thebandit27

Has to be a team with a great pass rush and solid corners that can also score points, which is why both Oakland and KC aren't quite there. If TJ Watt gets his game going early, Bud Dupree and Artie Burns continue to develop, and Haden can manage to return to his 2014 form, then Pittsburgh is the only potential road block IMO.

It's very likely that we will see Peterman; that doesn't mean that it will be the correct decision if and when it happens (in other words: the later the better for the kid).

Waaaaaay better than Gilmore

Yes. I'm not advocating for him as a starter. He's a better option than Yates, and he knows he offense.

Nope. He lost out to Kizer because their performance was close enough that it was worth going with the young guy that they spent a high draft pick on, and they aren't going to pay Oz $17M to be a backup. No reason for Taylor to go, as you can easily afford to give Oz a mid-level backup deal. He knows the offense and is clearly a better option than Yates.

I do not subscribe to that theory. Eric Wood was not a very good guard, nor was Doug Legurski (though he filled in just fine at center when he was in Pittsburgh). I also think that Mike Pouncey was not very good at guard when he had to play there.

I plan to make some braised short ribs on Saturday. I'm going to season heavily with salt/pepper, and then sear them in coconut oil to get the outsides nice and crisp. Then I'll remove them to a foil pan and drop a chopped onion in the saute pan to cook down. Once the onion is softened, I'll add a hefty spoonful of tomato paste and some chopped garlic and cook that down for 4-5 minutes. De-glaze with a bottle of red cooking wine (because I've got some sitting in the pantry) and reduce by half is the plan. I'm then going to pour the reduction over the short ribs and add beef stock as necessary to get the ribs at least half-submerged. Then it's into the oven at 350 for 3-4 hours until they're fork tender. I'll probably make rice to go with them because I'm lazy, and I have basmati sitting in my pantry next to the cooking wine

Does anyone care that Groy has never started an NFL game at guard, and save for a few snaps his rookie season in Chicago, hasn't ever played so much as an NFL snap at guard? Meanwhile, we've got an incumbent that was one of the most improved OLmen in the entire NFL that everyone is seemingly ready to scrap for no good reason. Scheme-fit is a garbage argument since the team ran zone blocking on over 50% of their run plays last year.

Tell you this right now: if Cleveland ends up cutting Osweiler, I would absolutely sign him to compete with Peterman. He knows the system and can capably fill in for 4-5 games as he demonstrated in Denver. If he didn't have an enormous contract, then he wouldn't be in any danger of getting cut in Cleveland.

No, I'm not flipping anything. I played along with old school's silly "name 5 things" challenge, and said that he should really do the same. I've stated my point over and over, and I won't do it again. I will, however, say that playing well against Clemson means nothing in the NFL. I'd rather take the guy that's done it in the NFL over the guy that's been mediocre in the preseason against backups. I've said many times that the bigger issue isn't the play call on its face, but rather the implication it had on clock management. First, you had Belichick not calling a timeout when it was 1st-and-goal with under a minute left, which effectively meant that he was guaranteeing that Brady wouldn't get another shot if Seattle scored. That should've sealed NE's fate, but oh no, Pete Carroll had to one-up Billy Boy. There'e less than 30 seconds left in the game, and you have the ball on the 1-yard line. Call a run play--or in the very least a play that rolls the QB out--so that in the event you get stopped, you run the clock down to below 15 seconds. That way, you ensure that Brady has no chance even if he does see the field while still giving yourself time to run 2 plays.

That's a non-issue.

This is a totally reasonable position IMO

Just like Denver, right?

So the #7 scoring offense (prior to EJ's debacle in Week 17) is responsible for the team not making the playoffs? It wasn't the vastly-underachieving defense? Okay...explain. As for enjoying the season, if the offense is markedly worse with Nate than it is with Tyrod, that's going to be more enjoyable to you? I'm sorry, but total-unknown is not automatically better than okay-but-not-good-enough.

Again (and for the final time in this thread), the point is that Tyrod's middling work in 29 regular-season games should supersede Peterman's middling work against 2's and 3's in the preseason. Yes, we likely have seen Tyrod's ceiling; can you honestly say that his limitations are the reason that this team did not make the playoffs in 2015 or 2016? I don't think anyone would say that. Why not let Peterman start? I can think of 2 reasons: (1) the staff may feel (as I do) that he isn't ready, and (2) if you want to find out about your playmakers and their ability, your best bet is to put the guy out there that gives them the best chance to make plays; right now, that's Tyrod.

In the past, you and I often disagreed on personnel moves, and thus I value your opinion Ergo, I want to understand your position here... Would you rather err on the side of getting rid of too much talent if it means scrubbing the roster of the players acquired by the previous regime? If so, where does the line get drawn? Does talent or productivity ever win out? Just curious

Send a plane specifically for him? No. Discuss a trade for him if they had a plan to be in the area for other purposes? Sure.

That's who I'm hoping they're after if it is indeed a visit about a WR.

It was last week--Tyrod doesn't have the strongest arm, so it took awhile to get there

Is that right? Huh...

I was just about to go back and put an asterisk because I don't think they knew he was a cold-blooded killer at the time.

I really do understand the thought process; I simply think that they're taking some unnecessary steps backwards with their hard-line approach to showing their commitment to principle. And I think you probably know my thought process well enough to know that I truly do hope they're right with every move they make, and that I don't mean to declare them wrong at this time.

Dungy's Colts perhaps?

And that's my issue...why create a hole where one didn't previously exist? Miller played well in 2016--the run game was excellent. I fear that moves like Miller/Watkins are unnecessarily propelling the team backwards for the sake of bringing in "their guys". Perhaps it'll be for the best in the long run; right now that's (highly) debatable IMO.

I don't know...they gave him a 3-year deal when I doubt anyone was bringing him in much before training camp. Like I said, I'm not making conclusions, but the way that they're treating the Miller/Ducasse battle is an indicator that they may be missing the forest for the trees when it comes to the idea of scheme fit.