thebandit27

Maple soufflés: Preheat oven to 400 Separate two eggs in large mixing bowls To the yolks, add 1/4 cup real maple syrup and a dash of vanilla To the whites, add 1/2 tsp cream of tartar; whip on low until stiff peaks form Gently fold the whites into the yolk mixture and place into 2" ramekins sprayed with nonstick cooking spray Place ramekins on a baking sheet and pop them in the oven Immediately reduce the heat to 375 and bake 10 minutes until doubled in size and evenly browned on top Remove and serve hot

Off the top of my head, here's the list of who's ahead of him imo: Shady Sammy Glenn Incognito Dareus Kyle Hughes Hyde So I guess I'd say he's 9th

Just as Kirby said weeks ago

I don't know about that; he actually will be surrounded by a TON of talent in Jacksonville. The front-4 is quite nasty with Calais Campbell joining Malik Jackson, Ngakoue, and Dante Fowler. They have Telvin Smith and Myles Jack at LB. Their secondary features Jalen Ramsey alongside former pro bowler Tayshaun Gipson and FA acquisition Barry Church.

Lazy? It's lazy to state the fact that Bouye has only 19 games of starting experience, and that very few of that work has come as a boundary corner? IMO, lazy is tossing aside 5 years of performance from a former 1st round pick and labeling a guy that cannot possibly be characterized as anything more than a one-year wonder at this juncture as the next big thing...but that's just me. As for the inevitability of his success this year, well, I don't remember saying that he won't have another good season. I remember saying that I feel a lot better trusting Gilmore to perform as a boundary corner than paying a (primarily) slot guy $11M AAV to play boundary corner with 19 career starts. You might even say that such thinking qualifies as "Commonsense"

I would've been upset with paying Bouye. We're talking about a guy that's only a year younger than Gilmore, but has a total of 19 career starts (nearly all of which came in the slot--not on the boundary) and only 1 year of solid productivity.

Nailed it

Agreed on all... Seems like effectively re-signing corners requires being proactive at the 3-year benchmark. That FA money is so plentiful and enticing

Better than practically-identical-to-Richard-Sherman numbers??? We better hope not. Agreed on both accounts

We used to call him "The Moose" back in high school--excited for Chris!

When it comes to Mexican, I'm a cotija-or-bust guy.

I see more upside with Rosen than Kizer...his delivery is more compact and he's a cleaner passer in general IMO. It's the off-field stuff that worries me--I have no idea if he's a football-focused kid

Humans have definitely been eating grains since as far back as Australopithecus: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10495.abstract The biggest issue with regard to gluten is that modern strains of wheat have more of it than older strains, and for folks that are sensitive to gluten, that can bother them. In general, the majority of the population tolerates gluten just fine as long as they have a healthy gut microbial culture. That doesn't mean that celiac and NCGS aren't real; they are...they simply aren't anywhere near as prominent as many outlets make it seem.

Cookie Crisp, Waffle Crisp, and Oreo Cereal were amazing back in the day. I don't really eat cereal now, but I suspect I'd hate how sugary they all taste.

That was actually me that mentioned Rosemond!

it's less about a de facto spanking than it is about the mentality of punitive action with kids IMO. Yes, I've spanked my kids. 99% of the time, I've felt absolutely fine about it, but there was one time where I accidentally swatted one of them a bit harder on his bottom than I meant to--certainly not hard enough to leave a bruise or anything, but it probably stung him a bit (whereas my normal swat is of the "get your attention" nature). But spanking isn't the focus, consequence is the focus. It's to teach my kids (4 year old twins) that actions have consequences, and that every person is a slave to consequence 100% of the time. Where parents get it wrong, IMO, is when they act selfishly with regard to the children. "In spite of my child's unacceptable table decorum, we can't get up and leave the restaurant right now because I really want to eat here" or "I was so looking forward to seeing little Jimmy have fun at the playground today; I'm wiling to overlook his terrible attitude and allow him to go anyway". Parents think that they're doing it for the sake of the child, but the truth is that they're not. The child's youth isn't going to be made or broken based on one activity or incident, so really it's the parent that is satisfying their own desire at that point. I know this because I've caught myself doing it plenty of times already, and each time I have to remind myself that it's not about me. Parenting, IMO, is about raising an upstanding, respectful child that will contribute positively to the world. Just my 1 cent.

Yes, they will. The owners will still be billionaires. 90% of the players will be income-less. How long do you think a former PS player that is fighting to keep his spot as the 53rd guy on the roster will support Brady and Rodgers when his paycheck stops showing up?

I don't see how the owner's worst nightmare is a strike; they have a TV contract in place that will pay them billions. Also, you'll notice that my very first post in this thread discussed that it's the bottom 90% of rosters that will be impacted the most, which is why the owners will win in any work stoppage.

The fact that it's a business means that it doesn't matter who you want to have the money. The business owners take on all of the financial risk, and thus are the ones that make the biggest profits. And again, the players don't really have a leg to stand on; the owners are the ones that need the money less, so they're the ones that can wait out a strike longer. All that said, I don't fault the players for wanting more money. I think that, in a sense, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

I agree with both of you

Absolutely. Sounds a lot like John Rosemond's principles, with which I wholly agree and try to abide by with my children.

It really isn't a change in scheme...the team ran out of zone 50% of the time in 2016, and half of those were outside zone. I don't see the percentages changing dramatically. That said, it would really be something for the team to keep up the pace of the run game from 2016, just because of the degree of dominance they managed.

I'd love to see Falk clean up his footwork when under pressure and challenge defenses over the top a bit more, but I like the foundation.

The players would lose in any work stoppage, just as they have in every other work stoppage. Regardless of who the fans side with, the billionaires are the ones that don't need the money, whereas the bottom 90% of NFL players do, in fact, need their weekly game checks to support their families and lifestyles. Unless the top 10% paid NFL players are prepared to set up a "survival fund" for the bottom 90%, a work stoppage is a bad, bad decision.

Good stuff...we would all do well to remember that the team ran almost exactly as much outside zone in 2016 as they did inside zone (in fact, it was ever so slightly more): https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/3/15/14933170/buffalo-bills-lesean-mccoy-mike-gillislee-rick-dennison-run-game-zone-blocking