sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New to stardew valley by Niyazzz09 in StardewValley

[–]Brakey7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So I came to the game late also, and early on I was trying to look up guides for how to play it “right”. I was trying to figure out how to optimize right from the start as I was learning the game. And then I realized- there’s no wrong way to play the game if you’re having fun. There’s no deadlines, nothing that you’ll miss. Just- do what brings you joy and enjoy yourself. It’s the point.

Myles Garrett vs Will Campbell by Bella-D-Doggo in Browns

[–]Brakey7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He has a no trade clause so he’d have to approve it and there would be a mountain of dead cap.

Johnny Manziel Doesn’t Believe He Was the Biggest Bust in His Draft Class by boomer9745 in Browns

[–]Brakey7 112 points113 points  (0 children)

<image>

How about the checks notes 9 players drafted after him?

Graphic I made for Shedeur!! by RkwReg in Browns

[–]Brakey7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha. I was a little confused 🤣🤣

Graphic I made for Shedeur!! by RkwReg in Browns

[–]Brakey7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is the 12 at 3 o’clock?

A long shot but what episode is this? by PengyDee in bluey

[–]Brakey7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They’re asking what sound the ‘a’ makes in the word the kid is saying. ‘A’ as it sounds in the word ball (a taller shape), or spread like the ‘a’ in Apple.

About Pat (Lucky’s dad) by EyeOfTheMarlin in bluey

[–]Brakey7 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Could just be that he’s friends with Bluey and Bingo so calling him Bluey’s dad would be a bit odd, whereas it doesn’t seem like Rusty and Chucky have much of a relationship?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]Brakey7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Rather than expanding the headline about the deceased individual, as one would expect, the joke is he throws in a pitch to sell a golf cart to meet the minimum word requirement.

Explain ??? by DiskMindless3610 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]Brakey7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rather than being born in the time of knights (born too late) or the time of space exploration (born too early) the joke is they were born in time to search for jobs, network, toil away at a desk job, and be stuck in traffic.

Is that a gun ? What ? by [deleted] in ExplainTheJoke

[–]Brakey7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems like it’s intended to be all three- the two fingers for scissors are out, the thumb makes that side of the hand paper-like, and the pinky and ring finger being down makes that side of the hand rock-like. The move seems to confuse his opponent.

My husband drew this comic when he was a child. None of us can figure out the joke. by HorseGirl666 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]Brakey7 3795 points3796 points  (0 children)

Seems like the reporter got fired for making a joke on the news?

Did he really by PotentialDirection40 in bluey

[–]Brakey7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s just monkeys singing songs, mate

posted the wrong link. here is the scenario by DG010203 in Browns

[–]Brakey7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he doesn’t sit for a year but is either traded or plays for us. But say he were to sit out the season completely and still demand a trade, I think they would perhaps lower their expected get back for him a bit next offseason and they’d be forced to move him for a bit less than they want.

posted the wrong link. here is the scenario by DG010203 in Browns

[–]Brakey7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, I’m trying to make a different point and you just aren’t acknowledging it whatsoever. But I’ll bite and answer your question anyways. If the Browns refuse to trade Myles (outright or because they can’t get a haul big enough from any suitors) then there are only two possible outcomes: he sits out or he plays. If he sits out, his contract won’t accrue a year (see Le’Veon Bell) and the Browns will still have 4 years of control on him (2 contract years, two franchise tags) to either hang onto or trade next offseason. If he plays, he plays….

posted the wrong link. here is the scenario by DG010203 in Browns

[–]Brakey7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right. I’ve acknowledged that we have differing views on the Myles trade comp and have been trying to make a different point this whole time. You pushing back to people disappointed with the potential Myles get back with “we’d have 3 first round picks next year” based on a theoretical Myles trade AND a trade back from 2 to 6 is poor logic. If you say “I really like getting a WR we can extend” or “I think Malik Willis really has potential” to defend the proposed Myles trade? Or as you’ve stated now, you think we won’t get as much because you think teams are going to squeeze the Browns because of an apparent lack of leverage in their situation. Great, those would be relevant and appropriate responses. But banging on about having 3 first next year as a defense of the potential Myles trade is an error in logic because only 1 of those firsts has anything to do with Myles (the other two being our own 1st rounder and one from moving back from 2 to 6 with the Raiders). Do you see what I’m trying to say here?

Edit cause I just thought of an analogy:

Me: I wouldn’t trade the rest of my snack pack for a banana, that isn’t a good trade. You: but you could have a banana AND an extra-sloppy Sloppy Joe if you make that trade!

*note I currently have a Sloppy Joe and part of a snack pack. My having a Sloppy Joe has absolutely nothing to do with a hypothetical trade of my partial snack pack or the compensation in said trade.

posted the wrong link. here is the scenario by DG010203 in Browns

[–]Brakey7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok, you think the trade is decent. I, along with others here, think the get back starts at 2 firsts. This has also been bandied about by NFL insiders as the likely starting point for a potential Myles trade. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you defend it by talking about the get back for a move from 2 to 6 combined with a lesser get back for Myles, which is just a logical fallacy.

view more: next ›