thebandit27

This is going to seem insane: I just now noticed that TODAY is the 22nd anniversary of the very day that I suffered my injury. December 5, 1995. Wow.

At least we got rid of that soft WR who wouldn't play through injury and got ourselves a stud that would never succumb to being nicked up.

I can't watch when guys have these injuries I've been there (hockey injury when I was 15), and it's absolutely terrifying. I made a full recovery, but man it was a close call. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it PTSD, but whenever I see a guy go down like that, it physically affects me. I am very hopeful that he doesn't have long-term issues.

Completely agree regarding Matthews. As you know, I've been all over signing Paul Richardson. I think he's the exact missing piece in this WR corps: speed, hands, explosiveness, and has been around a winning organization. Put him on the boundary across from KB, slide Zay into the slot, and run with Holmes and Deonte as the 4/5. Toss in a youngster like Brandon Reilly and you're in good shape IMO.

They rank highly in passing yards per game allowed, but they're 80th in yards per attempt allowed.

Miller is typically slinging mud with his draft speculation He does a pretty good job at evaluating players, but every year he has to walk back some kind of info he is given by his sources

Taking away Gronk doesn't hurt NE enough...if you want to send a message, you take out Brady. I don't expect McDermott to do that--that's not the cut of his jib. I'd probably handle it the same way, though part of me wants to believe that I'd call a toss play toward the sideline, and if one of my lead blockers just happens to stumble 17 yards out of bounds and go helmet-to-knee on Tommy Boy, well, that'd be too bad. But yeah, in the end I have no desire to see anyone hurt. I once thought differently, but after Edelman went out for the season and I surprisingly found myself actually feeling bad for him (despite how gigantic an a-hole he is, and the fact that he routinely commits unsportsmanlike conduct and somehow manages to escape penalty and instead incite penalties by his opponents), I discovered I am actually a compassionate person. It was kind of disappointing

As I said to you before: the two are not even close. Flacco slid a bit late, and Alonso fouled him by making the effort to hit him anyway. It was a bang-bang play that, yes, could've been a suspension, but not in the same library as purposefully dropping a forearm smash onto a prone opponent who is out of bounds and driving his head into the turf well after the play is over.

I truly hope that the NFL holds his appeal hearing a week from today, so that he's eligible against Miami, but has to miss the Pittsburgh game.

After hearing his appeal, Thrash or Brooks should increase his suspension to 3 games for having the audacity to appeal. That was a total scumbag play.

His excuse about being held every play is utter horse manure. Butler and Gilmore were mugging guys too--the officials let a lot go yesterday on both sides. I can't count on one hand the number of times Joe Thuney grabbed Kyle Williams from behind when he got into the backfield. I guess--according to Gronk--Kyle should've felt entitled to spear some unsuspecting player in the back of the head because, well, frustration. Pathetic. And this is coming from a guy that knows the Gronk family a bit.

Marty McSorely on Donald Brashear

That you compare Kiko taking liberties while Flacco is sliding to Gronk dropping a WWE-style elbow on the back of a prone defender's head tells me that you have utterly missed the point

Roid boy had a hissy fit because he got physically beaten by a rookie on that play Period it was a classless, disgusting play from a total numbskull that has no business receiving respect from anyone with a modicum of common sense

He said absolutely nothing even remotely offensive about Brady. Why should he care about what's happened before he's here when the only thing that matters is this game? In fact, he went on to say how impressed he was with Brady in the Super Bowl?

You absolutely have to be able to get pressure with your front 4. That's not to say that you can't blitz, but blitzing can't be the primary way that you hope to generate pressure, or you're in deep trouble. Yes, Brady is good at getting the ball out, but moreover, the way NE runs their pick and option routes is designed to give them multiple outlets when facing the blitz. You can try to play coverage against Tommy Boy, but as long as you can't force the ball out of his hands in less than 3 seconds it won't matter. Their WRs don't give up on plays, and he'll just sit there and wait until someone comes open--there's nobody more patient with the ball in his hands back there. All that said, how do you attack him? Well, you probably need to find the right combination of EDGE guys and interior rushers that match up well against their starting 5; their OL isn't special in any way. I would probably move Shaq inside and let he and Kyle attack their OGs; use a rotation of Hughes/Yarbrough/LorAx/Davis (if he's available) on the outside. The downside to this approach is that your LBs are going to have to have very quick run/pass recognition, or else you can get burned badly on draw and counter plays in the run game.

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now he dominates whenever he's targeted Period Today he had 4 catches for 84 yards and a TD in a Rams' victory over a team that had won 7 straight games

Brees was a UFA because his rookie contract expired.

Smoked turkey (brined 24 hours and smoked over apple and hickory for 3 hours--finished in the oven) Sweet potato casserole with pecan crumble Citrus-based cranberry sauce Roasted Brussels sprouts Traditional stuffing My wife is making pumpkin and apple pies, and I'm sure my dad's girlfriend will make some kind of unseasoned dish that's tantamount to eating air. Also, gotta have the costanzo rolls.

I think the best-case scenario is that they fill 2 starting spots with key FAs--I already used the B. Logan example at DT, and I'd like to see the other starting CB spot either by re-signing Gaines or bringing in a potential cap casualty like DRC or David Amerson. If they also bring in a speedy WR like Richardson that shores up 3 key holes. I definitely think that they'll end up with 3 starters from their first 5 picks, if only by default. For me, the deciding factor in how fast they move forward is going to be how they address the other 6-7 areas of need. I think you can hope to effectively fill 2-3 of those with lower-tier FAs and/or later draft picks, but those other key spots are going to suffer.

They may try to get Star--I think they'll try to go as cost-effective as possible given how many needs they have. I mean, they'll need new starters at QB, RG or RT (assuming they keep Glenn and Richie and dependent upon where Dawkins ends up), DT (2 assuming Kyle leaves or retires), MLB, and CB (assuming Gaines leaves), and they'll need at least the following depth players: backup RB, speed WR, swing OT, EDGE rusher, DT, and OLB. That's all assuming that they're able to re-sign Leonard Johnson and Ramon Humber.

That's true...I do think, however, that another offseason of quietly-solid FA signings will help significantly. They were able to add some important pieces like Hyde and Poyer for relative peanuts; a similar approach to positions like DT and WR (suppose, for example, guys like Bennie Logan and Paul Richardson respectively) could plug some key holes and give them some breathing room in terms of hitting on those high picks.

I don't see a huge impact to the traditional run game. Dennison wasn't using the zone read to hold opposing front-7's much anyway, so the only real difference will be the removal of Taylor's ability to turn broken plays into big-gainers. With Peterman, you're more likely to see run-for-a-first-down-and-slide type plays instead.

indeed. If we've learned anything over the last 17 years, it's that your organization should always be on heightened lookout for your next franchise QB unless you are 100% certain that you have that guy in the fold, and that you have a backup that is capable of winning games in his stead if he gets injured.

this is more or less where I fall as well. So far, the front office has done an admirable job of finding players that fit what McDermott wants to do on defense, but the rigidity of their preferred archetype has cost them guys like Dareus and Watkins, who certainly could've been productive here. I don't think the trade-off has made them a better team this year; the question is whether or not it'll make them better in the long-term.