SportsAndLady;1872840 wrote:I don't even know where to start with this dumbass post so I'll just leave it.

also, that waterboy quote was terrible.

Because you have nothing and YOU, of ALL people, know I'm right. You would give up JT's whole HOF career, here in Cleveland, for a franchise QB and you know it.

Since you "don't even know where to start", please cite all of the wins/winning seasons that JT has lead this franchise to?

like_that;1872839 wrote:Not really. We would trade him and then just create another hole (of many). We would have to replace him and who would that replacement be? One of those shitty spread tackles coming out of college?

Joe’s below average is better than 90% of the league. It would be idiotic to create another gaping hole for no reason. The browns have and had plenty of picks. They need to learn how to make the most of them.


Also, he has consistently been rated a top run blocker his entire career. I’m not sure why you keep harping on that, because making him out to be an average run blocker is simply dishonest.

What's the argument for having the "elite LT" for a shitty football team? To keep the QB upright? Oh yeah, the Browns go through 3 QB's a year because, more times than not, the QB sucks and doesn't process things quickly enough so he's getting sacked constantly. Part of last year was on the OL but more of it was on crappy QB play that wasn't decisive, with a quick release (WR's can be blamed a bit here too).

I've been banging the drum for the O-Line all of my life because it's part of my football "passion" but one doesn't need an elite O-Line if they have a legit QB. Tom Brady (yeah, I know, he's the GOAT) has been proving this for most of his career.

BR1986FB;1872842 wrote:What's the argument for having the "elite LT" for a shitty football team? To keep the QB upright? Oh yeah, the Browns go through 3 QB's a year because, more times than not, the QB sucks and doesn't process things quickly enough so he's getting sacked constantly. Part of last year was on the OL but more of it was on crappy QB play that wasn't decisive, with a quick release (WR's can be blamed a bit here too).

I've been banging the drum for the O-Line all of my life because it's part of my football "passion" but one doesn't need an elite O-Line if they have a legit QB. Tom Brady (yeah, I know, he's the GOAT) has been proving this for most of his career.

A very simple argument.

Placing a rookie behind a good o-line expedites his growth in the NFL. There have been plenty of QBs in the league who had their careers ruined, because they had a shitty offensive line. On the flip side you have some a good amount of examples where young QBs thrive early in their careers, because of the roster that was given to them. It could make even an average QB (dalton) succeed.

It's not Joe's fault that the organization has been a pile of shit and can't draft the right QB. I just don't see the point in creating another hole at one of the most important positions in the NFL and as a result making it hell for a inexperienced QB. Think about all of the QBs the Browns passed on (flacco, rapist, rodgers, wilson, dak, bridgewater, carr, garpollo, etc). I am not even going to get into the skill position players they passed on (i.e. cooper), but I am willing to bet if we drafted one of those QBs you would have a much different tune regarding JT and our line. Hell some of those QBs are doing well, because they were placed in a system with a good line (flacco, wilson, carr).

Your argument pretty much comes down to as long as you have a brady, rodgers, or manning an elite line is not necessary. I agree, for an elite QB like that, you don't need the best line in the league. For the rest of the league, that just isn't an option and it's the equivalent of winning the lottery for a NFL franchise. We weren't going to trade Joe and magically find an all time great QB to hide the deficiency from the left tackle position. I am not too sure how anyone would be confident about that considering the Browns drafting history. The left tackle position is still one of the highest paid positions in the NFL, so I have to highly disagree with your attitude in general that the position isn't that important anymore.

I generally disagree with any notion of getting rid of your best player. If you can get rid of him for great value, and you're so close to filling needs elsewhere that would make you a contender, that's one thing. Firstly, you're not going to trade Joe Thomas for an elite QB. No team will ever do that. You might be able to get a good qb or an average qb and other weapons. So say we traded Joe Thomas for Marcus Marriota. We'd still suck. Marriota wouldn't have time to throw it to receivers who don't exist. And all we did was get worse at running ability. Ok, so say we traded Joe Thomas for Mike Glennon and Kevin White (which even the bears wouldn't do). Ok so we have an average qb who can get the ball to someone, but there's a gaping hole in the line and we're no better off than we were.
If we already had a strong receiver corp and strong defense and line was so good that we could just pick up a LT and plug him in while adding a good qb.. it'd be worth it, But Cleveland is no where close to that.

BR1986FB;1872841 wrote:Because you have nothing and YOU, of ALL people, know I'm right. You would give up JT's whole HOF career, here in Cleveland, for a franchise QB and you know it.

Since you "don't even know where to start", please cite all of the wins/winning seasons that JT has lead this franchise to?

You're actually expanding on your awful argument.

NO FUCKING SHIT WE'D ALL TRADE JT FOR A FRANCHISE QB.

But we've never had that offer and would never get an offer like that.

You're trying to argue that you're right about wanting to trade joe Thomas by making up your point that we could have traded him for Aaron Rodgers but we didn't and now we've lost 10 straight seasons!

It's just such an awful argument. Joe Thomas has been great on the Cleveland browns and is one of the few players we've ever had who actually enjoyed playing in Cleveland. And you want to trade him because FRANCHISE QB!!! Smh

SportsAndLady;1872850 wrote:You're actually expanding on your awful argument.

NO FUCKING SHIT WE'D ALL TRADE JT FOR A FRANCHISE QB.

But we've never had that offer and would never get an offer like that.

You're trying to argue that you're right about wanting to trade joe Thomas by making up your point that we could have traded him for Aaron Rodgers but we didn't and now we've lost 10 straight seasons!

It's just such an awful argument. Joe Thomas has been great on the Cleveland browns and is one of the few players we've ever had who actually enjoyed playing in Cleveland. And you want to trade him because FRANCHISE QB!!! Smh

You guys misread my comments. I wasn't implying TRADING Thomas for a franchise QB. No team in their right mind is doing that. I meant you'd rather HAVE the franchise QB instead of Thomas.

BR1986FB;1872851 wrote:You guys misread my comments. I wasn't implying TRADING Thomas for a franchise QB. No team in their right mind is doing that. I meant you'd rather HAVE the franchise QB instead of Thomas.

I know what you meant, my point is by trading JT I have 0 confidence we would find a franchise QB. What do I base my confidence level on? Our front office's inability to find a QB since 1999. It's a pretty large sample size as you already know. Thus, I think it is completely idiotic to create another hole at a very important position. If you could hypothetically guarantee that we were receiving a franchise QB in return for JT, I would make that trade in a hear beat. I don't think anyone disagrees there. The Browns have enough holes, there is no reason to create another, especially when there is no confidence they have the ability fill that hole once it is created.

BR1986FB;1872851 wrote:You guys misread my comments. I wasn't implying TRADING Thomas for a franchise QB. No team in their right mind is doing that. I meant you'd rather HAVE the franchise QB instead of Thomas.

Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Doesn't mean that stating "trading joe Thomas would have been a good move" is correct though.

like_that;1872844 wrote:A very simple argument.

Placing a rookie behind a good o-line expedites his growth in the NFL. There have been plenty of QBs in the league who had their careers ruined, because they had a shitty offensive line. On the flip side you have some a good amount of examples where young QBs thrive early in their careers, because of the roster that was given to them. It could make even an average QB (dalton) succeed.

It's not Joe's fault that the organization has been a pile of shit and can't draft the right QB. I just don't see the point in creating another hole at one of the most important positions in the NFL and as a result making it hell for a inexperienced QB. Think about all of the QBs the Browns passed on (flacco, rapist, rodgers, wilson, dak, bridgewater, carr, garpollo, etc). I am not even going to get into the skill position players they passed on (i.e. cooper), but I am willing to bet if we drafted one of those QBs you would have a much different tune regarding JT and our line. Hell some of those QBs are doing well, because they were placed in a system with a good line (flacco, wilson, carr).

Your argument pretty much comes down to as long as you have a brady, rodgers, or manning an elite line is not necessary. I agree, for an elite QB like that, you don't need the best line in the league. For the rest of the league, that just isn't an option and it's the equivalent of winning the lottery for a NFL franchise. We weren't going to trade Joe and magically find an all time great QB to hide the deficiency from the left tackle position. I am not too sure how anyone would be confident about that considering the Browns drafting history. The left tackle position is still one of the highest paid positions in the NFL, so I have to highly disagree with your attitude in general that the position isn't that important anymore.

My argument was directed toward a rookie QB but you turned it into that. This team has had QB's that were serviceable (or better) for spurts (DA, Hoyer). When Charlie Frye started out the 2007 season against Pittsburgh and got sacked nine(?) times, everyone was screaming "O-Line sucks!" Next week, DA with quicker decision making/quicker release (and don't make this into a "you think DA's great" argument) they look like the best line in the league. Even decent QB's are going to make a line look better.

BR1986FB;1872854 wrote:My argument was directed toward a rookie QB but you turned it into that. This team has had QB's that were serviceable (or better) for spurts (DA, Hoyer). When Charlie Frye started out the 2007 season against Pittsburgh and got sacked nine(?) times, everyone was screaming "O-Line sucks!" Next week, DA with quicker decision making/quicker release (and don't make this into a "you think DA's great" argument) they look like the best line in the league. Even decent QB's are going to make a line look better.

Anderson and Hoyer aren't serviceable to me. Anderson will never play anymore meaningful minutes in the NFL and Hoyer shouldn't be right now. The 49'ers are just that bad.

BR1986FB;1872854 wrote:My argument was directed toward a rookie QB but you turned it into that. This team has had QB's that were serviceable (or better) for spurts (DA, Hoyer). When Charlie Frye started out the 2007 season against Pittsburgh and got sacked nine(?) times, everyone was screaming "O-Line sucks!" Next week, DA with quicker decision making/quicker release (and don't make this into a "you think DA's great" argument) they look like the best line in the league. Even decent QB's are going to make a line look better.

And if Hoyer/DA played behind the line that Tim Couch had to play behind, you won't see them perform to the serviceable level that we saw for a few games.

This arguement is fucking stupid and making my head hurt reading BR's hot taeks. DGAF, Joet GOAThomas is the GOATest of all time. STFU

Commander of Awesome;1872858 wrote:This arguement is fucking stupid and making my head hurt reading BR's hot taeks. DGAF, Joet GOAThomas is the GOATest of all time. STFU

This.

Thomas is the best. Any opinions to the contrary are stupid.

Commander of Awesome;1872858 wrote:This arguement is fucking stupid and making my head hurt reading BR's hot taeks. DGAF, Joet GOAThomas is the GOATest of all time. STFU

Easy to say for someone who hasn't seen them all play. Unless you're older than I think, you didn't get to watch Munoz in his prime. I get it though, you're a homer. Same type of person who thinks Bernie Kosar was a "great" QB.

BR1986FB;1872874 wrote:Easy to say for someone who hasn't seen them all play. Unless you're older than I think, you didn't get to watch Munoz in his prime. I get it though, you're a homer. Same type of person who thinks Bernie Kosar was a "great" QB.

Sigh, just shut up BR. You're wrong and it's time to move on.

Commander of Awesome;1872875 wrote:Sigh, just shut up BR. You're wrong and it's time to move on.

Why, because a bunch of Cleveland "homers" can't stand the fact that the team's LT isn't universally considered the GOAT? Outside of Cleveland you won't be hearing many say he is.

BR1986FB;1872876 wrote:Why, because a bunch of Cleveland "homers" can't stand the fact that the team's LT isn't universally considered the GOAT? Outside of Cleveland you won't be hearing many say he is.

Nice opinion, DGAF.

Did joe Thomas piss in your HGH or something?

SportsAndLady;1872878 wrote:Did joe Thomas piss in your HGH or something?

BR's HGH may be great, BUT IT'S NO BARRY BONDS HGH!!!111

SportsAndLady;1872878 wrote:Did joe Thomas piss in your HGH or something?

No, he didn't...Durkie. I made a POSITIVE comment about him, quoting COA, earlier in the thread and then troll boy (COA) started his shit. I don't see eye to eye with the blind homers that say he's the GOAT. For the most part, only in Cleveland is JT seen as the GOAT at his position. I appreciate his play and what he's done for the team but I've seen most of the greats play at the position and he's probably top 3-4 but not the GOAT. I get it though. Homer fans will protect their own, whether correct or not.

BR1986FB;1872880 wrote:No, he didn't...Durkie. I made a POSITIVE comment about him, quoting COA, earlier in the thread and then troll boy (COA) started his shit. I don't see eye to eye with the blind homers that say he's the GOAT. For the most part, only in Cleveland is JT seen as the GOAT at his position. I appreciate his play and what he's done for the team but I've seen most of the greats play at the position and he's probably top 3-4 but not the GOAT. I get it though. Homer fans will protect their own, whether correct or not.

So if someone doesn't agree with you on this subject, they're a homer? Got it!

this thread is now an instant classic-lol....I love it!

BR1986FB;1872880 wrote:No, he didn't...Durkie.

come on now, BR, let's not bring his family into this--that's low

BR1986FB;1872874 wrote:Easy to say for someone who hasn't seen them all play. Unless you're older than I think, you didn't get to watch Munoz in his prime. I get it though, you're a homer. Same type of person who thinks Bernie Kosar was a "great" QB.

YEAH BUT HE'S NO LOU GROZA!!!111

BR1986FB;1872876 wrote:Why, because a bunch of Cleveland "homers" can't stand the fact that the team's LT isn't universally considered the GOAT? Outside of Cleveland you won't be hearing many say he is.

You know you are right when s&L has the opposite opinion.

This round goes to BR.

Nice job.