Text Size

Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Talk Browns football and discuss the NFL here.

Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby pup » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:56 pm

Triple-S wrote:Per Acee, the Chargers “seemingly” are resigned to the fact that Jackson will be playing football outside of San Diego in 2012. They may offer as much as $11 million per year, but Jackson is expected to be a Redskin if Washington proposes a contract worth in excess of $12 million. And that possibility, per Acee, “has been floated by knowledgeable people.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -receiver/

Snyder is making it rain.


Wait? There are more ways to get players than the draft? No freakin way. When did that happen?
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Triple-S » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:57 am

it's really just shitty "luck" when you think about it.

-The Colts window shut this very damn year. Not the year before, not the year after, this year. Manning gets surgery and is out. If this doesn't happen, likely the Colts are at least around 10-6, 11-5, and the Browns likely don't win in Indy, leaving them 3-13 on the season, and with them having the number 3 pick in the draft. Likley, the Rams would have given the farm to the skins anyway for Luck, but that would have left us with RG3 either in our laps, or we'd have been able to trade with Vikes on a more rational level. Browns picked a terrible year to be bad, and not just "in-between" bad and mediocre.

-The Browns got stuck in a bidding with a man who's not afraid to toss his money around in Dan Snyder. You know there was no way he was going to be outbid, and the only hope of him getting taken out of the equation was Peyton flying into Landover and wanting the Brinks truck pulled up. To quote De Niro in Casino:

Ace Rothstein: [voice-over] No matter how big a guy might be, Nicky would take him on. You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And if you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead.


Snyder wasn't going to quit. There's not a price too high in this book. And for anyone with common sense? what the Browns offered was PERFECTLY REASONABLE. If Snyder is thrown out of the equation? this deal is done.

-Matt Barkley staying in school hurt us. Without question. For one? That's a 3rd elite QB prospect thrown into the equation. Spin it anyway you'd like. If the Snyder trade happens? The Browns arn't as hurt as bad. Unless someone goes apeshit and gives up the farm to the Vikings, the Browns can sit pretty and take him, and likely keep the number 22 pick. And likely having Barkley on the board calms the whole trade momentum now, and makes Snyder less aggressive, leaving us to decide which QB we would have liked move coming out of the combine. But, I'll be damned, turns our Barkley's dream was to play for the Trojans and dominate, and not to become asn NFL star ASAP, and if with that? We're left looking over a "meh" qb from A&M, a career backup who got drafted in the 7th round, and a 28 year old who we're unsure of.
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.


Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
User avatar
Triple-S
All-time leader in moral victories
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Kent-Green, Ohio
Favorite Player: Yuengling
Least Favorite Player: Nati Light.

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:37 am

swerb wrote:Bottom line, if RG3 lives up to the hype, as I feel he will, we're idiots for not making this deal and it will be a steal for the Redskins. Idiots. It's that simple.

It would have been a big risk. But given what is going on with the nature of the NFL right now, and given the history of this franchise for the last 25 years, it was a risk we should have taken.


I'll not debate that it was a risk that they should've taken, since apparently three 1's and 2 was just the jumping off point for Danny Boy. If the Browns matching the haul gets it done, then I probably agree (though I think that's right on the tipping point of practicality). But I have no idea what it would have actually cost to "take that risk". When does Snyder say "Whoa! Too rich for my blood!" Every draft pick for the next 2 years and half the 3rd?

Regardless, that deal will never ever ever ever ever be a "steal" for the Redskins.

The Giants gave up less (but still a boatload) to get Eli, and since he's won 2 Super Bowls, it was "worth it".

So the bar is set pretty fuckin' high for RG3.

He wins even one Lombardi, it was "worth it". But unless he wins like 5 in a row, it will never be a "steal". One does not give up more 1st round draft picks than anyone ever has in the history of the NFL and have it be declared a "steal".
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 am

Hikohadon wrote:
swerb wrote:Bottom line, if RG3 lives up to the hype, as I feel he will, we're idiots for not making this deal and it will be a steal for the Redskins. Idiots. It's that simple.

It would have been a big risk. But given what is going on with the nature of the NFL right now, and given the history of this franchise for the last 25 years, it was a risk we should have taken.


I'll not debate that it was a risk that they should've taken, since apparently three 1's and 2 was just the jumping off point for Danny Boy. If the Browns matching the haul gets it done, then I probably agree (though I think that's right on the tipping point of practicality). But I have no idea what it would have actually cost to "take that risk". When does Snyder say "Whoa! Too rich for my blood!" Every draft pick for the next 2 years and half the 3rd?

Regardless, that deal will never ever ever ever ever be a "steal" for the Redskins.

The Giants gave up less (but still a boatload) to get Eli, and since he's won 2 Super Bowls, it was "worth it".

So the bar is set pretty fuckin' high for RG3.

He wins even one Lombardi, it was "worth it". But unless he wins like 5 in a row, it will never be a "steal". One does not give up more 1st round draft picks than anyone ever has in the history of the NFL and have it be declared a "steal".



SD:

I dunno , if you gave up five number ones but held up the Lombardi in five years , would you give a Fuck about what it cost.

The Redskins were dead in the water until they got this deal done , now they're on the 12th deck of Carnival sippin Mint juleps while leaving us stranded on the Titanic without a ship ( legit QB ) in sight .

Nothing but drek in the 2013 QB draft and Colts weak armed bigger sister who we have to now overpay to outbid Miami for a chance at Mediocrity.

Those picks meant dick .

You simply supplement that number one with a top free agent just like you try and pick a stud bluechipper in the first every yaer and never skip a beat .

But not these one dimensional bumbling cocksucking twats .

Chickenshit cocksuckers doomed us to another half decade of shit and act like they saved the day from Dr Doom.


Fuckit




SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby swerb » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:22 am

I'm with SoulDawg.

If RG3 even gets you to the point where you're good enough to compete for and potentially win Super Bowls, the trade is a winner. If you actually win a sausage, it's a steal.

Jesus - look at what we've been through the last 25 years. This was a chance to completely change the face of the franchise.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:54 am

pup wrote:Wait? There are more ways to get players than the draft? No freakin way. When did that happen?


Y'know, I remember a board once where I learned that you can't build through free agency, you build through the draft. I wonder what happened to that place...
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:06 am

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
pup wrote:Wait? There are more ways to get players than the draft? No freakin way. When did that happen?


Y'know, I remember a board once where I learned that you can't build through free agency, you build through the draft. I wonder what happened to that place...


You mean them same one dimensional tweebs who said pass on Cam Newton so we could see what Colt can do .

Or that other set of jackoffs who said pass on Sanchez so we can give lady Qeen her chance .

This is a three dimensioanl world in color , yet here the world is flat and grey is all the rage while yo look back in bliss..

We're in a sea of pus riding on a Dingy lost in the wilderness for a generation and you want to talk about degrees of suck as if those were better days .


Just stop it .


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Fire Marshall Bill » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:25 am

swerb wrote:I'm with SoulDawg.

If RG3 even gets you to the point where you're good enough to compete for and potentially win Super Bowls, the trade is a winner. If you actually win a sausage, it's a steal.

Jesus - look at what we've been through the last 25 years. This was a chance to completely change the face of the franchise.


This this this X 100 billiongazillion.........

Winning a Super Bowl is to catch lightning in a bottle

There are no formulas...

RG3 is a bolt of lightning

Yir just as many yrs away from winning with Rg as without but your odds increase expotentially
Hope is a moment now long past
The Shadow of Death is the one I cast
Koo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus
User avatar
Fire Marshall Bill
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:00 pm
Favorite Player: Killer Bean
Least Favorite Player: Charcoal&Piss

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:41 am

SD & Swerb:

If they win a SB, then no, I don't care the cost.

If they don't win a SB, then the cost was too high.

When you're giving up the world to get a guy to win you some rings, then you better win rings. Or you didn't do it right.

Giving up everything just to be competitive and change the landscape? Fuck that. That's Cleveland bullshit right there. You pay five 1st rounders (or whatever it would be to ACTUALLY outbid Washington), you had better be right. And he had better win at least one championship.

I love RG3 as much as the next guy, and I certainly think he's capable of winning rings. But the Skins just made it harder on themselves by giving away their ability to stock that team with non-FA talent for the next 3 years. It wouldn't matter if this were baseball, but the way that Snyder overpays for FA's (the way he'll probably overpay for a good-but-not-great WR like Vincent Jackson) they're gonna be up against the cap and unable to build that team into championship-quality.

It was a bold move and part of me wishes the Browns had taken it. You can't put a price tag on a SB win. And yeah it sucks that we're still QB-less. But there's no way I'm crowning the Redskins (or Colts) ass right now.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby swerb » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:52 am

There was no way anyone was gonna give up more than three #1's. My guess is that this years #1's and #2, next year's #1, and another non-first round pick or so would have got it done.

All I'm saying is that if you can get a QB that can elevate the team from "no effing chance to even go to a SB", to "have a chance to win one if you add some pieces" ... than they should have done it and it wouldn't have been the fleecing most people think it would have been.

You lose some top picks for a couple years. Not forever. You can still trade. You can still add FA's. It's not "giving up everything". Look at the history of guys that have been picked #22, #37, even #10 if you want to gauge what we actually woulda been giving up. Half of em blow. So you gotta look at it from that lens as well. It's not like we would have been dealing Haden, Sheard, Mack, and Ward for the pick. Could have been Quincy Morgan, William Green, Rahim Abdullah, Braylon Edwards, and Courtney Brown.

Untimately, yes, 10 years from now ... the trade would have been graded by whether or not RG3 won us a title.

Bottom line - this franchise hasn't had a quarterback worth a shit for 25 years. And you absolutely must have an elite one to win in this league. They had a chance to obtain one this year. And pussed out. End of story.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby SoulDawg74 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:54 am

Hikohadon wrote:SD & Swerb:

If they win a SB, then no, I don't care the cost.

If they don't win a SB, then the cost was too high.

When you're giving up the world to get a guy to win you some rings, then you better win rings. Or you didn't do it right.

Giving up everything just to be competitive and change the landscape? Fuck that. That's Cleveland bullshit right there. You pay five 1st rounders (or whatever it would be to ACTUALLY outbid Washington), you had better be right. And he had better win at least one championship.

I love RG3 as much as the next guy, and I certainly think he's capable of winning rings. But the Skins just made it harder on themselves by giving away their ability to stock that team with non-FA talent for the next 3 years. It wouldn't matter if this were baseball, but the way that Snyder overpays for FA's (the way he'll probably overpay for a good-but-not-great WR like Vincent Jackson) they're gonna be up against the cap and unable to build that team into championship-quality.

It was a bold move and part of me wishes the Browns had taken it. You can't put a price tag on a SB win. And yeah it sucks that we're still QB-less. But there's no way I'm crowning the Redskins (or Colts) ass right now.



SD:

The problem Hiko is dumb ass teams like the Browns haven't adjusted their slide rule to the new market prices this is no longer the day of 50 cent gas but $5 dollar a gallon coming soon .

Conversely you don't blow #50 million guarateed on a blown #1 any more its 25 .

So teams toss them into deals like nickels instead of manhole covers .

The Browns blew this deal because they refused to approach it from a three dimensional level ..

We are the US before WWII with the airforce under the command of the army .

You need three phases of thought FA the draft and tethe potential of your own roster to improve.

Our redusal to use free agency as a legit weapon has us playing checkers while our competitors play chess.

We blew that pick because we didn't want to forgo not having a number one next year .

If you get the Franchise pick this year you don't need a #1 next year DUH .

Every other position other than franchise Qb can be addresed in free agency so that #1 would have not been missed .

Fuckin morons , now what do we have .

what shot we got.


SoulDawg
SoulDawg74
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby jb » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:12 am

peeker643 wrote:That's where I come out on this I guess. "That Guy" that you clearly need, well, I'm just certain there will be others. There are always others.

No one knew dick about Cam Newton 30 months ago and no one knew dick about RG3 30 months ago.

Again, we can library this and save it when next year the names are Matt Barkley and Tyler Wilson.

I know every year you wait is another year of waiting and I know there's no guarantee you get next year's flavor of the month either. But there will be others.

And that guy will be the greatest thing ever to put on a jock strap too. Until the year after that.



A healthy EJ Manuel says "hi".
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby jb » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:16 am

idoctribefan wrote:my 6 cents.......

1. Not surprised by my apathy from the news when I got it this morning. Knew Heckgren wouldn't pull the trigger on this deal.

2. Not impressed with Matt Barkley either. I believe Hiko said he reminds him of BQ and I agree with that.

3. Please do not take Richardson at #4. RBs are the easiest position to fill in the NFL. Who rode shotgun with Aaron Rodgers 2 years ago?.......James Starks? Who the hell is James Starks?

4. Now I'm hoping that Colt McCoy is our starting QB come September. Not because I think he's "the future" or even a legit NFL starting QB, but because the other options are all too similar and will cost too much to get. Would you trade a $50 bill for 5 $10 bills if it cost you an extra $10 bill?

5. Take Claiborne. It's a passing league now. Let's try to stop the pass.

6. FML


7. Sign Big Cat to go with bookend CB's, Sheard and that interior DL & I MIGHT forgive them. You can build the O up exclusively over the next 5 seasons.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:20 am

swerb wrote:Bottom line - this franchise hasn't had a quarterback worth a shit for 25 years. And you absolutely must have an elite one to win in this league. They had a chance to obtain one this year.


We think.

But I agree with the non-QB anger. Like I said in my article, you may have paid $500 for the cab, but at least you're on the way to the airport while the other guy is still standing on the curb.

At least you hope you're on the way to the airport. The cab breaks down, you still miss your flight AND you're out 5 bills.

I'll probably be as angry as you 2 when I start watching Skins games this fall. But until then, logic dictates to me that I reserve righteous wrath until I'm sure they (the Browns) were wrong. A bold but stupid move is still stupid.

And if Dan Snyder is the guy that made the move, that certainly doesn't sell me on it. Maybe if someone other than him had done this, I'd be angrier. But now that Al is in the ground, Danny Boy is Chief Idiot. Maybe this turns it around for him, we'll see.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Triple-S » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:28 am

You can keep trying to the blame the Browns for this, but at a certain point, the Browns would have been up shit creek with how high the price was being asked by Snyder

let me ask you, at one point do you think the guy would have stopped? You can't bid against a guy like that, you're going to lose one way or the other. "This years 4, 22 and next years first would have gotten it done", would it? Do you honestly think, had the rams went on the phone and told him our price, Snyder calls off his trade?

It sucks. This is a fact. But, it's not like the Browns could do much except try to continually outbid this moron.
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.


Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
User avatar
Triple-S
All-time leader in moral victories
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Kent-Green, Ohio
Favorite Player: Yuengling
Least Favorite Player: Nati Light.

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby fairvis » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:57 am

From Peter King and MMQB:

Snead was honest with the two teams most involved, Washington and Cleveland, and the third (Miami) on the periphery. He told them they were going to make a deal by the close of business Thursday, and they needed to make their best offer. According to one of the teams involved, Washington made an offer beyond what St. Louis ever thought it'd get -- three first-round picks and a second-rounder. Cleveland offered something less, thought to be three ones. (It's unknown what Miami's best offer was, though the Dolphins wanted Manning, and so never got to the level of the Redskins.)

The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.

"What happened,'' said one team executive involved in the talks, "was everyone wanted to get the deal done before free agency, to make sure they filled a chair with a quarterback they really wanted during musical chairs. That really helped the Rams.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z1oulyhb2T


If this rings true, then the Browns never had a chance to counteroffer, and they went all in with what they thought would get it.
User avatar
fairvis
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:21 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Favorite Player: Braxton Miller
Least Favorite Player: Joakim Noah

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Commodore Perry » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:18 am

fairvis wrote:From Peter King and MMQB:

Snead was honest with the two teams most involved, Washington and Cleveland, and the third (Miami) on the periphery. He told them they were going to make a deal by the close of business Thursday, and they needed to make their best offer. According to one of the teams involved, Washington made an offer beyond what St. Louis ever thought it'd get -- three first-round picks and a second-rounder. Cleveland offered something less, thought to be three ones. (It's unknown what Miami's best offer was, though the Dolphins wanted Manning, and so never got to the level of the Redskins.)

The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.

"What happened,'' said one team executive involved in the talks, "was everyone wanted to get the deal done before free agency, to make sure they filled a chair with a quarterback they really wanted during musical chairs. That really helped the Rams.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z1oulyhb2T


If this rings true, then the Browns never had a chance to counteroffer, and they went all in with what they thought would get it.



That's a tough scenario. Three #1s is a pretty high offer.
All the Good Things Happening in Cleveland
http://www.clevelandnewsblog.com
User avatar
Commodore Perry
Old School American
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:43 am

Not gonna be good enough for those of us here who knew all along it'd cost more than 3 #1's. :hide:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22766
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:48 pm

fairvis wrote:From Peter King and MMQB:

Snead was honest with the two teams most involved, Washington and Cleveland, and the third (Miami) on the periphery. He told them they were going to make a deal by the close of business Thursday, and they needed to make their best offer. According to one of the teams involved, Washington made an offer beyond what St. Louis ever thought it'd get -- three first-round picks and a second-rounder. Cleveland offered something less, thought to be three ones. (It's unknown what Miami's best offer was, though the Dolphins wanted Manning, and so never got to the level of the Redskins.)

The Rams might have gotten more by telling the Browns what Washington's offer was, but Snead had promised each side he wouldn't play one bid against another but rather simply ask for each team's best offer. Once Washington's offer was better than Cleveland's, the deal was done.

"What happened,'' said one team executive involved in the talks, "was everyone wanted to get the deal done before free agency, to make sure they filled a chair with a quarterback they really wanted during musical chairs. That really helped the Rams.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z1oulyhb2T


If this rings true, then the Browns never had a chance to counteroffer, and they went all in with what they thought would get it.


Yeah, when I read that this morning, it about made me sick. First, what the fuck kind of way is that to do business? Blindly bidding... WTF. Second, it meant that the Browns really wanted him and probably would've paid the price, but they didn't b/c they didn't blindly bid high enough.

I liked it better when I thought they'd made a conscious decision not to get him. This way, they just look like a loser that got their cheese caught out in the wind, even though they made what I'm sure they thought was a huge offer.

Also from that article:

Now about the volume Washington traded for Griffin. And the volume that Cleveland didn't. You get the feeling Shanahan and GM Bruce Allen looked at their quarterback situation, wretched, and did what they had to do to get one of the best quarterbacks to come out of the draft in a while. Cleveland looked at Colt McCoy and liked him without really loving him, and made a very strong offer to get Griffin. Just not strong enough. It's hard to kill GM Tom Heckert, but the only thing that matters is whether you get the trade done or you don't. Cleveland didn't. The Browns might be proven right in the long run, but for now, their fans feel like they'll never get a franchise quarterback ... and may not even get a Brian Sipe.


I don't want to think about it anymore... :hic:
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:57 pm

Hikohadon wrote:And if Dan Snyder is the guy that made the move, that certainly doesn't sell me on it. Maybe if someone other than him had done this, I'd be angrier. But now that Al is in the ground, Danny Boy is Chief Idiot. Maybe this turns it around for him, we'll see.


To be fair, and I have blasted him and the skins franchise more than anyone on this board over the years (living/working in DC you are surrounded by it a bit more is the reason), this is unlike any other move that Dan has made.

Yes its similair that he found a shiny object he wanted and decided he needed to have it in the offseason, but wholly different in that what he aquired was a possible franchise changing elite QB prospect.

This in principle is much different from paying Haynesworth a 100 mil, or trading 3 #2's for Lloyd, countless picks for other vets, paying to be essentially a retirement home for future HOF's with nothing left....Making a RB's contract 100% guaranteed just to get him to play in the preseason, I can go on and on and on.

I've been on record saying they will never win with him at the head of this franchise. Obviously a hit on RG3 is the first risk he's taken with championship level upside. The only one.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:23 pm

JCoz wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:And if Dan Snyder is the guy that made the move, that certainly doesn't sell me on it. Maybe if someone other than him had done this, I'd be angrier. But now that Al is in the ground, Danny Boy is Chief Idiot. Maybe this turns it around for him, we'll see.


To be fair, and I have blasted him and the skins franchise more than anyone on this board over the years (living/working in DC you are surrounded by it a bit more is the reason), this is unlike any other move that Dan has made.

Yes its similair that he found a shiny object he wanted and decided he needed to have it in the offseason, but wholly different in that what he aquired was a possible franchise changing elite QB prospect.

This in principle is much different from paying Haynesworth a 100 mil, or trading 3 #2's for Lloyd, countless picks for other vets, paying to be essentially a retirement home for future HOF's with nothing left....Making a RB's contract 100% guaranteed just to get him to play in the preseason, I can go on and on and on.

I've been on record saying they will never win with him at the head of this franchise. Obviously a hit on RG3 is the first risk he's taken with championship level upside. The only one.


If the Peter King version of events is true, then Washington's actions seem a little less crazy. They had to swing for the fences b/c they had no idea what they were bidding against.

It also makes me fucking sick. King had it right when he said it was hard to blame Heckert, but, in the end, it doesn't matter if it was his "fault" or not cuz they lost. They were willing to pay it but didn't get it done. Fuck.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:29 pm

Brian Sipe?

Who the fuck would want Brian Sipe?

1980 Brian Sipe would be fine. Pretty much every other year Brian Sipe you can find anywhere in the league.

Good God. I get bent when people canonize Kosar. He's fucking Montana compared to Sipe minus 1980.

Talk about pea shooter and elf-like. McCoy is bigger with a better arm and that's no lie. Far more years below average NFL QB than above.

Sorry to piss on that fable, Mr. King.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22766
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:33 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
JCoz wrote:
Hikohadon wrote:And if Dan Snyder is the guy that made the move, that certainly doesn't sell me on it. Maybe if someone other than him had done this, I'd be angrier. But now that Al is in the ground, Danny Boy is Chief Idiot. Maybe this turns it around for him, we'll see.


To be fair, and I have blasted him and the skins franchise more than anyone on this board over the years (living/working in DC you are surrounded by it a bit more is the reason), this is unlike any other move that Dan has made.

Yes its similair that he found a shiny object he wanted and decided he needed to have it in the offseason, but wholly different in that what he aquired was a possible franchise changing elite QB prospect.

This in principle is much different from paying Haynesworth a 100 mil, or trading 3 #2's for Lloyd, countless picks for other vets, paying to be essentially a retirement home for future HOF's with nothing left....Making a RB's contract 100% guaranteed just to get him to play in the preseason, I can go on and on and on.

I've been on record saying they will never win with him at the head of this franchise. Obviously a hit on RG3 is the first risk he's taken with championship level upside. The only one.


If the Peter King version of events is true, then Washington's actions seem a little less crazy. They had to swing for the fences b/c they had no idea what they were bidding against.

It also makes me fucking sick. King had it right when he said it was hard to blame Heckert, but, in the end, it doesn't matter if it was his "fault" or not cuz they lost. They were willing to pay it but didn't get it done. Fuck.


It's eBay auction from St Louis. They could have had more. And who here was willing to go further even in the threads available? There's no one here, had they been privy to Browns drop dead bid, who wouldn't have said, "Fuck...they love him and made an offer that said they love him".

That said, how the hell do you do more if you allegedly don't get the chance?
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22766
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby fairvis » Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:35 pm

The problem is with the blind bidding... where do you stop? If we had offered 4, 22, 37, and next year's #1, I have to imagine that we would've gotten it. Truthfully, 4, 22, and next year's 1 (which I have to imagine is the purported offer of three firsts) is still almost the same as what was offered from the Redskins in terms of the draft value chart, which of course values this year's picks much more... 6 and 39 versus 4 and 22 this year?

Let's think about this logically, in terms of a blind bidding scenario.

Redskins: 6, 39, 2013 1st, 2014 1st
Browns: 4, 22, 2013 1st

Isn't the Redskins 2014 1st really worth around the same as the difference between 4/6 and 22/39? Remember, for the Brady Quinn trade in 2007, we used the 2008 1st + 36 to get the 22 from Dallas. So, that jump of 14 spots = a first rounder in next year's draft...

So, if it had been 4, 22, and the 2013 1st that we offered... it's not all that different from the Redskins offer, and the Rams chose the one with more total picks.
User avatar
fairvis
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:21 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Favorite Player: Braxton Miller
Least Favorite Player: Joakim Noah

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:00 pm

peeker643 wrote:It's eBay auction from St Louis. They could have had more. And who here was willing to go further even in the threads available? There's no one here, had they been privy to Browns drop dead bid, who wouldn't have said, "Fuck...they love him and made an offer that said they love him".

That said, how the hell do you do more if you allegedly don't get the chance?


This is why I'm even more frustrated right now than I was on Friday.

If Tom Heckert came on these boards and said "We have to make a blind bid to win RG3. Now, don't tell anyone, but we're gonna offer up 3 #1's", most people would've been pre-celebrating. A few would say that 3 #1's was too much.

I can guarantee that my thought would've been "That's probably more than I would've offered, but I guess you have to in a blind bid situation since Dan Snyder is batshit crazy."

So I find it hard to "blame" him for what he did - but that doesn't make it any more palatable that we're staring down another year of Colt-ball.

Like I said before, I'd be much happier right now if Heckert made the conscious decision not to go that high rather than wanting the guy and losing a blind bid.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:15 pm

Gotcha. And to that end they didn't get their guy. But for people to say their offer wasn't competitive or reasonably excessive or beyond what they even expected the Browns to offer is ignorant and self serving and, to an extent, unfair, in my humble opinion.

People here (and I've done it too) will play GM all day long. Same people claiming to foresee greatness in Rg3 are the same people who had no clue as to acquisition cost.

We're pretty solid fans. We're pretty shitty GMs ;-) ;) :wink:
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22766
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:32 pm

I certainly feel much better knowing they lost by blind bid....and that's consistant with what I was bitching about presumptively Friday.

3 #1's in a blind bid, with the highest 2012 #1, IMO, was a good bid. That is much different than the situation I was afraid of, where they decided he was their guy but didn't have the balls to step up and win when they had the best hand.

It is what it is. Next.
Last edited by JCoz on Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:39 pm

Gonna be tough to build around RG3 with $36 Million less in cap room and no first rounders for the next two years

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... cap-space/
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Ziner wrote:Gonna be tough to build around RG3 with $36 Million less in cap room and no first rounders for the next two years

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... cap-space/


Wow. Redskins are f'd. Hopefully RG3 can block for himself and throw the ball to himself too.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Triple-S » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:20 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
Ziner wrote:Gonna be tough to build around RG3 with $36 Million less in cap room and no first rounders for the next two years

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... cap-space/


Wow. Redskins are f'd. Hopefully RG3 can block for himself and throw the ball to himself too.


If I'm the Redskins, I'd almost try to block the trade. ;)

okay, I'm bias.

but, Karma's a bitch, Dan Snyder.
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.


Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
User avatar
Triple-S
All-time leader in moral victories
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Kent-Green, Ohio
Favorite Player: Yuengling
Least Favorite Player: Nati Light.

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:22 pm

Says they can split it over the next two years, I dont know that they are fucked per say, but certainly a jarring change in cap positions for them.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:25 pm

How in the hell do you punish a team for ignoring the cap during a year where there was no cap?

Christ the NFL and Goodell suck.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:50 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:How in the hell do you punish a team for ignoring the cap during a year where there was no cap?

Christ the NFL and Goodell suck.


I dunno, but I ain't sheddin' no tears for Danny Boy.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:53 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
e0y2e3 wrote:How in the hell do you punish a team for ignoring the cap during a year where there was no cap?

Christ the NFL and Goodell suck.


I dunno, but I ain't sheddin' no tears for Danny Boy.


Bingo.

FWIW, I think it was about gaming the system, not ignoring the cap. They moved a shit-ton of their costs into that year, I think restructuring deals to load that year with costs to lower the cap numbers on the rest of the contracts.

Whatever it is, for only two teams to have done it......probably means it was at least a bit shady, you know?
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:57 pm

Bullshit, when you have no CBA in force you cannot go back and punish teams.

This is more of Goodell being a bitch, just like everything else he does.

The NFL has no balls.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:00 pm

Again e0, you really think Goodell is is just picking on Dallas and DC?

Bullshit to you, I say....if what they did was above board a lot more than 2 teams would have done it. Without QUESTION.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:04 pm

Goodell's history of arbitarely making up rules and applying them (seriously, this is just insane, it was an uncapped year and your greedy owners made it function as an uncapped year).

He's a power hungry bitch and this just follows with pretty much his entire tenure.

Just wait and see how he handles this ridiculous bounty crap.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:07 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:Goodell's history of arbitarely making up rules and applying them (seriously, this is just insane, it was an uncapped year and your greedy owners made it function as an uncapped year).

He's a power hungry bitch and this just follows with pretty much his entire tenure.

Just wait and see how he handles this ridiculous bounty crap.


I dont disagree with any of that at all E0. I'm just saying that considering all that, the fact that a mere two 2 teams out of 32 were found of doing whatever this means there is something else here.

If it was as simple as this sounds, every damn team in the league would have been doing this exact same thing, or at LEAST half of them....2 of 32 doesn't pass the sniff test in this copy-cat league.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Xukuth » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:18 pm

Interesting development. I wonder...can the boy wonder tell the 'Skins to piss off, ala John Elway to the Colts, or Eli to the Chargers? I know Elway could have gone into Baseball, and that put some pressure on the Colts to get SOMETHING for him. If RGIII did make that call, what do you think Danny boy would do? Take him, then trade him? Take him and out of pure arrogance make him waste away? What to do, what to do.....


:hide:
"Well....I suppose if this were any other team, I might find the whole thing funny. In fact if this were any other team I might just fuckin'DIElaughin'!!!"
User avatar
Xukuth
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:52 pm
Favorite Player: Ry Cooder
Least Favorite Player: Joe Pass

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby andrew6586 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:26 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:How in the hell do you punish a team for ignoring the cap during a year where there was no cap?

Christ the NFL and Goodell suck.

The NFLPA OK'ed the hit too. The NFL told owners not to do this at least six times and they did it anyway. No one should feel bad for Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. Ever.
Once a fan, always a fan.
On Twitter @apac6586
User avatar
andrew6586
Church of Asdrubal
 
Posts: 1222
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:04 pm
Location: Canton, Ohio
Favorite Player: Kenny Lofton
Least Favorite Player: Mark Shapiro

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:28 pm

andrew6586 wrote:
e0y2e3 wrote:How in the hell do you punish a team for ignoring the cap during a year where there was no cap?

Christ the NFL and Goodell suck.

The NFLPA OK'ed the hit too. The NFL told owners not to do this at least six times and they did it anyway. No one should feel bad for Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. Ever.


This.

Fuck 'em both.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby CleSportsTruth » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:50 pm

JCoz wrote:I certainly feel much better knowing they lost by blind bid....and that's consistant with what I was bitching about presumptively Friday.

3 #1's in a blind bid, with the highest 2012 #1, IMO, was a good bid. That is much different than the situation I was afraid of, where they decided he was their guy but didn't have the balls to step up and win when they had the best hand.

It is what it is. Next.


But you're dealing with Snyder. Thinking 3 1's, as good as that is, would be good enough with no 2 thrown in, well, I could have called that.
CleSportsTruth
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby CleSportsTruth » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:55 pm

Xukuth wrote:Interesting development. I wonder...can the boy wonder tell the 'Skins to piss off, ala John Elway to the Colts, or Eli to the Chargers? I know Elway could have gone into Baseball, and that put some pressure on the Colts to get SOMETHING for him. If RGIII did make that call, what do you think Danny boy would do? Take him, then trade him? Take him and out of pure arrogance make him waste away? What to do, what to do.....


:hide:


One, RGIII won't pull that. Military family and all. Two, if he did, though, and ended up here, the whole town should fucking adopt the kid.
CleSportsTruth
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:17 pm

So, for the tenth time, the NFL voted to have a no cap system and Goodell decided to make rules against gaming the system when he had no right to make those rules?

He's a cock and this is a load of bullshit. It goes against the very definition of "collective bargaining"
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby Hikohadon » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:26 pm

e0y2e3 wrote:So, for the tenth time, the NFL voted to have a no cap system and Goodell decided to make rules against gaming the system when he had no right to make those rules?

He's a cock and this is a load of bullshit. It goes against the very definition of "collective bargaining"


What I'm getting is that nobody seems to care about this but you.
It's only progress if you eventually get somewhere.
User avatar
Hikohadon
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:33 am
Favorite Player: Scotch
Least Favorite Player: Gin

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:35 pm

Also, RANDY'S BACK YALLL
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:37 pm

Hikohadon wrote:
e0y2e3 wrote:So, for the tenth time, the NFL voted to have a no cap system and Goodell decided to make rules against gaming the system when he had no right to make those rules?

He's a cock and this is a load of bullshit. It goes against the very definition of "collective bargaining"


What I'm getting is that nobody seems to care about this but you.


That's good and all, but you guys might want to take notice of your favorite league's commish breaking the spirit of collective bargaining just to be a cocksucker. And you may want to consider that fucking RGIII over this could really suck for, you know, the sport.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby peeker643 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:37 pm

CleSportsTruth wrote:
JCoz wrote:I certainly feel much better knowing they lost by blind bid....and that's consistant with what I was bitching about presumptively Friday.

3 #1's in a blind bid, with the highest 2012 #1, IMO, was a good bid. That is much different than the situation I was afraid of, where they decided he was their guy but didn't have the balls to step up and win when they had the best hand.

It is what it is. Next.


But you're dealing with Snyder. Thinking 3 1's, as good as that is, would be good enough with no 2 thrown in, well, I could have called that.


Shoulda offered the #1's for the next 12 years. That probably would have done it.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22766
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby JCoz » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:52 pm

CleSportsTruth wrote:
JCoz wrote:I certainly feel much better knowing they lost by blind bid....and that's consistant with what I was bitching about presumptively Friday.

3 #1's in a blind bid, with the highest 2012 #1, IMO, was a good bid. That is much different than the situation I was afraid of, where they decided he was their guy but didn't have the balls to step up and win when they had the best hand.

It is what it is. Next.


But you're dealing with Snyder. Thinking 3 1's, as good as that is, would be good enough with no 2 thrown in, well, I could have called that.


That's fine but I just disagree.
User avatar
JCoz
Donnie, you're out of your element
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:57 am
Favorite Player: Competency
Least Favorite Player: Gene Smith

Re: Walrus Has No Balls - RG3 a Redskin

Unread postby fairvis » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:41 am

Given Washington's cap situation... those 2013 and 2014 #1's could be top 10, even if RG3 is Jesus incarnate.
User avatar
fairvis
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:21 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Favorite Player: Braxton Miller
Least Favorite Player: Joakim Noah

PreviousNext

Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests