Ghoolie Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 1) The Browns believe the focus should be on building "the Unit" and THEN making a big QB pick. 2) The Browns are the worst Franchise in the NFL. I don't know of too many HOF QBs who played for losing teams. Meanwhile the Browns are giddy about having a potential HOF offensive lineman. But hey, carry on. Who needs to win football games? Damn it, we are accumulating assets. Assets, I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 1) The Browns believe the focus should be on building "the Unit" and THEN making a big QB pick. Yes...JUST like the Steelers did in 2004. 2) The Browns are the worst Franchise in the NFL. By what measurement? Just last year's record? That is true. By their record since they were purchased by Haslam? Not sure. By their record since reconstituted in 1999? perhaps. By their lack of playoff appearances? The Bills are actually worse. Financially....I would hardly think so. (no NFL franchise is in any kind of bad shape there. I don't think there is any Art Modell running any team these days) By decrees made by some douchebag? Not even. I don't know of too many HOF QBs who played for losing teams. Meanwhile the Browns are giddy about having a potential HOF offensive lineman. But hey, carry on. Who needs to win football games? Damn it, we are accumulating assets. Assets, I tell ya. Joe Namath played for losing teams for much of his career actually. A few others have as well. But playing for losing teams does hurt. By many evaluations, Archie Manning may have been the superior QB of his age....but the teams around him were so bad that he could never win...even with his skills. If he instead of Bradshaw had been on the Steelers...they may have even won more titles in the 70s.....but some theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 Good on you gip....I just laugh at how his posts are progressively more stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBrown Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 Browns have spent a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd on quarterbacks since 2014. They've traded for one this off season and signed a free agent last year who became a (poor in the end) starter. But yep, they're just throwing the waterboy out there every week and hoping "the unit" comes up trumps. The blatant lies and distortion you use in your posts without hesitation is the actions of someone in need of mental health assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 Browns have spent a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd on quarterbacks since 2014. They've traded for one this off season and signed a free agent last year who became a (poor in the end) starter. But yep, they're just throwing the waterboy out there every week and hoping "the unit" comes up trumps. The blatant lies and distortion you use in your posts without hesitation is the actions or someone in need of mental health assessment. Reminds me of someone else. Someone that you....fortuneatly do not have to deal with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoolie Posted June 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 1) The Browns believe the focus should be on building "the Unit" and THEN making a big QB pick. Yes...JUST like the Steelers did in 2004. 2) The Browns are the worst Franchise in the NFL. By what measurement? Just last year's record? That is true. By their record since they were purchased by Haslam? Not sure. By their record since reconstituted in 1999? perhaps. By their lack of playoff appearances? The Bills are actually worse. Financially....I would hardly think so. (no NFL franchise is in any kind of bad shape there. I don't think there is any Art Modell running any team these days) By decrees made by some douchebag? Not even. I don't know of too many HOF QBs who played for losing teams. Meanwhile the Browns are giddy about having a potential HOF offensive lineman. But hey, carry on. Who needs to win football games? Damn it, we are accumulating assets. Assets, I tell ya. Joe Namath played for losing teams for much of his career actually. A few others have as well. But playing for losing teams does hurt. By many evaluations, Archie Manning may have been the superior QB of his age....but the teams around him were so bad that he could never win...even with his skills. If he instead of Bradshaw had been on the Steelers...they may have even won more titles in the 70s.....but some theories. The point is that in general, a team is a hell of a lot better off with a HOF QB than with a HOF offensive lineman. Nobody has ever been able to stick to football facts when discussing Joe Thomas. I ask for someone to demonstrate analytically or statistically how the Browns offense improved with his arrival. How can someone be a HOF player, and yet not offer any measurable impact to his team? I mean you will admit, Joe is not a physical beast, he has not helped the running game. We surely don't run great sweeps. Hell, we don't even run good screen plays. he 70's Steelers could not win shit until Bradshaw finally emerged. When Bradshaw was hurt, that great OL and Steel Curtain Defense couldn't do shit. Bradshaw retired in 1983. Webster played beyond that, as well is did many of the Bradshaw era players. When Bradshaw left, so did the dominance. It is important to have a full compliment of players. I have never argued that, but having a great Ol and D is not going to win jack shit. By the time the browns find a QB worth a shit, that unit they built will be largely older, lost to FA or injured. The "foundation" is not a static entity. WInning teams rebuild every year. This idea that we are going to build a static foundation and THEN pull in playmakers is just not realistic. According to Sports illustrated, the average NFL career is now 2.66 years. Offensive Linemen, the least athletic men on the field last 3 years and 8 months. So you see, it is totally unrealistic to believe that you can build a great franchise by putting together a foundation and THEN plugging in your skilled players. They used to say it takes 5-years to develop a QB. This also is a thing of the past. No team is going to give a QB 5 years to develop. If they did, by the time he developed, all those draft pick assets that you built the foundation with would be long, long gone. Truly the model to build a team with is the Patriots and not the long-gone Steelers of the 70's. Belichik doesn't have a lot of draft picks, yet he produces more players out of the draft than we do. He also adds proven veteran play-maker talent just about every year. Hue Jackson is a dud. Bad clock management, poor QB choice, poor assistant choices, continued lack of discipline, no culture for developing players, and a continued reluctance to go after play-makers. It is an illusion that we are building. We aren't building, we are watching Haslam save himself to greater riches. https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/01/nfl-careers-shortened-two-years-data-analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 Captain Obvious....a team can't win without a great QB...NO Shit Sherlock......But: .......then WTF were the Ravens doing in 2000....or the Bucs in 2002...and the Steelers in 2005 (yes....BR at that time was NOT a great QB) Get the fuck over the Joe Thomas thing. If you got your wish and they got rid of Joe Thomas...it doesn't mean that they would go one goddamned inch toward getting a good QB in here. That is like saying: I have a great steak here on my plate....but since I got some lousy cheesecake I must therefore sacrifice my great steak and go with ground chuck....all in the hopes that it will help me end up with some better cheesecake. Well, just because you get get rid of a great steak does not mean the outstanding cheesecake will come your way. You may still end up with sour, moldy cheesecake.....and lousy ground chuck to boot. So instead of at least one good course to your meal...you end up with two shitty courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 Damn it, we are accumulating assets. Assets, I tell ya. Well....it's pretty obvious that they covet draft picks......more than most teams.... And, right now, our FO is into quantity over quality......a very very obvious factoid.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby73 Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 #1.Even Tho Joe Thomas was selected #25 in top 100 players by his peers, per Ghoolhide, JT is a worthless,non-game changing,fatass non-HOF OLman/ #2.All are problems are solved in The Land with a QB..Ghoolhide answers the bell with Paxton Lynch & Mitchell Tribinski..2 consistent steamy piles of things for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted June 27, 2017 Report Share Posted June 27, 2017 #1.Even Tho Joe Thomas was selected #25 in top 100 players by his peers, per Ghoolhide, JT is a worthless,non-game changing,fatass non-HOF OLman/ #2.All are problems are solved in The Land with a QB..Ghoolhide answers the bell with Paxton Lynch & Mitchell Tribinski..2 consistent steamy piles of things for now Well, we don't know about those 2...they could turn out fine. But I can tell you the one thing that Lynch and Trubisky would coveted most if they came here is a HOF LOT. OUR question now...is whether or not Brock Osweiler, Cody Kessler and DeShon Kizer are the steaming piles of things. That remains to be seen. Maybe they will still be piles...just not steaming ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.