WhitewalkerInPhilly

That is a great line I honestly think guard play is underappreciated.

Wow. I had first hopped into this thread to post about the Georgia school shooting. This thread, and some of the people in it are special. Special Jack, "Full Retard" special, but special. Outside Person: "Wow, these shootings have been happening a lot. Maybe we should look at having stricter access to high capacity magazines and guns that can be easily be used for mass shootings. "Special Jack:" Well, it's tragic, but you can't legislate your morality over our intrinsic freedoms, even if there is a higher cost." Outside Person: "I don't think the government has a place to say what I do with my medical care, especially when it comes to birth control and whether I produce a human life" "Special Jack:" How dare you! My specific reading of a 6000 year old document which advocates daughters screwing their fathers tells me that a clump of fertilized cells is a complete human life! Therefore, we are going to ban everything associated with this process, even if it doesn't actually do what I my sincerely held personal beliefs say it does! How can you support those baby part farms!!! Come at me. Yeah. That's why it's a stupid idea.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28/georgia-teacher-in-custody-after-reports-shots-fired-at-high-school.amp.html How is that "arm the teachers" plan going?

Republican Marching Orders: Prevent abortion at any cost! Except for letting people have birth control on their insurance. Or having birth control taught or explained to them. Or provide them medical help during pregnancy. Or give maternity leave. Or offer child care. Then defund schools. Then complain about how the kids today never get ahead, because they're so needy. Remember, the rights of the individual are paramount, unless they are doing something we don't like!

Fair enough. Honestly, I am fine with corporate welfare bills being gutted too. I had been under the impression that they were being cut out of general ones. Mea Culpa That said, come on, you're really telling me that a governor deciding to yank millions of dollars from one specific company for not giving an extra discount is the same thing as enforcing protections that mean that NO company gets to choose not to serve customers for an arbitrary reason. The way it would be similar would be if Delta said "Hey, if you're a member of the NRA you don't get to fly on our airline. I'm sorry, that's what the voice in my head told me, but I sincerely believe in it" You are aware that people under 18 often don't have full legal rights, and might need to have adults file paperwork for them? This "George Soros is operating a secret training program of paid actors" conspiracy lunacy would be hilarious if people didn't take it seriously. You mean the people dedicated to providing affordable medical care, STD prevention and supports bodily agency supports not having bullets put in their bodies? Shocking

...you...do, understand the difference right? Georgia politician advocating to change tax incentives of all corporations in state: Not necessarily smart, but a policy decision Georgia politician advocating to change tax incentives for one particular corporation because of a business decision they don't like: Abuse of power A business choosing not to make a particular product for whatever reason (liability, ROI, overhead): A natural and sensible business decision A business choosing not to make a product for one customer that is makes for every other due to a personal belief: Discriminatory These are not subtle differences.

I would assume either way if we keep Tyrod or draft a rookie. As a note, while Carson Wentz looks like a special talent, a big part of the doubts last year was because he was passing 38 times a game on average, which was stupid high for a rookie, while they tended to abandon the run game. This year, they went back to pounding the rock with Blount, Clement and traded for Ajaiyi. It really opened up the play action, and was amazing for Wentz's development.

Yeah. When I saw the "missing team meetings part" I realized this was going to be a no go. I just really would like to see D-line nailed down, because Dareus being done made a difference, and with potentially losing Kyle, I would rather be proactive.

Oy vey. yeah, we are not taking a swing at him.

Yeah, and look at how good our line looked after that.

Get 'er done Beane! I know we would stretch our cap, but it would fill a major need front and center. If Kyle can be convinced to come back for one more year at a reasonable price, I would feel a hell of a lot better about our D-line.

Raise your hand if you looked at us last early offseason against the former NFC champs, Carolina, the Saints, a Tampa team with Jameis Winston, the perennially competitive Bengals and one of the most consistently competitive divisions (AFC West) and thought that 9-7 would be a lock and we would finally end the drought. I sure didn't think it was a lock, and I absolutely didn't see us beating the Falcons and Broncos. After Week 4, I absolutely didn't see us losing to the Chiefs. I didn't see us losing once to the Jets or the Chargers. That's why we play the games. EDIT: For the record, when I was back in Buffalo over the summer working, listening to WGR I kept hearing about how we were doomed to another 6-10 season. Again, this is why we play the games.

Dude, I'm a Tyrod fan. I'm in no hurry to shove him out the door, and think we would look better with an improved supporting cast. but the answer to your question is...yes. And that doesn't equal this team going 3-13 for 4-12. We do have holes, but our two firsts this year, and a 2019 1st is not going to break our backs. We still have FA to cover our holes, along with two seconds and a third. Our starting secondary seems set. Hughes and Lawson are decent enough on the ends, and I think that we can get capable DTs and LBs in the 2nd and and 3rd rounds. We will be far from perfect, but I don't see 3-13 or 4-12.

They should instead remove the instant first down on a holding call. I don't have a problem for getting extra yards because your man beat the corner deep and could have taken it to the house. I have an issue when a CB breathes the wrong way on a receiver at 5.000000001 yards past the line of scrimmage and a 3rd and 20 becomes a first and 10.

I'm happy to have him. I would have liked to keep Gaines, but this is, at worst, a nice complementary piece.

I agree. My annoyance is that it's set off an arm's race where teams scramble to pay mediocre QBs gobs of money because unless you have an elite guy, you need someone to get hot at the right time with an otherwise elite squad to stand a chance.

The thing is that due to the structure of how they reworked his 2016 contract, cutting him would have resulted in $0.1 M on the cap. His signing bonus would been wrapped over to count for the bonus on the books. This way by paying it, we have a 1 year, $10M contract to offer for a low end starter, high end backup. That is decent trade bait and an ok backup plan

Amen. I think even the biggest TT fans know we should look to upgrade, but we've seen much worse (Peterson) Even if he's not a bridge, and we go get Rosen or Darnold, the Eagles reaped massive benefits by trading up for Wentz and then dealing Bradford. This just makes perfect sense. PS, just got back from Black Panther too. I really liked Michael B Jordan. That was one of the best villains in a long time for Marvel.

,This is such an obvious decision I'm almost surprised that the usual suspects are throwing a tantrum. Almost. Here is what will help you suck your thumb in the corner: A) Cutting Taylor after the bonus gives us near exactly the same amount of cap space as before. B) this Makes Taylor more tradable, so we would get rid of him AND get something. See how broken the market was to see the Chiefs get what they got for Alex Smith C) Even if not cut or traded, if he is bad as you say, whatever rookie we draft will best him in camo. They can't all be paste eaters like Peterman, right?

It makes absolute sense to me. The signing bonus hit prevents us from saving much by not waiting. This way, we have a bridge QB while we hunt for a rookie at worst and and some great trade assets at best

I'm pretty sure it's almost the exact same. The issue to cap hit is that he got a signing bonus on his 2016 contract that was annualized. That dead cap creates almost as much of a cap hit than any bonus savings. What paying the bonus does is give a trade that is a very nice one year option to someone who loses out on the Cousins bidding. $10 M a year for a one year free and clear contract? If there is another Bridgewater or Tannehill situation that's a bargain compared to Glennon or Cutler.

Fixed I usually like DraftTek (with our own Astro!), but especially this year with reasons to trade up in the first round, it's really hard to predict how things fall.

Oh irony. Perhaps my syntax could have better, but that clearly was your "the school admins are to blame for an angry 19 year old arming himself, and blowing them and innocents away" Then there was your "it's not having fathers" argument. In short, you are free wheeling toane everyone except the killer...and the people who passionately fight any change that would have prevented him

Ehhh. It's not like we get all that much cap space for cutting him and it's not like he has a roster bonus. I think it's worth keeping him around at least through the draft/UDFA. If we get a better UDFA to take his spot, great, but I'd rather not worry about yet another empty roster spot. It's ok, nate had four more changes to blow away