Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Rumor: Browns "may" try to trade Brandon Weeden.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cattleman78


Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 6941
Location: ohio
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mtmmike wrote:
Tully305 wrote:
Weeden is the reason Heckert doesn't have a job right now.

If it was such a great decision to draft him, and Heckert was this genius everyone around here makes him out to be, then why is he sitting at home right now?
3.5 million a year for two years I would go fishing to.


Ah fishing won't be long now.
_________________
browns and indian fan 7272


Adopted Brown Tashaun Gipson safety
vs. g.bay 7 tackles,2 asst. tackles and 1 pass defended
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.sportstimeohio.com/browns/steve-king/989-qb-decision-a-huge-decision-and-maybe-a-dicey-one-as-well-for-browns

I believe Reid always had last say on draft picks with the Eagles, which is where (with the coaching staff) the final decision should rest, imho.

Maybe that tips it toward Weeden, maybe it doesn't.

Turner wasn't exactly effusive (as in with praise) with his comments about Weeden.

And Chud has to play politics and, accordingly and consequently, appears squarely on the fence.

My take away on this is, as the author says up front, where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no doubting Lombardi's poor opinion of the Weeden pick. I think a lot of people are in that camp.

Even allowing for its possible classification as revisionist history, see:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/browns-notebook-espn-s-todd-mcshay-says-he-wouldn-t-have-drafted-brandon-weeden-until-3rd-round-1.373648

There are two things about this that have my attention:

1. It eerily resembles the same pattern that the rumor of Lombardi being hired had; and

2. Lombardi conveniently not remembering the pretty scathing comments he made about the Weeden pick.

Does the fact that he hated the pick mean he hates Weeden? Or was Heckert the pound of flesh for his hatred?

I sure as hell don't know, but will be interested to see this play out.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.sportstimeohio.com/browns/steve-king/989-qb-decision-a-huge-decision-and-maybe-a-dicey-one-as-well-for-browns

I believe Reid always had last say on draft picks with the Eagles, which is where (with the coaching staff) the final decision should rest, imho.

Maybe that tips it toward Weeden, maybe it doesn't.

Turner wasn't exactly effusive (as in with praise) with his comments about Weeden.

And Chud has to play politics and, accordingly and consequently, appears squarely on the fence.

My take away on this is, as the author says up front, where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no doubting Lombardi's poor opinion of the Weeden pick. I think a lot of people are in that camp.

Even allowing for its possible classification as revisionist history, see:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/browns-notebook-espn-s-todd-mcshay-says-he-wouldn-t-have-drafted-brandon-weeden-until-3rd-round-1.373648

There are two things about this that have my attention:

1. It eerily resembles the same pattern that the rumor of Lombardi being hired had; and

2. Lombardi conveniently not remembering the pretty scathing comments he made about the Weeden pick.

Does the fact that he hated the pick mean he hates Weeden? Or was Heckert the pound of flesh for his hatred?

I sure as hell don't know, but will be interested to see this play out.


Yes, good points bruce...

Quote:
Where there's smoke in this case, lots of smoke there's fire. As such, when we keep hearing that Browns CEO Joe Banner and Vice President of Player Personnel Mike Lombardi would almost rather forfeit games next season than to have to go forward with Brandon Weeden as their starting quarterbackl , we have to believe there's something maybe a lot of something to it


I think we all remember where we were when we heard Lombardi, who procures all the talent (according to King's fact-filled article), said that forfeiting games was the clear choice. Banner, as I recall, was all for it as well...it's obvious he cares nothing about winning--which is precisely why he spent a billion dollars on an NFL team.

And since Banner, who King says will make every decision on and off the field (I know King said it was Lombardi, but why make sense now?) clearly detests Weeden (which was obvious since he didn't say Weeden was a good QB, which he has always done for every other player he has ever liked on every team he has ever worked with) and the offense will be a great match for Weeden's skill set (merely a coincidence) there is most definitely real smoke...not invented media hype smoke at all--but REAL smoke---really---no, really---it's right there in the facts...and whenever there is smoke, there is always fire...always--no, really---every time---always...

So there is only ONE possible conclusion to draw from all of these 100% non-manufactured, non-hyperbolic, non-sensationalistic facts...

I mean, Haslam recently told Grossi that the head coach has the most pull with the QB decision--BUT Banner and Lombardi really own the team since league sources say it's a 90% done deal that they do...

King's a pretty accurate guy, by the way...I remember discussing some of his predictions when I saw him at the Rams playoff game, or was it the Chiefs playoff win? No, I think it was the Saints playoff win...

That guy is so in touch with the NFL it's just crazy...he really knows the quarterbackl position too, I can't think of anyone that knows quarterbackl's as well as he does.

It's not like there's a facebook page called "Peter King is an idiot" or anything.

Nice guy to hang your hat on bruce. Very Happy

Oh wait, it's not Peter King...it's Steve...ahhh
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duke2056


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 8368
Location: Cleveland area
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
duke2056 wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Vote, acknowledge your vote and support it in my post on Weeden.

It's not often that I take any delight in saying "I told you so", but this will be an exception.


Weeden may very well suck, we ALL know that, but that isn't the point.

The point is, we don't KNOW yet if the rookie will suck forever. I won't even say he "sucked" as a rookie, but he definitely was not good. But he was also a ROOKIE.

We KNOW Campbell sucks. Cmon man, you can't throw out the name jason Campbell to take over for our QB who was a rookie, when Campbell is just so obviously bad.

Regardless of what you think of Weeden, bringing in Campbell for him is just such a horrid idea that I can't fathom there are humans like you out there contributing to society that not only bring this idea up, but you talk about it like it's so obvious and that we are all dumb for not thinking the same thing. I really hope you arent making real world decisions that affect my life, wow.

There is nothing to say "I told you so" regarding Weeden. Like I said, everyone on this forum knows there is a VERY significant chance he is not the answer at QB....................................but Campbell?????? I might rather have frickin Fat Man Russell.

The point is, there is no reason to NOT give Weeden a 2nd year (like ALL Rookie QBs need before a legit conclusion can be made unless they are so bad it's obvious to his own mother he shouldnt be out there) unless we are replacing him with either a vet who is CLEARLY better that can give us a legit playoff shot, or a young unproven guy that our staff likes a lot more.


I threw out Campbell or Campbell-like because we most likely will win more games with an NFL experienced QB than with Weeden, and because I think this owner and his FO recognize that winning more games than we have in any recent year is imperative.

Weeden isn't our "franchise" QB, and putting an NFL experienced game manager in his place will win us more games this year than staying with him, while we continue to add pieces through the draft and wait to find our QB who will lead us to the promised land.


Which brings me back to a very obvious point. I prefer the unknown to the known, then the known is a crappy QB who might get us 6 wins.

Right now Weeden is an unknown. He did well enough as a rookie that he can DEFINITELY improve to the point of being a good starter.

Campbell or Campbell-like will NOT get to that point. We KNOW this, hence, the KNOWN part of the equation.

You are just willing to spin our wheels into the abyss of 6-10 teams. I prefer to take a chance that we can actually do better than that.

If Weeden sucks then so be it, but we do not KNOW he is going to suck. That is impossible to say after 1 year, unless that year is historically bad.
_________________
2014 draft prediction:

Zero chance the Browns draft a QB at pick 4, or trade up for a QB.

And Matt Ryan is so great he has one playoff win.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.sportstimeohio.com/browns/steve-king/989-qb-decision-a-huge-decision-and-maybe-a-dicey-one-as-well-for-browns

I believe Reid always had last say on draft picks with the Eagles, which is where (with the coaching staff) the final decision should rest, imho.

Maybe that tips it toward Weeden, maybe it doesn't.

Turner wasn't exactly effusive (as in with praise) with his comments about Weeden.

And Chud has to play politics and, accordingly and consequently, appears squarely on the fence.

My take away on this is, as the author says up front, where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no doubting Lombardi's poor opinion of the Weeden pick. I think a lot of people are in that camp.

Even allowing for its possible classification as revisionist history, see:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/browns-notebook-espn-s-todd-mcshay-says-he-wouldn-t-have-drafted-brandon-weeden-until-3rd-round-1.373648

There are two things about this that have my attention:

1. It eerily resembles the same pattern that the rumor of Lombardi being hired had; and

2. Lombardi conveniently not remembering the pretty scathing comments he made about the Weeden pick.

Does the fact that he hated the pick mean he hates Weeden? Or was Heckert the pound of flesh for his hatred?

I sure as hell don't know, but will be interested to see this play out.


Yes, good points bruce...

Quote:
Where there's smoke in this case, lots of smoke there's fire. As such, when we keep hearing that Browns CEO Joe Banner and Vice President of Player Personnel Mike Lombardi would almost rather forfeit games next season than to have to go forward with Brandon Weeden as their starting quarterbackl , we have to believe there's something maybe a lot of something to it


I think we all remember where we were when we heard Lombardi, who procures all the talent (according to King's fact-filled article), said that forfeiting games was the clear choice. Banner, as I recall, was all for it as well...it's obvious he cares nothing about winning--which is precisely why he spent a billion dollars on an NFL team.

And since Banner, who King says will make every decision on and off the field (I know King said it was Lombardi, but why make sense now?) clearly detests Weeden (which was obvious since he didn't say Weeden was a good QB, which he has always done for every other player he has ever liked on every team he has ever worked with) and the offense will be a great match for Weeden's skill set (merely a coincidence) there is most definitely real smoke...not invented media hype smoke at all--but REAL smoke---really---no, really---it's right there in the facts...and whenever there is smoke, there is always fire...always--no, really---every time---always...

So there is only ONE possible conclusion to draw from all of these 100% non-manufactured, non-hyperbolic, non-sensationalistic facts...

I mean, Haslam recently told Grossi that the head coach has the most pull with the QB decision--BUT Banner and Lombardi really own the team since league sources say it's a 90% done deal that they do...

King's a pretty accurate guy, by the way...I remember discussing some of his predictions when I saw him at the Rams playoff game, or was it the Chiefs playoff win? No, I think it was the Saints playoff win...

That guy is so in touch with the NFL it's just crazy...he really knows the quarterbackl position too, I can't think of anyone that knows quarterbackl's as well as he does.

It's not like there's a facebook page called "Peter King is an idiot" or anything.

Nice guy to hang your hat on bruce. Very Happy

Oh wait, it's not Peter King...it's Steve...ahhh


Think you missed the point. It's not about King...it's about La Canfora being the source of the rumor way in advance of any event, just as he was with the Lombardi rumor, and others (like King, in this instance) keeping it alive.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.sportstimeohio.com/browns/steve-king/989-qb-decision-a-huge-decision-and-maybe-a-dicey-one-as-well-for-browns

I believe Reid always had last say on draft picks with the Eagles, which is where (with the coaching staff) the final decision should rest, imho.

Maybe that tips it toward Weeden, maybe it doesn't.

Turner wasn't exactly effusive (as in with praise) with his comments about Weeden.

And Chud has to play politics and, accordingly and consequently, appears squarely on the fence.

My take away on this is, as the author says up front, where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no doubting Lombardi's poor opinion of the Weeden pick. I think a lot of people are in that camp.

Even allowing for its possible classification as revisionist history, see:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/browns-notebook-espn-s-todd-mcshay-says-he-wouldn-t-have-drafted-brandon-weeden-until-3rd-round-1.373648

There are two things about this that have my attention:

1. It eerily resembles the same pattern that the rumor of Lombardi being hired had; and

2. Lombardi conveniently not remembering the pretty scathing comments he made about the Weeden pick.

Does the fact that he hated the pick mean he hates Weeden? Or was Heckert the pound of flesh for his hatred?

I sure as hell don't know, but will be interested to see this play out.


Yes, good points bruce...

Quote:
Where there's smoke in this case, lots of smoke there's fire. As such, when we keep hearing that Browns CEO Joe Banner and Vice President of Player Personnel Mike Lombardi would almost rather forfeit games next season than to have to go forward with Brandon Weeden as their starting quarterbackl , we have to believe there's something maybe a lot of something to it


I think we all remember where we were when we heard Lombardi, who procures all the talent (according to King's fact-filled article), said that forfeiting games was the clear choice. Banner, as I recall, was all for it as well...it's obvious he cares nothing about winning--which is precisely why he spent a billion dollars on an NFL team.

And since Banner, who King says will make every decision on and off the field (I know King said it was Lombardi, but why make sense now?) clearly detests Weeden (which was obvious since he didn't say Weeden was a good QB, which he has always done for every other player he has ever liked on every team he has ever worked with) and the offense will be a great match for Weeden's skill set (merely a coincidence) there is most definitely real smoke...not invented media hype smoke at all--but REAL smoke---really---no, really---it's right there in the facts...and whenever there is smoke, there is always fire...always--no, really---every time---always...

So there is only ONE possible conclusion to draw from all of these 100% non-manufactured, non-hyperbolic, non-sensationalistic facts...

I mean, Haslam recently told Grossi that the head coach has the most pull with the QB decision--BUT Banner and Lombardi really own the team since league sources say it's a 90% done deal that they do...

King's a pretty accurate guy, by the way...I remember discussing some of his predictions when I saw him at the Rams playoff game, or was it the Chiefs playoff win? No, I think it was the Saints playoff win...

That guy is so in touch with the NFL it's just crazy...he really knows the quarterbackl position too, I can't think of anyone that knows quarterbackl's as well as he does.

It's not like there's a facebook page called "Peter King is an idiot" or anything.

Nice guy to hang your hat on bruce. Very Happy

Oh wait, it's not Peter King...it's Steve...ahhh


Think you missed the point. It's not about King...it's about La Canfora being the source of the rumor way in advance of any event, just as he was with the Lombardi rumor, and others (like King, in this instance) keeping it alive.


Perhaps it was you that missed something. For instance, when did LaCanfora say these things that Steve just said?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted:

http://www.sportstimeohio.com/browns/steve-king/989-qb-decision-a-huge-decision-and-maybe-a-dicey-one-as-well-for-browns

I believe Reid always had last say on draft picks with the Eagles, which is where (with the coaching staff) the final decision should rest, imho.

Maybe that tips it toward Weeden, maybe it doesn't.

Turner wasn't exactly effusive (as in with praise) with his comments about Weeden.

And Chud has to play politics and, accordingly and consequently, appears squarely on the fence.

My take away on this is, as the author says up front, where there is smoke there is fire.

There is no doubting Lombardi's poor opinion of the Weeden pick. I think a lot of people are in that camp.

Even allowing for its possible classification as revisionist history, see:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/browns/browns-notebook-espn-s-todd-mcshay-says-he-wouldn-t-have-drafted-brandon-weeden-until-3rd-round-1.373648

There are two things about this that have my attention:

1. It eerily resembles the same pattern that the rumor of Lombardi being hired had; and

2. Lombardi conveniently not remembering the pretty scathing comments he made about the Weeden pick.

Does the fact that he hated the pick mean he hates Weeden? Or was Heckert the pound of flesh for his hatred?

I sure as hell don't know, but will be interested to see this play out.


Yes, good points bruce...

Quote:
Where there's smoke in this case, lots of smoke there's fire. As such, when we keep hearing that Browns CEO Joe Banner and Vice President of Player Personnel Mike Lombardi would almost rather forfeit games next season than to have to go forward with Brandon Weeden as their starting quarterbackl , we have to believe there's something maybe a lot of something to it


I think we all remember where we were when we heard Lombardi, who procures all the talent (according to King's fact-filled article), said that forfeiting games was the clear choice. Banner, as I recall, was all for it as well...it's obvious he cares nothing about winning--which is precisely why he spent a billion dollars on an NFL team.

And since Banner, who King says will make every decision on and off the field (I know King said it was Lombardi, but why make sense now?) clearly detests Weeden (which was obvious since he didn't say Weeden was a good QB, which he has always done for every other player he has ever liked on every team he has ever worked with) and the offense will be a great match for Weeden's skill set (merely a coincidence) there is most definitely real smoke...not invented media hype smoke at all--but REAL smoke---really---no, really---it's right there in the facts...and whenever there is smoke, there is always fire...always--no, really---every time---always...

So there is only ONE possible conclusion to draw from all of these 100% non-manufactured, non-hyperbolic, non-sensationalistic facts...

I mean, Haslam recently told Grossi that the head coach has the most pull with the QB decision--BUT Banner and Lombardi really own the team since league sources say it's a 90% done deal that they do...

King's a pretty accurate guy, by the way...I remember discussing some of his predictions when I saw him at the Rams playoff game, or was it the Chiefs playoff win? No, I think it was the Saints playoff win...

That guy is so in touch with the NFL it's just crazy...he really knows the quarterbackl position too, I can't think of anyone that knows quarterbackl's as well as he does.

It's not like there's a facebook page called "Peter King is an idiot" or anything.

Nice guy to hang your hat on bruce. Very Happy

Oh wait, it's not Peter King...it's Steve...ahhh


Think you missed the point. It's not about King...it's about La Canfora being the source of the rumor way in advance of any event, just as he was with the Lombardi rumor, and others (like King, in this instance) keeping it alive.


Perhaps it was you that missed something. For instance, when did LaCanfora say these things that Steve just said?


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.


You truly are a master of baseless extrapolation and non sequitur.

More about cutting one's losses and moving forward, methinks.
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.


You truly are a master of baseless extrapolation and non sequitur.

More about cutting one's losses and moving forward, methinks.


Bruce, pointing out that he was most certainly NOT simply piggybacking and sustaining the trade rumor is clearly related to what we're talking about...therefore your "non sequitur" comment was the REAL non sequitur.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.


You truly are a master of baseless extrapolation and non sequitur.

More about cutting one's losses and moving forward, methinks.


Bruce, pointing out that he was most certainly NOT simply piggybacking and sustaining the trade rumor is clearly related to what we're talking about...therefore your "non sequitur" comment was the REAL non sequitur.


Whatever floats your boat. Your inverted commentaries remind me of the scene from Princess Bride with Vizzini and the iocane powder, and behavior of others in our society that involves subjects the rules and webbie won't allow me to mention. haha
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Entropy


Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 2736
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.


You truly are a master of baseless extrapolation and non sequitur.

More about cutting one's losses and moving forward, methinks.


Bruce, pointing out that he was most certainly NOT simply piggybacking and sustaining the trade rumor is clearly related to what we're talking about...therefore your "non sequitur" comment was the REAL non sequitur.


Whatever floats your boat. Your inverted commentaries remind me of the scene from Princess Bride with Vizzini and the iocane powder, and behavior of others in our society that involves subjects the rules and webbie won't allow me to mention. haha


As you wish... Wink

But really, it was hardly "inverted". I just used a similar example of your own "logic".
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruceb


Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 6809
Location: Rocky River, OH
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:
Entropy wrote:
bruceb wrote:


I never said he did.

La Canfora floated it way before its time; King just piggybacked on and sustained it.

Same pattern as the hiring of Lombardi.


No, King made ridiculous statements that LaCanfora never did, because he would have been labeled incompetent and probably fired.

Maybe Weeden gets traded, not a reach to float that rumor in the first place, but it will clearly be because Lombardi, Banner, Chud, Norv, Horton, and the waterboy all know that he will fetch the next Peyton Manning and that guy has a 99.99999% chance to win the next 4 Superbowls without any help from anyone on the team or in the organization at all, just the one guy on the field--playing offense, defense, snapping and holding his own kicks, and even running the tee off the field.

There, I piggybacked on it and sustained it as well.


You truly are a master of baseless extrapolation and non sequitur.

More about cutting one's losses and moving forward, methinks.


Bruce, pointing out that he was most certainly NOT simply piggybacking and sustaining the trade rumor is clearly related to what we're talking about...therefore your "non sequitur" comment was the REAL non sequitur.


Whatever floats your boat. Your inverted commentaries remind me of the scene from Princess Bride with Vizzini and the iocane powder, and behavior of others in our society that involves subjects the rules and webbie won't allow me to mention. haha


As you wish... Wink

But really, it was hardly "inverted". I just used a similar example of your own "logic".


LOL!
_________________
Everything happens exactly the way it is supposed to happen...otherwise, it would happen some other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bulldog


Moderator
Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 5819
Location: Salem
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is this thread 6 pages?

its based off of a article from rotoworld, a rumor mill, that used words like "belief" and "may" and "some". It even goes on to say "there is no concrete evidence"

It seems the base of the article stems from Lombardi's comments made about Weeden during his days at NFLN during the draft.

You guys do realize he gets paid to say things, right? As much as we would like to think that the NFLN isn't like other media types, it still is.

-I have zero reasons to believe that the Browns would trade Weeden. Banner and co and don't nothing to make me think they are not capable of doing their jobs. Our coaching staff is awesome. I have some faith left in these Browns and will not fall of the deep end.
_________________
2013 First Ballot Recipient of the Joe Blackburn Award
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fullback40


Joined: 30 Dec 2012
Posts: 311
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Browns won't trade Weeden and shouldn't for anything less than a late 1st. Given that nobody in their right minds is going to give that up, keep him.


We would need to draft a QB at #6 to trade Weeden, and honestly, I don't think there are any guys in this draft that are franchise QB's. So no point in doing this.

And Weeden will be very productive in this offense next season. He will probably still throw a large amount of INT's, but he will also throw a lot of TD's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Cleveland Browns All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group