IMO, this is Watson. He was better when he was younger because he was more athletic.
In Houston, he had talented receivers from the start.
Monken's scheme, like Bill O'Brien, fits Watson skill set better.
I remember Watson when he won at Clemson. He was hot and cold, very sporadic. Watson's athletic ability made him a popular choice. There was a reason he went 12th in the draft.
Thinking tanking is the best option for getting the QB; look at the 2017 draft as an example. Chicago traded up for Mitch Trubisky. Patrick Mahomes was the 10th pick, and Deshaun Watson went 12th.
Let's revisit the Kansas City trade to get Mahomes. The Chiefs traded up from the 27th pick to the 10th, giving the Buffalo Bills a third-round pick and a first-round pick in 2018.
I'm perfectly fine winning as many games as possible this year!
Coulda, woulda, shoulda---- Nothing in this forum since the Jax massace. WOW, now 3-1 and in FIRST PLACE. Coulda kept Ski....JMHO, Stefanski’s message had run stale in Cleveland. Woulda our OLD DC been 3-1....I doubt it. Shoulda hired our current head coach, he has worked hard to get the best out of an offensive line with whole new crew.....and they are doing well. He has brought "freshness to the O, and has Watson playing his best football since the trade......GREAT, go Browns!!!!
Yeah it hits quite close when you live in San Diego county with Camp Pendleton as your backyard.
Just add it to the list of stupid things said.
Some see them as stupid. Others see it as such a man not only saying such things, but getting millions upon millions to support the crazy things he says is quite dangerous. I consider it far more dangerous than stupid. History should have taught us all how following this path ends up. It's never good.
President Trump said Monday that reporters from The New York Times and other media outlets should be “arrested” over their coverage of his Saturday rally in Ohio.
“The Ohio Arena was already full to the brim — And yet these people were still trying to get in,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, sharing a video of people in line for the rally.
New York Times correspondent Katie Rogers wrote Sunday that “several areas of an upper deck were empty” by the time the president finished speaking at Butler High School in Vandalia.
The school’s student center, where the event took place, has a capacity of 4,500 people, Rogers noted.
“The New York Times, and many other Artificial Media Outlets, should be arrested for their dishonesty and disservice to our Country,” the president added, accusing outlets of inflating crowds for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and downplaying how many people attend his rallies.
“The Arena was totally MAXED OUT, including all upper sections,” Trump wrote in a subsequent post. “What does happen at all of my SOLD OUT Rallies, is that the people in the upper sections tend to migrate down to the Main Floor — The ‘migration’ process always happens!”
How can you "migrate down" to a place where all of the seats are full? It was certainly full at the beginning of his speech. But then again if a POTUS can't fill a 4500 seat high school auditorium what would that say? An AC/DC cover band could fill up a 450 seat auditorium. I wonder why they aren't scheduling larger venues? Once again we see the president calling for the press who opposes him be punished by the legal system. The constitution means nothing to this man.
I don't think we disagree enough to argue about at this point. I would like to point out a couple of things however. I have already agreed with you that both sides are bias and paint their own narrative. And I also agree that a part of that is created with bias by omission.
Places we disagree, and that's more about the suggestive part of your post than anything factually based is this........
Quote
From that standpoint, we should all be thankful a lot of the randos beating the street have a voice. It's not all b.s., and there are plenty of cases where that news survives a [censored] meter that national media never faces.
First "a lot of the randos" are there to do nothing more than amplify the bias and division. In that respect they are simply adding to the problem. I am happy they do have a voice because the constitution gives them that right and luckily we don't have our nations leader attacking them every time they voice a dissenting viewpoint, yet. Something we have totally left out of the discussion to this point. And I agree that it's not "all BS" Just the vast, vast majority of it.
As far as "there are plenty of cases" is concerned I think it's much more rare than your verbiage indicates. Especially if you take per capita into account.
Most of that difference is probably more about our personal perception than anything else.
And the reason I think we may see the term "legacy media" differently is because of the very word legacy being included in that description. A legacy is something you leave behind after you're gone. Something carried on from the past. I get that legacy media is a term used to describe exactly what you are saying. I just believe that term is way off base. That's why I brought up journalists from the past to show what a legacy in broadcasting means to me.
Pit you are correct that nowhere is it found that being MAGA, conservative, or Republican makes you righteous with God. The Bible says that the only way to be righteous is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you do not accept Jesus Christ righteousness cannot be found anywhere else.
To this point we agree.
Quote
On that same topic though a Christian can never support Abortion. That is killing someone made in the image of God. A Christian can never support gay marriage. The Bible clearly defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. The two join as one to form an even more perfect image of God. A Christian can never support homosexuality and transgenderism. They can love the person but hate their sin. That is not the same, and acceptance is not love it is actually the opposite of love. It is clear multiple times in the Bible what God thinks of the sin of homosexuality.
First, there is a difference between "supporting something" and deciding that you shouldn't force your religious beliefs on others. I have the right to live as I so choose. I was faced with a pregnancy early in my life and the choice was to keep the baby and not choose abortion. I have known and know people who are gay and they are good and decent people. The way our system is set up without gay marriage they are denied rights that straight, married people get. Once again my religious beliefs have nothing to do with me supporting they be discriminated against. Our nation was set up in the fashion that we should all be treated equally. At least in theory.
Our nation isn't ran by "the laws of God". I also don't think everything decided for all people, some of which believe differently or not at all should be dictated by a single religion even if that religions beliefs to some extent reflect my own. We have freedom of religion as well as from religion. Something our own forefathers were fully aware of how much it impacted their own lives while they were still in England.
Now let's get back to abortion and this myth that keeps being perpetuated. I once again will remind you that I do not "support abortion" and when faced with that choice fully agreed that was not an option I would ever choose.
But let's get real about this. When God decided to flood the entire earth during the time of Noah, he "chose" to kill every embryo, every fetus and every child on the face of the earth. Every son and every daughter of every woman and man. What were these great sins these embryos, fetuses and children committed to be given the death penalty by the Almighty God?
Then there is this one..............
2 Kings 2:23-24 KJV (King James Version)
And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
For making fun of a bald man, really? As such they received the death penalty?
I'm not using these examples as a reason to "allow people to choose" abortion or not. I'm using them as examples that maybe, just maybe God hasn't always been "pro life".
I think Watson is still the same guy. The play hasn't been great - it's been better than some of the slop we saw in many of the games for the Browns. But he's not there yet.
If he's still this good/average in another 6 games I'll be happy but probably also a bit surprised. I'm hoping he's going to play even better but that's not an expectation.
And yeah, Pit, I'll probably just have my dog make the picks this week because I can't get a grip on all the "anomalies".
I wonder what kind of looks I would have received four weeks ago if I said the Browns would be 3-1 with Watson looking like a fQB (almost) and the Bucks would be 0-4, Baker would look baked and burnt and lying on the side of the cookie sheet.
I remember. I'm not sure we agree on what "legacy media" means however. Maybe that's because of my age. I was in my 20's when CNN first aired and almost 40 when FOX News first aired. So I don't quite consider them a "legacy". At least not yet. But I get what you're saying. I think back to the days of Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite when I think of legacy media. Those men actually left behind a legacy. But then so did Edward R. Murrow. Some of his quotes still resonate with me to this day.
The problem with "randos" taking over is that in most cases they are even less accurate and more bias then either FOX News or CNN. And then there's the fact that some people repeat and spread that even when knowing that's true. That seems to be even further going down the rabbit hole.
The saddest part for me is that it only seems to be getting worse. I think we can agree that most all of these "news channels" have their share of bias. But it has gotten to the point that bias is now on steroids with channels like MS Now, OAN and Newsmax arriving on the scene.
By legacy I mean (and I'm pretty sure by definition): Print, Radio, Broadcast TV.
Anyway, as far as the accuracy angle, there is definitely more of a tendency for the fringe to create a little critical mass; however, there's also a lot of news that has been broken by those that are just beating the street.
You can agree or not agree; most "news" organizations have at least a "bit" of an agenda. so most "stories" have to hurdle that agenda before they ever hit the airwaves. From that standpoint, we should all be thankful a lot of the randos beating the street have a voice. It's not all b.s., and there are plenty of cases where that news survives a [censored] meter that national media never faces.
As far as "the sad part", I agree 100%. Just as sad to me is that many of the national sources choose bias by omission. I'm aware we don't see eye-to-eye on many of these issues, but acting like there were no issues at the border for four years was disgusting.
It's crazy today... and I've made a practice of jumping back and forth during my day if I'm working or chillin' around the house... but France is on FIRE. It's wall-to-wall coverage on FOX with the narrative being that mass migration and the loony-left is driving the riots.
ABC does a short segment showing some law enforcement talking to a few students like they're discussing the weather. Then they move right on to a story about climate change. FOX shows the mass protest, cops in riot gear, teargas everywhere, crap being throws at cops, etc... You won't see the Palestinian flags flying around Paris on ABC, that's for sure.
A picture tells a thousand words; it all depends on which picture you choose to represent the situation.
Edit: I forget the best part from ABC... "things aren't as bad today as in previous days". 😲
I will say that they have weaponized Christianity to the point of convincing many in the MAGA world that if you aren't a part of MAGA you are a part of the Godless hoards. That is dangerous territory.
Pit you are correct that nowhere is it found that being MAGA, conservative, or Republican makes you righteous with God. The Bible says that the only way to be righteous is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you do not accept Jesus Christ righteousness cannot be found anywhere else. On that same topic though a Christian can never support Abortion. That is killing someone made in the image of God. A Christian can never support gay marriage. The Bible clearly defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. The two join as one to form an even more perfect image of God. A Christian can never support homosexuality and transgenderism. They can love the person but hate their sin. That is not the same, and acceptance is not love it is actually the opposite of love. It is clear multiple times in the Bible what God thinks of the sin of homosexuality.
I think FATE summed it up nicely when he said the first few weeks are the hardest. Every season some teams expected to do poorly seem to turn it around and some teams expected to do well fall flat on their faces.
I will offer up the Browns and the Chargers as perfect examples. It takes a little time for those things to settle in.
I will say that they have weaponized Christianity to the point of convincing many in the MAGA world that if you aren't a part of MAGA you are a part of the Godless hoards. That is dangerous territory.
Would you just draw the line if the hoarder was saving the cans for Jesus?
That would be a point of no return for sure !! Yes - maybe it's a bit triggered. Maybe it was an innocent fill in piece. I haven't watched Fox for a while now - but often I saw it weaponizing any story it can to attack opponents to Trump/MAGA. Much the same way MSNBC would do the same in reverse - MSNBC may have less than half as many viewers overall but it's the same thing that's been discussed on this board: Politicians and Media basically spend most of their time attacking what they see as their opposition. . . as I said maybe not on this story. Guess we can wait and see if it has legs or if thats it.
Trump says his super PAC will pay for taxpayer-funded ads that sparked backlash for glorifying him
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Monday that he will stop using taxpayer funds for television advertisements glorifying himself that sparked a major backlash, and instead tap his super PAC to cover costs going forward.
In a post on his social media site, Trump defended the ads, which cost at least $1.5 million in federal funds and have drawn intense criticism. Trump said they were “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.”
“This is a rather standard thing to do,” the president wrote, while blaming intense criticism for using taxpayer funds on the ads on the “Radical Left.” But the president added that he’d “decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”
That is Trump’s political war chest, which had amassed more than $400 million by the end of July. Trump has begun to tap it to boost Republican candidates around the country ahead of midterm elections.
Trump provided no details on reimbursing taxpayers for ads that already aired, nor how he would go about having his political organization pay for such future advertising.
The White House — which had fiercely defended using taxpayer money on spots meant to promote the president — said Monday night that MAGA Inc. will pay for such ads going forward. It did not answer questions on how it or Trump might prove that his political funds were being used on such future advertising.
Trump’s abrupt about-face came after leaders from both parties criticized using taxpayer funds for the ads.
Legal experts said the ads might even violate federal statutes, including a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for “publicity or propaganda” and one limiting the partisan political activities of government employees.
The spots began airing in late September
The first ad featured clips of Trump talking about defeating communism interspersed with onscreen text promoting the “largest tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing” and a call to “defend law and order and police.”
Later the same week, a second ad began running. It showed scenic videos of Mount Rushmore with quotes and clips from Trump’s Fourth of July weekend speech there honoring the country’s 250th anniversary.
A third, more recent one was virtually identical to an ad for Trump’s Republican reelection campaign in 2024 and showed him walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a “final battle” against “globalists” and “warmongers.”
All ended with a message: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”
According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the spots had cost at least $1.4 million by the end of September. The actual amount spent could be far more, depending on whether networks classified the ad as a political ad.
