Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, PoeticG said:

You yourself just posted 3 different Qbs that you would consider a perfect draft. Darnold, Rosen and Mayfield. You are going to get one at 4 and Camp Barkley is going to get our guy at #1. 

This isn't a Sock-measuring competition, both the RB pick and the QB pick are going to be pivot able for our future. Barkley is useful now, and he'll be even more valuable(stronger, faster and smarter)when your guy is ready to step in. It's going to be a win/win for the Browns... don't get caught up in semantics. We can't gift Barkley to the Giants. He's going to be the talk of the NFL all season, and our offense is going to the top!

Would it have made you any happier if I had just used Darnold? Boo-hoo, ANY of those three QBs are a better option than Saquon at #1. I don't have my head up a particular players azz like you do with Barkley. Guys have tried to bet you Saquon isn't going #1, damn near every reputable mock has the Browns drafting a QB first, and you keep droning on with unabated Barkley love. Try to get a grip on reality Po. Saquon at #1 isn't happening, and it's 50\50 at #4. 10 days to the Draft, and it can't get here soon enough. Barkley gets drafted by another team, start following him wherever he winds up. Got your Hogan Redskins jersey yet?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Yes it is. I don't care what you or any of these stupid scientists say.

Also

St Patrick is, by God, still a saint regardless of the popes anti-irish sentiment.

So there you bastard

WSS

Been an astronomy geek since I was six Steve, I'm with you. Pluto is more of a planet than Mercury if you want to get technical. If it's orbiting the sun and has its own mini solar system of moons, it's a planet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoorta said:

Been an astronomy geek since I was six Steve, I'm with you. Pluto is more of a planet than Mercury if you want to get technical. If it's orbiting the sun and has its own mini solar system of moons, it's a planet.

Especially now that they know how active it is geologically which is something that surprised them in seeing from the fly-by. And most surprising of all is that it actually has an atmosphere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Yes it is. I don't care what you or any of these stupid scientists say.

Also

St Patrick is, by God, still a saint regardless of the popes anti-irish sentiment.

So there you bastard

WSS

Pluto meets the textbook definitions of a planet. It IS, a planet. No scientist would say otherwise. It is driven by our sun, a part of our solar system, locked in synchronized orbit, exhibits rotation, exerts the force science calls gravity on the rest of the planets. It is a planet. Some scientists say that an individual born with a penis who identifies as a woman, is simply a woman with a penis. So what, that is not considered science? Idiots. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoolie said:

Pluto meets the textbook definitions of a planet. It IS, a planet. No scientist would say otherwise. It is driven by our sun, a part of our solar system, locked in synchronized orbit, exhibits rotation, exerts the force science calls gravity on the rest of the planets. It is a planet. Some scientists say that an individual born with a penis who identifies as a woman, is simply a woman with a penis. So what, that is not considered science? Idiots. 

What if.....as does happen.....they cut their schmekel off and reform the skin into a vagina...or vaginal like entity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hoorta said:

Pluto is more of a planet than Mercury if you want to get technical.

The planetary scientists say, "How come they didn't ask US if Pluto was a planet or not?"  :)

Image result for solar system orbits

But, as you can see, Pluto's orbit is not on the same plane as the other planets.  And it's quite eccentric.  Sometimes it's outside of Neptune's orbit and sometimes it isn't. 

And Pluto is small.  About half the diameter of Mercury.  -  It acts very much like a Kuiper Belt object...but it's geology and atmosphere are very planet like.

Gipper asked if Terry Pluto knew of Landry's signing.  Yes, he did.

- Here's my favorite pic of Pluto:

Image result for pictures of pluto

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not DNA....it is Chromosomes.  Learn your science. (yes, I know....chromosomes are made up of DNA)

Besides....as we have said.....sex IDENTIFICATION....is a social...not biologic or genetic matter. 

Its like your particular brand of being a football fan......You may have once been a male (Browns fan)....but you seem to have chosen...socially...to identify yourself as a female (Steeler fan).

So....if anyone can identify with those folks, it is you.

Beyond that, men that have had their peckers trimmed are called Eunuchs. At least you are not that.....football wise.   You still at least have some kind of football/sexual identification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

It is not DNA....it is Chromosomes.  Learn your science. (yes, I know....chromosomes are made up of DNA)

Besides....as we have said.....sex IDENTIFICATION....is a social...not biologic or genetic matter. 

Its like your particular brand of being a football fan......You may have once been a male (Browns fan)....but you seem to have chosen...socially...to identify yourself as a female (Steeler fan).

So....if anyone can identify with those folks, it is you.

Beyond that, men that have had their peckers trimmed are called Eunuchs. At least you are not that.....football wise.   You still at least have some kind of football/sexual identification.

It is DNA. If your DNA causes you to have a penis at birth....you are a man. There is no discussion needed here. Genetics, not judges determine the sexual identity of a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From now on, when a beautiful woman goes into the ladies room, I'm going to align my social self as a female and go on in the ladies room.  I've always thought that I'd make a great lesbian.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ghoolie said:

It is DNA. If your DNA causes you to have a penis at birth....you are a man. There is no discussion needed here. Genetics, not judges determine the sexual identity of a person.

You really are thickheaded and don't get it aren't you really you are aren't you!   You are demonstrating a lack of intellectual agility to understand social concepts and or anything out of your narrow tunnel vision and world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Orion said:

From now on, when a beautiful woman goes into the ladies room, I'm going to align my social self as a female and go on in the ladies room.  I've always thought that I'd make a great lesbian.  

In your case yeah you probably are about the closest thing we have on here to a lesbianIn your case yeah you probably are about the closest thing we have on here to a lesbian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

In your case yeah you probably are about the closest thing we have on here to a lesbianIn your case yeah you probably are about the closest thing we have on here to a lesbian

I don't think you meant that as a compliment I don't think you meant that as a compliment I don't think you meant that as a compliment  :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Orion said:

I don't think you meant that as a compliment I don't think you meant that as a compliment I don't think you meant that as a compliment  :)

Are you gay are you gay are you gay are you gayAre you gay are you gay are you gay are you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, the Browns Board - you never know what you'll learn. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Are you gay are you gay are you gay are you gayAre you gay are you gay are you gay are you

No.  Not gay.  I like women.  That's why I can understand lesbianism.  But I cannot fathom gayness. 

...and stop your stuttering.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Orion said:

No.  Not gay.  I like women.  That's why I can understand lesbianism.  But I cannot fathom gayness. 

...and stop your stuttering.   

I don't stutter, my phone stutters.   It must have been made by Browns #1 overall draft pick in 1954, Bobby Garrett....who could not play in the NFL because he stuttered so badly he could not get the plays out in the huddle or call them at the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, D Bone said:

Ahhhh, the Browns Board - you never know what you'll learn. 

:lol:

Oh yeah, learn or just be totally entertained and/or amazed! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 8:34 AM, jiggins7919 said:

People that are moving to the Josh Allen idea are being swayed by his physical tools, IMO.  I think after watching MONTHS of video, workouts, and game film, after a while...you just start to fall in love with a guy who can throw it a country mile.  The problem is, that doesn't mean SQUAT in the NFL.  I want to know who can THINK the fastest, who can process the quickest, who can get the ball out to the RIGHT GUY consistently, who can deliver it IN STRIDE, and many other qualities that have nothing to do with how much zip the ball has on it.  Josh Allen terrifies me.  Now, for what it's worth, I BELIEVE Josh Allen had the highest Wonderlic test by far out of the top QB prospects.  Something like a 36.  I'm not sure if there's really a correlation to high Wonderlic vs high performance, but I did find it interesting.

Jim Kelly who ran a No Huddle offense to 4 consecutive AFC Championships got a 16 on it just like Dan Marino (who QBed his team to a Superbowl as a rookie). 2 Hall of Fame QBs that did a lot better with a football than a #2 pencil.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Flugel said:

Jim Kelly who ran a No Huddle offense to 4 consecutive AFC Championships got a 16 on it just like Dan Marino (who QBed his team to a Superbowl as a rookie). 2 Hall of Fame QBs that did a lot better with a football than a #2 pencil.

Terry Bradshaw was considered a dolt his first few years and then he suddenly "got it" with the help of a great defense to set him up all the time.

From wiki: "Bradshaw became a starter in his second season after splitting time with Terry Hanratty in his rookie campaign. During his first few seasons, the 6'3", 215-pound quarterback was erratic, threw many interceptions (he threw 210 interceptions over the course of his career) and was widely ridiculed by the media for his rural roots and perceived lack of intelligence."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Terry Bradshaw was considered a dolt his first few years and then he suddenly "got it" with the help of a great defense to set him up all the time.

From wiki: "Bradshaw became a starter in his second season after splitting time with Terry Hanratty in his rookie campaign. During his first few seasons, the 6'3", 215-pound quarterback was erratic, threw many interceptions (he threw 210 interceptions over the course of his career) and was widely ridiculed by the media for his rural roots and perceived lack of intelligence."

Yeah, he was definitely Summer School in the learning curve.  I think he was still getting benched in his 3rd and 4th season, which translates to failure to launch in this era.  I think he was a lot like Brett Favre with a much less patient Head Coach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 9:51 AM, boo fagley said:

Barkley will be a beast in the right program.

 

Barkley is "ordinary".. Barkley is a BUST waiting to unfold...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 7:51 AM, TexasAg1969 said:

Terry Bradshaw was considered a dolt his first few years and then he suddenly "got it" with the help of a great defense to set him up all the time.

From wiki: "Bradshaw became a starter in his second season after splitting time with Terry Hanratty in his rookie campaign. During his first few seasons, the 6'3", 215-pound quarterback was erratic, threw many interceptions (he threw 210 interceptions over the course of his career) and was widely ridiculed by the media for his rural roots and perceived lack of intelligence."

What Terry Bradshaw had more of than any QB I ever saw was the sheer guile to win at all cost.. He made blocks for his receivers.. He could run like Elway too.. When TB was on.. He was downright unstoppable...

 

Back then.. The Steelers only ran 3 plays on offensive.... run up the middle.. run to the right or left.. Throw the ball deep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bradshaw came to understand what his role on the team was and that by trying to do more he hurt the total effort.

Something Favre had a vague grasp of for one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nickers said:

Barkley is "ordinary".. Barkley is a BUST waiting to unfold...

Rosen is a bust.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Rosen is a bust.

 

It's quite possible... He's not my #1 ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Rosen is a bust.

 

How can we know that when he has not played a single down in the NFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Gipper said:

How can we know that when he has not played a single down in the NFL?

Microphone concussion during the interview?:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 12:46 PM, hoorta said:

Been an astronomy geek since I was six Steve, I'm with you. Pluto is more of a planet than Mercury if you want to get technical. If it's orbiting the sun and has its own mini solar system of moons, it's a planet.

I'll do one more OT on Pluto. Way back when NASA sent the Voyagers out- they had a choice with one of them. Either take a better look at one of Saturn's moons (Titan, that they knew damn well had a dense atmosphere) or do a slightly different trajectory, and shoot the spacecraft out to Pluto.  Bad, bad decision that still gets me POed when I think about it. Set back planetary science 30 years. Real exciting Titan image guys.  :( 

Click here for larger version of PIA21890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×