The Red King

I thought I remembered reading the Browns were the best team in the AFC... ?

Before overly mocking the OP, I'll at least point out someone thought this idea interesting enough years back. Forget the name and the station, but they made a league from classic championship teams, and simulated the games on computer. They then made highlight "clips" by splicing old footage together. Granted, the show bombed and quickly died, but enough people believed it could work to actually have greenlit it.

It's this, exactly. The entire goal line is considered part of the endzone. It's why you just have to break the plane for a TD, but escape it completely to avoid a safety.

You missed the point. The Jets and Giants share a single stadium.

I had been attacked repeatedly for saying the Browns were over-hyped, that they looked good on paper but I wanted to see it on the field before I annoint them anything. Sure looked like the best team in the AFC today, didn't they? ?

See, I liked the tri-color. It was the road jerseys I hated. Red helmet, white jersey and pants looked horribly wrong. They looked like lighthouses, would have been better with blue pants. As for now, I love our current unis, better then any past set...except when we go white helmet, white shirt, blue pants. Still a jarring case of "one of these things is not like the other." ...color rush is an abomination and an eyesore.

Hey you...the superstar playing on the Raiders. How would you like to play for the Patriots? You know, the team that keeps winning rings? I can make that happen. All it will cost you is $20 million, and your dignity. Zero to hero, a championship for your legacy. Seems a reasonable cost, no?

Do you remember when this thread was about Antonio Brown? Pepperidge Farms remembers...

AB acts like a douche so he gets traded. Doesn't go to the team he wants, so he acts like a douche and gets released. The Pats, in less then a day, decide this locker room cancer is actually the perfect fit for their team and sign him. Yeah, sounds legit. ?

I never once used the word 'crime' in this post. So...thanks for showing your bias, and lack of basic reading skills.

Who said anything about a crime? Now I don't think you're even readng my replies.

Replied to you above while you were replying.

See, you're still not getting it. I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate. If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See? The police said I didn't do it! They cleared me!". Of course not. Yet that's the leap you're trying to make. For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election. I don't, however, think there was collusion. So no, I am not biased here. But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where. You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report. "Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

You can say 'The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', and you would be accurate. But that is not the same thing as saying 'The report said no collusion.' The former suggests there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion. The latter suggests a definitive conclusion was reached, and it wasn't. Hell, the most accurate statement would be "The report did not find enough evidence to support collusion', which again isn't quite the same.

Biting rebutal. Let's see if I can reply at your level. Um...you're a poo-poo head!

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. What am I biased against, facts? The fact is, there were not enough facts to deny or establish collusion. At no point in my post did I say or even suggest there was collusion. Next time you read into my post, try actually reading it. Irony is, you showed your bias pretty well. Like the kid and a cookie jar example I gave, the report said there was not enough evidence to prove collusion. Nowhere in the report does it specifically state there was no collusion. This isn't opinion, it's concrete fact. Seriously, show me where in the report it specifically says 'no collusion'. Go on, I'll wait..

The thread title is misleading. At no point did the report determine or state there was no collusion. Rather, it was their conclusion that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove collusion. So, the report's answer to "Was there collusion?" is simply, "I dunno. Maybe?". And with all the time and effort invested, that's in some ways even more frustrating then a clear, decisive yes or no. At the same time, it is vexing to hear Trump and some Republicans repeatedly saying the Report confirmed no collusion when they damn well know that's a lie. Saying you didn't get a good enough look so you can't really say if a boy stole a cookie or not does not mean the kid didn't take one. It doesn't exonorate him. Yet that's exactly what Trump and the Republicans are claiming, despite knowing full well it is an outright lie. And they're doing so trusting many Americans won't actually read the report and as a result might actually buy the manure they're peddling.

Two things here. First, it's understandable for sites to say the Bills suck until they don't. Only way they're getting respect is if they earn it. At the same time, calling them the fourth worst in the league is a display of ignorance that throws any credibility they had out the window, then ran it over with car for good measure. This isn't analytics. It's bagging on the Bills because it's safe and easy. That's just lazy writing.

Lost respect for him two years back when he literally said the Bills' season was over before it started...and then the Bills went on to end the drought. ?

Issues? This guy has subscriptions...anthologies, even! He's one incident from an afterschool special. ?

...and this is why I'm done with this thread. People skim, rather then read, then blindly fire off a reply. Reread what I said, the part you bolded, and the sentence following. Your entire reply is based off misreading mine. But you were just chomping at the bit, so fired up, that you had to reply without paying attention and end up looking the fool. Here, let me help... "I'm not saying they can't possibly be as good as..." To which you reply "Why not?" ...sooo...you want me to say they can't possibly be as good as the Pats and Chargers then? The rest of your post suggests otherwise. Next time, actually take time to fully read a reply, rather then skimming, assuming, and firing off a knee-jerk reply that makes you look foolish.

My point is, it's not that it isn't possible, on paper it is. My point is, such claims are premature. This is an organization that went 1-31 before going 7-9-1. There were a lot of people saying they were a playoff team leading into last season. How well did those predictions play out? Talks of them being a playoff team this season are reasonable. But on par with the Pats and Chargers? Sorry, going to need to see a few games first.

I guess time will tell. But if they're not every bit as good as the Pats and Chargers this season, I reserve the right to laugh my ass off at anyone on this post who's already declaring they are without a single down played. Remember, not just improved, but on par with the Pats and Chargers.

Alright, since some are still missing the point, lemmie try again... I am not saying the Browns can't be a better team. I'm not saying they can't possibly end up as good as the Pats or Chargers. Not saying that at all. My problem is, they went 7-8-1 last season, a losing record. They made some changes that make them look good on paper alone. Yet, despite all that, people are already willing to put them on par with the Pats and Chargers before a single snap is played. That's where I take issue. The potential is there, yes, but maybe wait and see how all the parts actually work together for a game or two before crowning them best of the AFC.

And what respect do the Raiders deserve? Yet they're being discussed as a potential wild card in the very article posted here.