DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Schwartz wasn’t a one year wonder boy. He was highly successful his entire career. Everyone was excited when he arrived and he certainly lived up to the hype.

?? What ?? 😂

Patriots had a second year QB.
Texans had a rookie..

You can be very good at your job and still be overrated

I could get on board with this argument if there was at least a shred of consistency. Looking back over this admin, saving money and promoting efficiency has largely just been words. Accumulation of federal debt has accelerated since the beginning of this admin. OBBBA is adding significant debt that will continue to accelerate, costs of this war that shows no signs of slowing or stopping (quite the opposite at this point), repercussions of the tariff nonsense, so on and so forth. It appears that the outcome of DOGE (this feels like decades ago) is going to end up being a cost with having to hire back significant portions of the federal workforce laid off.

Schwartz did walk into an embarrassment of riches (in terms of talent) when he got here, but he got that talent to gel into a unit that largely delivered up to expectation. I also noticed how they were significantly better with halftime adjustments.

I was expecting the D to fold as we got further into the end of the year and the losses kept piling up, but they largely hung in there.

SoS can be a big ?? at this point. Teams can (and do) fluctuate in terms of their level of play.

... and not to be a Debbie Downer, but there is one HUGE difference between us and those teams (established QB).

The Browns have officially been given the easiest Strength of Schedule based on 2025 results.

Article on another website had this to say about that: I don't know the rules on credits from other websites, so if I should be giving the author and/or website credit, please advise and I can edit. Some websites don't want other sites credits.

" Why the Browns might have actually caught a break

If you're looking for one team that could surprise people in 2026, that could be the Cleveland Browns, who have the easiest strength of schedule in the NFL. Here's why that matters: The AFC team with the easiest schedule has finished with a winning record in EIGHT STRAIGHT seasons, including last year, when the AFC champion Patriots improved from 4-13 in 2024 to 14-3 in 2025.

Over the past three seasons, the AFC team with the easiest strength of schedule has improved their record by an average of 7.7 wins and all three of those teams had a new head coach going into the season.

2023: Texans. After going 3-13-1 in 2022, the Texans had the easiest strength of schedule of any AFC team in 2023 and they ended up being a surprise playoff team at 10-7 during DeMeco Ryans' first season as Houston's head coach.
2024: Chargers. After going 5-12 in 2023, they had the AFC's easiest strength of schedule in 2024 and they took advantage of that by going 11-6 and making the playoffs in Jim Harbaugh's first season on the job.
2025: Patriots. After going 4-13 in 2024, the Patriots bounced back in a big way while playing against the AFC's easiest strength of schedule in 2025. In Mike Vrabel's first season on the job, the Patriots went 14-3 and ended up making a run all the way to the Super Bowl.

In 2026, the Browns will have a new head coach in Todd Monken and he'll be looking to replicate the success of those three coaches.

The Browns will also be playing both the AFC South and NFC South this year, which has been a huge advantage for teams. Last year, the Super Bowl champion Seahawks went a combined 7-1 against those two divisions, which is a big reason why Seattle ended up earning the No. 1 overall seed in the NFC.

Last year, the 49ers were in the exact same spot as the Browns: They had the easiest strength of schedule in 2025 and they also got to play both South divisions. After going 6-11 in 2024, the 49ers used their scheduling advantage to go 12-5 in 2025.

Of course, no one is going to mistake the Browns for the 49ers, but getting to play both South divisions seems to help.

The last two times an entire division got matched up with both South divisions, that division produced at least three teams that finished with a winning record. "


That being said, in the down time we have until training camp, I thought it was a good conversation piece on opinions about SOS before a single game is played.

Let's be clear here.
trump targeted national park and monument regulations to open protected public lands to fossil fuel extraction, mining, and commercial use—and to reshape how American history and environmental science are presented in federal educational exhibits.
Lobbyists are nothing more than part of a corruption network. That begins with the money from those who benefit. In the end who goes along reaps the rewards.


Interior Department orders directed reviews of public lands with the intent to increase drilling, fracking, and commercial logging in areas previously safeguarded from development. Downsizing Monuments: Using the Antiquities Act, Trump drastically reduced protected areas like Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments to exclude them from federal land regulations.

trump attacks anything Obama did. He is consumed with hatred for him. He has targeted removal or censoring of displays detailing the historical realities of slavery, the Civil War, and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The removal of references to climate change and climate science from park materials. Hell he attacked the displays at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
He had installed the controversial deployment of QR codes instructing park visitors to report signs or exhibits deemed "anti-American."

He has attacked free speech almost daily. His game is more than obvious with Comey or anyone who opposes him.

I despise partisan politics. When something is obviously wrong I could care less what party is doing it.

trump will go down as the worst president this country has ever had. Not because he is republican but because of him and who he is.

That's not dawgtalkers, that's the federal government. She's in witness protection now. They told AI to redact her old name from the internet.

We are going to disagree on Schwartz, I don't think he was overrated at all. As for in game adjustments, the Browns gave up fewer yards (ave. 186 first half to 106 second half) and TDs were 2 to 1 first half to second half last year. I don't recall the defense doing many things to lose many games. The defense was put into a lot of bad field position situations, yet they still held the other team on many occasions. I don't recall ever having issues in the second half caused by a lack of adjustments.

Venezuela’s acting president defends country’s territory and rejects Trump’s 51st state remarks

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Venezuela ’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez told journalists Monday that her country had no plans to become the 51st U.S. state after President Donald Trump said he was “seriously considering” the move.

Rodríguez was speaking at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the final day of hearings in a dispute between her country and neighboring Guyana over the massive mineral- and oil-rich Essequibo region.

“We will continue to defend our integrity, our sovereignty, our independence, our history,” said Rodríguez, who assumed power in January following a U.S. military operation that ousted then-President Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is “not a colony, but a free country,” she added.

Speaking to Fox News earlier on Monday, Trump said he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st US state,” according to a post by Fox News’ co-anchor John Roberts on social media. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Trump has made similar comments about Canada.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly later declined to comment on Trump’s plans in an interview of her own with Roberts on Fox News. Kelly said the president is “famous for never accepting the status quo,” and praised Rodríguez for “working incredibly cooperatively” with the U.S.

Rodríguez went on to say that Venezuelan and U.S. officials have been in touch and are working on “cooperation and understanding.”

Before addressing Trump’s comments, Rodríguez defended her country’s claim to Essequibo at the United Nations’ highest court, telling judges that political negotiations — not a judicial ruling — will resolve the century-old territorial dispute.

The 62,000-square-mile territory, which makes up two-thirds of Guyana, is rich in gold, diamonds, timber and other natural resources. It also sits near massive offshore oil deposits currently producing an average 900,000 barrels a day.

That output is close to Venezuela’s daily production of about 1 million barrels a day and has transformed one of the smallest countries in South America into a significant energy producer.

Venezuela has considered Essequibo its own since the Spanish colonial period, when the jungle region fell within its boundaries. But an 1899 decision by arbitrators from Britain, Russia and the United States drew the border along the Essequibo River largely in favor of Guyana.

Venezuela has argued that a 1966 agreement sealed in Geneva to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the 19th-century arbitration. In 2018, however, three years after ExxonMobil announced a significant oil discovery off the Essequibo coast, Guyana’s government went to the International Court of Justice and asked judges to uphold the 1899 ruling.

Tensions between the countries further flared in 2023, when Rodríguez’s predecessor, Maduro, threatened to annex the region by force after holding a referendum asking voters if Essequibo should be turned into a Venezuelan state. Maduro was captured Jan. 3 during a U.S. military operation in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and taken to New York to face drug trafficking charges. He has pleaded not guilty.

Rodríguez did not address the referendum in her remarks, but she told the court that the 1966 agreement is designed to allow negotiations between Venezuela and Guyana to resolve the territorial dispute. And she accused Guyana’s government of undermining the agreement with the “opportunistic” decision to ask the court to address the dispute.

“At a time when the mechanisms established in the Geneva agreement were still fully in force, Guyana unilaterally chose to shift the dispute from the negotiating arena to a judicial resolution,” she said. “This change was not accidental; it coincided with the discovery in 2015 of the oil field that would become world-renowned.”

When hearings opened last week, Guyana’s foreign minister, Hugh Hilton Todd, told the panel of international judges that the dispute “has been a blight on our existence as a sovereign state from the very beginning.” He said that 70% of Guyana’s territory is at stake.

The court is likely to take months to issue a final and legally binding ruling in the case.

Venezuela has warned that its participation in the hearings does not mean either consent to, or recognition of, the court’s jurisdiction.

https://apnews.com/article/venezuel...ump-oil-89f55dc0049617e81bfbad49c4bed777

I suppose when his initial opponent didn't end up being so easy to push around he felt the need to find a weaker target.

Are the jobs necessary? Which jobs were lost? Is how they operate ideal?

Might people have to volunteer to pick up some of the slack? Sure. Should people be doing that anyways? To me, yes. National parks cover millions of acres. 3,000 on the ground maintenance workers aren't putting a dent in that. Do we know that the jobs were in maintenance? I'm guessing most were not.

If we don't service the debt our economy will collapse entirely. I'm not a huge fan of wars, either. I'd much rather the federal government cut down on spending everywhere.

It would seem to me that the run correctly has been more at issue than you are willing to admit. In the OP link it talked about all the private group fundraising they used, so paying for themselves doesn't appear to have been the case.

Bears Ears was a highly controversial issue. Obama had just proclaimed it right before leaving office and Trump took over (2016/2017). It wasn't some long established park. Trump campaigned on the topic and won the vote in Utah. Should he have listened to the voters or not? It since was re-expanded by Biden. Did Trump reduce it again?

Again, I agree with most of your sentiments. It just feels a bit like you're jumping to conclusions that I'm not seeing evidence for. Not necessarily bad conclusions, but they read more as fears than facts to me at this point.

They're called "visitor centers".

I have been to damn near every National Park and some of them many times.

The 3,000 lost jobs are necessary jobs that serve the function of how they operate.

Parks require maintenance. I have never seen a reference to slavery in a Park. Climate change maybe because there are impacts that can be seen.

What I have seen is information about the history of each Park along with old photos.

If we can spend trillions on interest to our National debt and dump money into a war that is ruining the economy.

I would much rather attend to our country and support what serves us all.

The Parks pay for themselves if they are run correctly. Every previous president has recognized their value and protected them.

Trump signed an executive order scaling back the borders of Bears Ears National Monument by roughly \(85\%\) (losing over \(1\) million acres) and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by nearly half (losing about \(800,000\) acres). This decision opened these formerly protected lands to potential commercial development, mining, and logging.

Right!? Hard not to chuckle reading through the article.

Keeping him on the roster allows the Browns to file for cap insurance relief for him being out.

If I'm going to a national park, it's to get away from society and connect with nature. I'm not going to a national park to read about slavery or climate change. I've gotten plenty of that elsewhere. Less rent-a-cops is fine by me, too.

If they were bulldozing parks and putting in parking lots, I'd have a problem. Removing man made displays and people/"staff" is in line with how I'd prefer it. I'm not a huge fan of putting up new exhibits, but that's the world we live in, and if they are more "positive" I guess I'd prefer that when I'm trying to take a breather from the dark $#/7 of the modern world.

Are the changes to the parks damaging to the parks or to some overpaid "curator's" bank account?

I get the gut reaction response to reading something is "damaging to our National Parks." I'm just not really seeing the actual damage in the OP.

Last night was better. Tied at two apiece. We decided to play harder. Better player mix, better defense, fewer turnovers. We had our heads together in the game. Our D needs to limit shots more. We still have a long walk to achieve an improbable series win. Last night the second half was fun to watch.
Do not weaken.

Another problem is the "surprise" budget issue that wasn't planned for. Illness, sure. House repairs, those not covered by insurance, like roof, furnace, major car repairs, larger ticket fixes. We tried to drop some major money on our home before we both retired. Doing that will help the withdrawal number. We have pensions, and other sources we are building slowly. Point of this post is to encourage anticipating a variety of unexpected costs that will demand attention. Most of my friends have stated they want to have one to two million available. I wish everybody luck! We intend to keep investing as long as we can. Comfortable, but not massively flush by any means.

So much of this question depends upon needs, wants, and abilities.

I am seventy-eight. Even typing that is unreal to me.

However, I see what life looks like for those my age.

My sister is kind of a typical example. She is four years older than me. She had a long career at Cleveland Clinic. First as a nurse then as a lawyer. She worked hard, saved and planned.

She had a hip replacement at seventy-five. Complications required a second surgery. She became limited and had to use a cane.

Plenty of money to do as she wished.

Because of her physical condition she lost all interest in travel. Her financial planner suggested "you need to spend some money."

She has all she "needs." She has "all she wants." She stays home and lives her life. Doing what she can and wants to do.

That is very typical. I know many of my old friends in a similar boat.

Your health dictates so much.

I have worked at health. It matters but then again it may not.

Something can come along at any time and bite your ass.

Then it becomes "what can I do and what do I want to do?"

I think Schwartz was overrated, but Rutenberg is an unknown. I like the "scheme," which we're supposedly keeping, but the in game adjustments and moment to moment play calling left me wanting better from Schwartz, and I don't think Rutenberg has had to do that yet. So, we'll see.

Word censoring is on point here at Dawgtalkers.

Solid points, both. $6 million of his 2026 salary is guaranteed; 2025 was fully guaranteed.... and there is a LOT of Dead Cap pushed into Void Years from 2028 thru 2031. He will still represent $11.7million in Dead Cap in 2027, so he may spend the entire remainder of his contract on PUP.