "handling" goes I was responding to a post made by HelenofTroy,.  Check out the thread and you will get it.  This is a Jets website.  We are Jets fans here.  Admiring someone's skill sets is one thing.  Constantly FAWNING over them is something else.

Well I thought he would be the Jets pick as well. I wanted them to draft him because I thought there was no way the Jets would have a shot at Sam. I watched every game Oklahoma played and thought he was legit. As soon he was drafted by the Browns my interest waned. Now I don't follow him more or less than any other player not on the teams I follow. I think Mayfield is a legit NFL QB and I will be interested in his progress but I won't go out of my way to follow his career. The only time I will be concerned about the Browns is when they play the Jets. So I agree with ya. Who cares about Baker Mayfield? Although I would love to see him beat out the Steelers in that division.

[Bleedin Green]

21 minutes ago, JetFreak89 said:

Man, if only everything I said was put in written form for all to see and review. Go ahead and quote the post where I said the Browns would be good in 2016 or 2017 when they ended up going 0-16....I'll wait here patiently for your reply. 

The only thing laughable here is how personally offended you are that the Browns have a better roster than the Jets right now. 

This has nothing to do with the Jets, as that's only become the point you fall back on when pointing out the major hole in the argument of how awful the Browns were at the time you claim your own brilliance for having said otherwise.  I'm going off of your very own statements here as to what you said then.  So now you're calling yourself out, for your earlier claim of your own statements 3 years ago actually being a blatant lie you were simply looking to use for self-congratulations?  Um... good work, I guess.  You got... you?

[Bleedin Green]

3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

He kept Paul DePodesta.  That alone tells me he believed in a major aspect of what the Browns were doing. 

Ok, and I guess that does give one line of connection.  It still doesn't change the point that the argument of how this all supposedly came together is dependent on ignoring an overwhelming majority of the other significant changes that happened to the team before any improvements occurred.  Brown was credited as the original genius behind it all when this argument was first being made.  Yet, he was ultimately a miserable failure that was nothing more than their equivalent of Idzik, a guy with the idea of tearing the team down and then building them back up from the ground up, who succeeded at the easy first part and failed miserably at the second.

The primary difference is that the Jets' went with Maccagnan's unmatched level of incompetence next, while the Browns went with Dorsey, who has just a bit of a pre-Browns successful track record of his own.  It's tough to ignore that Dorsey quite literally did more for their offense in one single offseason than the rest of them combined in all of the preceding years.  Nearly that entire unit (other than OL) came in this year, which was the most significant change to this year's team and the one that the others had failed miserably at repeatedly without Dorsey.  So no, there is no credit deserved for years of "the Browns are better than everyone thinks!" claims that only ever came close to being true dependent on a completely new person bringing in a heavily load of new players.  The team was claimed to have sucked at those times, because they did suck.  That past reality still hasn't changed.

[JetFreak89]

30 minutes ago, Bleedin Green said:

This has nothing to do with the Jets, as that's only become the point you fall back on when pointing out the major hole in the argument of how awful the Browns were at the time you claim your own brilliance for having said otherwise.  I'm going off of your very own statements here as to what you said then.  So now you're calling yourself out, for your earlier claim of your own statements 3 years ago actually being a blatant lie you were simply looking to use for self-congratulations?  Um... good work, I guess.  You got... you?

So just to recap for the folks in the back:

1) You can't find any posts where I said the Browns would be good 2 or 3 years ago at their then present state (hint: they don't exist).

2) You can't find any posts in this thread where I said the Browns would be good at that time 2 or 3 years ago. 

3) I've stated on at least 3 different occasions that I was talking about the future of the Browns not their (at that time) present teams. To put in simpler terms, as you clearly need them to be: In 2016, a few posters stated that in 2 years or so the Browns would be better than the Jets due to the moves they were making. Fast forward to present day and that turned out to be true. 

4) Because of points 1-3, you realize that you lost the argument so you keep pretending that I said something that I didn't just to make yourself feel better. 

It's okay to admit when you are wrong, it's actually a sign of strength. Just admit that you misunderstood what I said and move on instead of embarrassing yourself fighting a self-made argument. 

[Bleedin Green]

Just now, JetFreak89 said:

So just to recap for the folks in the back:

1) You can't find any posts where I said the Browns would be good 2 or 3 years ago at their then present state (hint: they don't exist).

2) You can't find any posts in this thread where I said the Browns would be good at that time 2 or 3 years ago. 

3) I've stated on at least 3 different occasions that I was talking about the future of the Browns not their (at that time) present teams. To put in simpler terms, as you clearly need them to be: In 2016, a few posters stated that in 2 years or so the Browns would be better than the Jets due to the moves they were making. Fast forward to present day and that turned out to be true. 

4) Because of points 1-3, you realize that you lost the argument so you keep pretending that I said something that I didn't just to make yourself feel better. 

It's okay to admit when you are wrong, it's actually a sign of strength. Just admit that you misunderstood what I was said and move on instead of embarrassing yourself fighting a self-made argument. 

It's cute how desperate you are to applaud yourself.  Point #3 automatically refuse points 1 and 2, despite your attempt to argument semantics about when they'd be good, as it is dependent on you crediting yourself with future foresight of two teams that have next to nothing in common with each other, including the front office, coaching staff, and large volume of the roster.  That would be like if you were touting the future greatness of the Jets' QB situation back in 2015, and then applauding yourself because they now have Darnold.

You want to be credited as right because you say so, but nothing supports that.

[14 in Green]

3 hours ago, jack48 said:

No one is imposing moral views.  Take a pill.  Stating moral views is not imposing them.  I am not a judge. The NFL is the judge in this case.  Take your praching to a friendlier pulpit.

Maybe I did come off too strongly there, and I am sorry if I did. I also regret that it was directed towards you, because I enjoy your posts and respect your opinions. We just completely disagree on this subject. 

To your post, there are two judges though. One is the legal system, and it has decided that Hunt didn't commit a crime. Yes, the NFL gets to judge this case also, but theirs is a completely different type of court. Their concern is more about public image, and advertising dollars. Not legal right or wrong. So yes, they've placed Hunt on a suspended list, mainly to placate outsiders and protect the "shield". That's fine, they have a right to look out for their image.

Here's my issue with your original post and now this second one. In the first, you say he shouldn't be forgiven, and shouldn't be allowed to play again. OK, that's your opinion, and I told you why I felt differently. I felt you were imposing your morals on others. Now you're claiming you're not a judge, simply stating moral views. That would be true if you stopped when you said you thought Hunt's actions were wrong. If you did that, I'd have agreed with you 100%. That's a moral view we both share. But once you (and others here) say he should never be allowed to play again, you are being a judge, and you are imposing your values.

Hope there are no hard feelings, we're allowed to disagree. I just wanted to clarify what I said in my prior post.

[Thai Jet]

On 2/11/2019 at 3:03 PM, JetFreak89 said:

Hunt gets max 8 games but I'll bet on 6.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

Especially considering he missed 5 games plus the playoffs this year.

[Thai Jet]

On 2/11/2019 at 2:57 PM, Bleedin Green said:

Oh, no doubt.  But it's just a little comical for anyone to try to pat themselves on the back for supposed foresight, when the earlier days of the Browns being credited as built so amazingly also happened to feature an entirely different front office and coaching staff, with significant roster changes since then as well.

While I agree the Browns seem to be trending upwards now, I also consider it to be less than a sure thing for a team that is now being run by a career position-coach with two months of coordinating experience, because your little intolerable douche of a QB liked him best.  We'll see I suppose.

Still can't believe they by passed Greg Williams who went 5-3 with the same crap team Jackson had.

[BornJetsFan1983]

50 minutes ago, Thai Jet said:

Still can't believe they by passed Greg Williams who went 5-3 with the same crap team Jackson had.

he is abrassive..and you know in the NFL you need to be all chummy and sh*t

[Thai Jet]

1 hour ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

he is abrassive..and you know in the NFL you need to be all chummy and sh*t

Sad that's the way the NFL has become. Still the purpose  of the game is to win.

[Butterfield]

The guy shouldn’t be playing football, he should be in jail.  But then again, so should their owner.  Degenerates supporting degenerates.

[Philc1]

2 hours ago, Butterfield said:

The guy shouldn’t be playing football, he should be in jail.  But then again, so should their owner.  Degenerates supporting degenerates.

Nfl needs to stop kicking the can down the curb with this guy

[jack48]

12 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Maybe I did come off too strongly there, and I am sorry if I did. I also regret that it was directed towards you, because I enjoy your posts and respect your opinions. We just completely disagree on this subject. 

To your post, there are two judges though. One is the legal system, and it has decided that Hunt didn't commit a crime. Yes, the NFL gets to judge this case also, but theirs is a completely different type of court. Their concern is more about public image, and advertising dollars. Not legal right or wrong. So yes, they've placed Hunt on a suspended list, mainly to placate outsiders and protect the "shield". That's fine, they have a right to look out for their image.

Here's my issue with your original post and now this second one. In the first, you say he shouldn't be forgiven, and shouldn't be allowed to play again. OK, that's your opinion, and I told you why I felt differently. I felt you were imposing your morals on others. Now you're claiming you're not a judge, simply stating moral views. That would be true if you stopped when you said you thought Hunt's actions were wrong. If you did that, I'd have agreed with you 100%. That's a moral view we both share. But once you (and others here) say he should never be allowed to play again, you are being a judge, and you are imposing your values.

Hope there are no hard feelings, we're allowed to disagree. I just wanted to clarify what I said in my prior post.

No, not really.  When I say he should not be allowed back, I am not judging but casting my vote.  Just like we do on Election Day.  It is nowhere near so drastic as you put it.  It is not a command to the league. I think I said I do not believe in second chances in all cases.  There are a lot of people who feel that way.  No hard feelings.  I am sick and tired, frankly, of the thugginess of the NFL.  I have been watching games since the late 50s and that aspect of it has magnified 50 times.

[Butterfield]

13 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Maybe I did come off too strongly there, and I am sorry if I did. I also regret that it was directed towards you, because I enjoy your posts and respect your opinions. We just completely disagree on this subject. 

To your post, there are two judges though. One is the legal system, and it has decided that Hunt didn't commit a crime. Yes, the NFL gets to judge this case also, but theirs is a completely different type of court. Their concern is more about public image, and advertising dollars. Not legal right or wrong. So yes, they've placed Hunt on a suspended list, mainly to placate outsiders and protect the "shield". That's fine, they have a right to look out for their image.

Here's my issue with your original post and now this second one. In the first, you say he shouldn't be forgiven, and shouldn't be allowed to play again. OK, that's your opinion, and I told you why I felt differently. I felt you were imposing your morals on others. Now you're claiming you're not a judge, simply stating moral views. That would be true if you stopped when you said you thought Hunt's actions were wrong. If you did that, I'd have agreed with you 100%. That's a moral view we both share. But once you (and others here) say he should never be allowed to play again, you are being a judge, and you are imposing your values.

Hope there are no hard feelings, we're allowed to disagree. I just wanted to clarify what I said in my prior post.

At least he has some morals.  The people who defend Hunt have none.  The value of not hitting a woman should be universal.  Hunt, Haslam, and their sickening supporters need to be ostracized from society.

[jumpgo69]

On 2/11/2019 at 3:09 PM, 14 in Green said:

How do you feel about your douche RB and WR?

If Mayfield was the Jets QB you'd love him twice as much as you do Darnold. So stop with the moral compass BS. 

I'd kill to have the new GM who's running that team. BTW I'd take Mayfield and Kitchens also.

browns fan.   just stop.   i dont get how you can accurately project how a fanbase would feel about a hypothetical situation.   i personally think all the teams outside of Arizona who drafted a qb in the 1st love who they have and Rosen being undetermined due to the circumstances being so rookie unfriendly.  

we can all play the what if game but if life has taught me anything its that one factor changing leads to another.  in other words Baker may not have had the same success or Darnold or Allen ....well maybe Rosen would like a mulligan.   i think Jets fans are very happy with Darnold and Bills fans with Allen just like Browns fans are with Mayfield..      Let the kids play and take over the league.  its exciting to see all this qb talent over the last few years.

[14 in Green]

55 minutes ago, jumpgo69 said:

browns fan.   just stop.   i dont get how you can accurately project how a fanbase would feel about a hypothetical situation.   i personally think all the teams outside of Arizona who drafted a qb in the 1st love who they have and Rosen being undetermined due to the circumstances being so rookie unfriendly.  

we can all play the what if game but if life has taught me anything its that one factor changing leads to another.  in other words Baker may not have had the same success or Darnold or Allen ....well maybe Rosen would like a mulligan.   i think Jets fans are very happy with Darnold and Bills fans with Allen just like Browns fans are with Mayfield..      Let the kids play and take over the league.  its exciting to see all this qb talent over the last few years.

If you took a minute to read my posts, especially the one you're quoting, you'd see that you're basically repeating everything I said about these rookie QBs a hundred times. That either makes you as smart as me, which you aren't, or a Browns fan yourself. (See how easy it was for me to get as snarky as you did at the beginning of your post?)

Since you just reply to things without knowing the context though, let me walk you through it. The Mayfield comment was in response to a post in which the person said they much preferred Darnold as his QB because he wasn't a douche. If he had given any other reason, I wouldn't have quoted him, but since he was so obviously a homer who refused to acknowledge Mayfield's record breaking rookie season and in fact attacked him personally, I knew I was right that even if Mayfield actually was a douche he'd love him if he was a Jet.  

BTW you're new here and I've given you with way more of my time then you deserve after the first 4 words of your post.  I know this is only a fan board on the internet, but this place is similar to the real world in that you get to decide how you want to be perceived. First impressions matter. Disagreement is fine, most of us love the debate. Do it the right way, you'll get along fine, people will respect you even if you don't agree with them on every subject. Come off like a jerk, you'll be regarded and treated as one regardless of your opinion. 

Enjoy your off season, Browns fan.

[jumpgo69]

48 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

If you took a minute to read my posts, especially the one you're quoting, you'd see that you're basically repeating everything I said about these rookie QBs a hundred times. That either makes you as smart as me, which you aren't, or a Browns fan yourself. (See how easy it was for me to get as snarky as you did at the beginning of your post?)

Since you just reply to things without knowing the context though, let me walk you through it. The Mayfield comment was in response to a post in which the person said they much preferred Darnold as his QB because he wasn't a douche. If he had given any other reason, I wouldn't have quoted him, but since he was so obviously a homer who refused to acknowledge Mayfield's record breaking rookie season and in fact attacked him personally, I knew I was right that even if Mayfield actually was a douche he'd love him if he was a Jet.  

BTW you're new here and I've given you with way more of my time then you deserve after the first 4 words of your post.  I know this is only a fan board on the internet, but this place is similar to the real world in that you get to decide how you want to be perceived. First impressions matter. Disagreement is fine, most of us love the debate. Do it the right way, you'll get along fine, people will respect you even if you don't agree with them on every subject. Come off like a jerk, you'll be regarded and treated as one regardless of your opinion. 

Enjoy your off season, Browns fan.

Perhaps I came across brash.  That was not my intent.  I did read the post I quoted and honestly was not able to infer what you claim it said 100 times (thats a lot of times I missed in that singular post).   What I did infer is that you felt the reasoning of douche was not a logical one and therefore assumed it must mean he actually prefers Mayfield but is instead creating a narrative to justify not preferring him.   I get it.  My comprehension level is at least on par with the average 5th grader.  I just dont understand why you feel a person cannot use personality as a logical reason to prefer one player over another.  I imagine teams weigh this aspect when drafting as the poster did with his belief.  Mayfield isnt for everyone.

I apologize if I came across as petulant in my first post.  

Personally I like All the 1st round qbs a lot and think they are special, including Rosen.

[kelticwizard]

On 2/13/2019 at 6:02 AM, jack48 said:

 I am sick and tired, frankly, of the thugginess of the NFL.  I have been watching games since the late 50s and that aspect of it has magnified 50 times. 

I'm sick of the thuggishness too, but in all honesty I don't know how much is an increase in the league's thugs and how much is that the players transgressions don't get covered up like they used to.  I remember reading about the ballplayers of the 50s and 60s, and when evaluating each other, they would often go into two categories:  How good the player was on the field, and how good the player was in a fight in a bar.  Ballplayers used to get into so many barfights that they all got a separate rep for that in addition to their worth during a game.  Frequently cops would let a ballplayer go because they figured it wasn't good for the kids to see their heroes aren't solid citizens.  There was a lot of covering up back then. 

 

I somewhat suspect the thuggishness has gotten worse since then, but the difference might not be quite as great as we think.

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

2 minutes ago, kelticwizard said:

I'm sick of the thuggishness too, but in all honesty I don't know how much is an increase in the league's thugs and how much is that the players transgressions don't get covered up like they used to.  I remember reading about the ballplayers of the 50s and 60s, and when evaluating each other, they would often go into two categories:  How good the player was on the field, and how good the player was in a fight in a bar.  Ballplayers used to get into so many barfights that they all got a separate rep for that in addition to their worth during a game.  Frequently cops would let a ballplayer go because they figured it wasn't good for the kids to see their heroes aren't solid citizens.  There was a lot of covering up back then. 

 

I somewhat suspect the thuggishness has gotten worse since then, but the difference might not be quite as great as we think.

Drunken fighting is one thing Wizard.  These days it's about assault, rape, guns and drugs.  That it more than taking it up a notch. I don't want to go on a rant about society, because I know you get it, but it seems to me that life and decency come cheaply these days.  I  for one, don't want to root for assholes.  That's the way I've always felt, whether they were on my team or not.  Some say it doesn't matter, as long as they can help the team.  They're wrong.  Things work in cycles.  When society improves, which I believe it will, the players and NFL will too.  If it doesn't we're in trouble.