WhitewalkerInPhilly

To be fair, we should probably have this in PPP I think Shannon Sharpe had a point. Last week wasn't about a devotion to social justice. It was fading out until Trump attacked the "shield". That is why there was push back

damn it zay

oh come on!

Makes sense. Tyrod usually takes some time to warm up

Gametime!!!

If they do, and it's a big if, I think they seriously change expectations for this season. To be 3-1 and 2-0 in conference (still in decent shape if we lose) through a part of the schedule where most people had us 1-3, and then with a stretch where we could really rack up some wins, we could be serious contenders come November. FWIW, even if we lose today, we are in decent position, but a win means that this team is legit.

I hadn't seen this, but it would make a lot of sense, especially with Clay's TD coming on a rollout. I like this formula. If teams want to make it their mission to shut down Shady, and spy Tyrod, you absolutely rollout to buy time for our receivers to get separation.

It was shocking because for the first quarter, Arizona was a juggernaut. I think they put up close to 140 yards in the first half with 13.5+ minutes in TOP. Then, a holding call wiped out a touchdown and their kicker missed a chip shot. There was nothing Arians could do about that, but it's crazy how much pressure Dallas got with a three man rush. Even then, Larry Fitz played out of his mind. But then they would go to throwing two yards behind the line and getting stuffed while the deep ball was working.

This is probably best suited for PPP. For the record, yes, it would probably annoy me in a way the current protests don't. But I wouldn't stop watching, or endlessly complain, or campaign for them to be fired.

Please continue to get mad at BLM protesters for doing what you said for them to do. As opposed to what you wanted (read: shut up, go away, don't trouble my existence with self evaluation)

Oh, I definitely agree that the 1st amendment only applies to legal retribution. If advertising and fans want to pull out, that is their right. If they want to petition a player be fired, that's right. Heck, the is no protection in the 1st amendment if teams fire players. But... 1) are you upset that players are kneeling because it's disrespectful? (Because to me, silently kneeling is more respectful than the fans getting refills of their beers in concessions.) Or is it because what they are saying is uncomfortable to you. 2) you have two groups. One thinks that people of color have more lethal run ins with police and would like to being attention to it. Another group feels that removing a statue tries to ignore their culture. Now you can think either or both premise is wrongheaded. The first group protests peacefully, quietly with zero injury or property damage. The other arms themselves, storms a school with torches, beats the schiesse out of college kids and runs a car through people who oppose them. Again, you can disagree with their points, but holy f***, how on earth to you consider their protest in any way equivalent. How does your political leader roundly denounce the first and equivocate on the second? How can anyone support that dichotomy?

As a note, I'm ok with the DoD halting payments to the NFL. Mostly because, JHFC the NFL makes enough money that they can cover it themselves for those publicity stunts. As for the flag thing... Look, I understand that people are upset about the flag kneeling thing. To ape Firefly, I understand, but I don't comprehend. But I accept that. But come on, the kneeling for the anthem was dying out people. Less and less attention was being paid. It was old news, and the best way to stop a movement designed to generate publicity would be to ignore it. Instead, our President put them back in the limelight and fed it. Reporters had said that they heard a lot of whispers that players privately supported the protests, but many didn't join because they were worried about making the team, or about their contracts. They, like a lot of people, agreed with a stance but didn't say anything because it meant they might not have a job. But when some blowhard says that people should be able to fire you on caprice, and insults people at every level of your organization, no schiesse, it galvanized people.

I think we have to. If we don't force someone to QB spy I think we see the exact same "plug up the center" plan

Especially after all of his Tyrod bashing

I was flying out of BFI today. I ran into a fellow fan.

That's it. He's entering spleen protocol! WE ARE DOOMED SEASON OVER! /sarcasm

A lot sooner because of this thread

Even our pessimists think that's a bit too much?

He inherited a fantastic defense that was already great with Gus.

Not moving up. But let's be honest: Kyle is likely not going to stay much longer. It is something to keep an eye on.

Dude, I'm not Scott's biggest advocate, and I'm a noted Taylor fan. But sweet hell yes, I would trade our two firsts in 2018, our 2nds and a 2019 first for a healthy Luck.

I'll say that I'm encouraged by that catch and run with Matthews

I have a bit feeling that the conservative calls were designed to match against a weaker opponent. Didn't the naked bootleg come when we really needed the breakaway score? We have Carolina next week, and I'm wondering if we see more stunt and exotic attacks then

I would still do that. Seriously, when healthy, he takes you to another level. I think if you drop a healthy Luck into our offense and defense, we honestly compete for the division. With extra 2nd and 3rd round picks, you can fill in gaps and make a real contender. I doubt it'll happen though

I would have taken Hoyer as a backup over Yates. Maybe not over Peterman.