Kiwibrown Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Lockdown game. The Rams should have signed Gurley for more money and longer. The Patriots should have stuck with Bledsoe over Brady. The Browns made the right decision taking Johnny Football. If it sticks keep it going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted April 6, 2020 Share Posted April 6, 2020 Out of those 3 options... The Browns made the right decision drafting Johnny Football. He flamed out rather quickly so Cleveland didn’t waste much time on him and the QB’s drafted behind him are all meh anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamblinMan99 Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 Los Angeles should have never quit on Todd Gurley. All they needed was a coaching staff that would have never under utilized him. He's not an amazing RB by any means (between Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, and Steven Jackson, he's probably the weakest). But, he's still one of the best RBs in today's league for sure. He had less touches last season than when he was a rookie, yet still had 12 TDs. He's going to light it up for Atlanta. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 13 hours ago, Kiwibrown said: The Patriots should have stuck with Bledsoe over Brady. There would have to be some Simone Biles levels of mental gymnastics to make an argument for this 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGame316 Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 Would have been a better argument if the Browns should have stuck with Johnny Football. As it played out, Just plain throwing away a mid-teen pick vs Not having the GOAT for 20 years, or saddling yourselves with a massive dead money RB isn't all that bad I mean, I think he *probably* would have flamed out eventually, but I don't think he would have been worse than the Deshon Kizer, McCown, RG3, Kessler, Hogan, etc experiments. The Browns were going to be trash regardless. We know what's happened to Gurley. We know Brady turned out to be the GOAT. There is at least a certain level of uncertainty that Johnathan Football *might* have been able to put it together if they continued to play him win/lose or draw.. albeit, probably not.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrantikRam Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 7 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: There would have to be some Simone Biles levels of mental gymnastics to make an argument for this Honestly it's the best option of the three lol. I'll take a stab at it and infuriate Patriots fans in the process.. In 2001, Tom Brady was not the reason that the Patriots won anything. Yes, people will point to Bledsoe being 0-2 and Brady going 11-3 and going on to win the Super Bowl - but the Patriots offense did next to nothing against the Raiders, the Steelers and the Rams in the playoffs. The Patriots scored 16, 10 and 13 points in the three games - with 10 of their offensive points in the Super Bowl coming off of Rams turnovers and short fields. They had 3 60 yard drives against the Raiders They had a 70 yard drive against the Steelers They had 1 60 yard drive against the Rams I would wager that averaging 13 offensive points is probably the lowest output of any Super Bowl champ. Their 3 D/ST TDs point to a fairly simple fact: Drew Bledsoe would have won the Super Bowl too. Now that 2001 happened, and Bledsoe is a Super Bowl MVP, his confidence sky rockets - he easily duplicates Brady's next five seasons of barely cracking a passer rating above 90, while winning another two Super Bowls. In 2007, the Pats still trade for Moss - but Bledsoe is NOT GOAT material, so the Patriots have more of a normal Patriots season, going 13-3. Without the media hoopla, they dispatch the Giants in the Super Bowl. In 2008, Bledsoe, being a different person than Tom Brady, was not standing in the exact same spot in the pocket, and as such was not injured for the season. The Patriots make the playoffs, and in a true Steelers fan nightmare, defeat them in the AFCCG (because, what else would have happened?) and go on to defeat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notthatbluestuff Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 18 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said: Los Angeles should have never quit on Todd Gurley. All they needed was a coaching staff that would have never under utilized him. He's not an amazing RB by any means (between Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk, and Steven Jackson, he's probably the weakest). But, he's still one of the best RBs in today's league for sure. He had less touches last season than when he was a rookie, yet still had 12 TDs. He's going to light it up for Atlanta. I don't think you really get it. You're not arguing for why the Rams should have kept Gurley, you're arguing that they should have had a different coaching staff throughout his Rams tenure. That's not the point you're being given to make. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 3 hours ago, FrantikRam said: Honestly it's the best option of the three lol. I'll take a stab at it and infuriate Patriots fans in the process.. In 2001, Tom Brady was not the reason that the Patriots won anything. Yes, people will point to Bledsoe being 0-2 and Brady going 11-3 and going on to win the Super Bowl - but the Patriots offense did next to nothing against the Raiders, the Steelers and the Rams in the playoffs. The Patriots scored 16, 10 and 13 points in the three games - with 10 of their offensive points in the Super Bowl coming off of Rams turnovers and short fields. They had 3 60 yard drives against the Raiders They had a 70 yard drive against the Steelers They had 1 60 yard drive against the Rams I would wager that averaging 13 offensive points is probably the lowest output of any Super Bowl champ. Their 3 D/ST TDs point to a fairly simple fact: Drew Bledsoe would have won the Super Bowl too. Now that 2001 happened, and Bledsoe is a Super Bowl MVP, his confidence sky rockets - he easily duplicates Brady's next five seasons of barely cracking a passer rating above 90, while winning another two Super Bowls. In 2007, the Pats still trade for Moss - but Bledsoe is NOT GOAT material, so the Patriots have more of a normal Patriots season, going 13-3. Without the media hoopla, they dispatch the Giants in the Super Bowl. In 2008, Bledsoe, being a different person than Tom Brady, was not standing in the exact same spot in the pocket, and as such was not injured for the season. The Patriots make the playoffs, and in a true Steelers fan nightmare, defeat them in the AFCCG (because, what else would have happened?) and go on to defeat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. It’s not just about what Brady did. It’s about what he didn’t do. So you know the infamous tuck rule play? Brady gets blindsided and fumbles the ball? That type of play happens about 4-5 times against Bledsoe a game, he’s not getting bailed out 5 times. That assumes they even get to that game as Bledsoe is liable to drop a close game or two because of that in an extremely competitive division race that year. Adding Brady that year limited mistakes that upped the team average and didn’t cut them off at the knees 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyB Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, lancerman said: It’s not just about what Brady did. It’s about what he didn’t do. So you know the infamous tuck rule play? Brady gets blindsided and fumbles the ball? That type of play happens about 4-5 times against Bledsoe a game, he’s not getting bailed out 5 times. That assumes they even get to that game as Bledsoe is liable to drop a close game or two because of that in an extremely competitive division race that year. Adding Brady that year limited mistakes that upped the team average and didn’t cut them off at the knees Dude, the basis of this thread is to see if anybody wants to take a stab at trying to pull a completely BS argument out of their tuchus, taking the wrong stance on a topic that is beyond settled. Countering their obviously ridiculous attempts with complete sincerity isn't really a great look. Edited April 7, 2020 by DannyB 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) I'd go with the Johnny Manziel thing. It's not like he was complete trash. There were some things he could do well that you could build on. His biggest problem was/is that he's an immature knucklehead. They should have stuck with him but put him on the bench for a year so his ego takes a public hit. Maybe if he had grown up he could have turned into a serviceable quarterback. Edited April 7, 2020 by Uncle Buck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 13 hours ago, FrantikRam said: Honestly it's the best option of the three lol. I'll take a stab at it and infuriate Patriots fans in the process.. In 2001, Tom Brady was not the reason that the Patriots won anything. Yes, people will point to Bledsoe being 0-2 and Brady going 11-3 and going on to win the Super Bowl - but the Patriots offense did next to nothing against the Raiders, the Steelers and the Rams in the playoffs. The Patriots scored 16, 10 and 13 points in the three games - with 10 of their offensive points in the Super Bowl coming off of Rams turnovers and short fields. They had 3 60 yard drives against the Raiders They had a 70 yard drive against the Steelers They had 1 60 yard drive against the Rams I would wager that averaging 13 offensive points is probably the lowest output of any Super Bowl champ. Their 3 D/ST TDs point to a fairly simple fact: Drew Bledsoe would have won the Super Bowl too. Now that 2001 happened, and Bledsoe is a Super Bowl MVP, his confidence sky rockets - he easily duplicates Brady's next five seasons of barely cracking a passer rating above 90, while winning another two Super Bowls. In 2007, the Pats still trade for Moss - but Bledsoe is NOT GOAT material, so the Patriots have more of a normal Patriots season, going 13-3. Without the media hoopla, they dispatch the Giants in the Super Bowl. In 2008, Bledsoe, being a different person than Tom Brady, was not standing in the exact same spot in the pocket, and as such was not injured for the season. The Patriots make the playoffs, and in a true Steelers fan nightmare, defeat them in the AFCCG (because, what else would have happened?) and go on to defeat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl. Nah, not infuriated still. Seen 6 SB wins. There is no argument. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrantikRam Posted April 8, 2020 Share Posted April 8, 2020 16 hours ago, lancerman said: It’s not just about what Brady did. It’s about what he didn’t do. So you know the infamous tuck rule play? Brady gets blindsided and fumbles the ball? That type of play happens about 4-5 times against Bledsoe a game, he’s not getting bailed out 5 times. That assumes they even get to that game as Bledsoe is liable to drop a close game or two because of that in an extremely competitive division race that year. Adding Brady that year limited mistakes that upped the team average and didn’t cut them off at the knees Good point. I guess I could have made my post much more concise: 13 offensive PPG, 3 D/ST TDs in the playoffs (which are generally seen as fluke plays) - I'd still argue several QBs could have done what Brady did, and once that Super Bowl was won, who knows what would have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 someone do why the bears should have traded up for trubes lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 7 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: someone do why the bears should have traded up for trubes lol Trubisky is fun to say and is a very chicagoan name. Other than that, the jury's still out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted April 9, 2020 Author Share Posted April 9, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Shady Slim said: someone do why the bears should have traded up for trubes lol He is super handsome. And handsome doesnt fail. How many ugly qbs win superbowls compared to handsome ones? I wish the browns took him over Garrett. Undee Hue Jackson the sky would have been the lomit.limit. Edited April 9, 2020 by Kiwibrown 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.