Rob's House

Several franchise QBs have been available when we picked. We just didn't pick them.

Bridgewater and Carr made it that far. The theory of the overdrafted QBs is so overstated it's almost a myth.

Fans are so reactionary. This time last week everyone wanted to tie him up long term. This week he's hot garbage. Is it possible that he brings a lot to the table but also has some liabilities that may or may not prove to be a fatal flaw? If the defense and running game continue to perform like they did in Monday we'll win a lot of games with a QB who can burn you deep, take off and run, and doesn't turn the ball over. I see no reason not to bring in legit competition and continue to try to upgrade the position until he proves himself to be the long-term answer, but I don't want to bench him for the next Rob Johnson either. I say it's his job until someone takes it from him.

As of now CBS Sports projects Paxton Lynch, Jared Goff, and Conner Cook as 1st rounders.

We should go down the list of guys who showed little to no improvement over the course of their first 2 seasons who went on to be successful. It'll save time.

You'd rather we were still "developing" Manuel?

I don't see too many of them here today. If at the end of the season TT looks as shaky as he did last night and they're dead set against drafting a QB or bringing in legit competition for the starting job then there might be some hypocrisy, but as of now I'm not seeing it.

I'm not trying to make too much of this, but Taylor is 5-1 as a starter against teams not named the Patriots.

Whining about giving up 20 points to the top offense in the NFL is !@#$ing stupid. Are you a troll or just a TT fanboy?

Health care was his legacy, and making Hillary SOS was throwing a bone to get the full support of the Clinton wing of the party. These weren't personal sacrifices. And I think if Obama had the same arrogant and condescending personality but was a conservative Republican, you'd speak of him roughly the way I do now.

Let's not go overboard. Tonight was not a great performance, and I'm certainly not ready to give him a long-term deal, but he's still early in his career and he didn't turn the ball over. Let's see how the next few weeks go before we run him out of town.

They fit Obama.

Be honest. You'd be fine with all of that if he were a liberal Democrat.

The biggest problem, IMO, are the discretionary calls. They're so quick to throw a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct which can really swing a game. Some of the ticky tack holding calls and PI calls just shouldn't be made. I understand they're only human, but they should err on the side of keeping the flags in their pockets unless it's a clear rule violation. Who ever felt robbed because an unsportsmanlike conduct or ticky tack holding call DIDN'T get called?

This is the direction I'd hoped this thread would take. I often wonder if I see the Bills getting hosed because of my bias, but yesterday I saw teams I don't give a shot about getting hosed on plays that just don't make sense. I get that things happen fast and sometimes it's hard to see what happened in real time, but on these iffy discretion calls the dumb ass refs should leave the flags in their !@#$ing pockets.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/11/22/jason-hatcher-calls-out-referees-for-bias-against-redskins/ The focus by NFL apologists and morons like Mike & Mike will be on his theory that the reason for the bias is the controversy over the team name, but the fact that he's calling out the consistently bizarre officiating is the more noteworthy aspect of the story.

I agree with you on the officiating, but loyalty is a two way street, and fans and organizations are loyal only so long as it's convenient.

What's your point?

140 yds rushing 90 penalty yds 230 Total yds.

Don't sweat it, Dave. I like your terrible threads and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

It's a tough sport for tough people. I'm quite certain that if your cause picked up enough steam to have any impact that roughly 100% of the grown men you're so anxious to protect would prefer it if you would kindly mind your own business. They desperately want the opportunity that you think would be compassionate to take away from them. And the thing with the children is so attenuated that it really doesn't deserve much discussion. You can make an argument against virtually anything if you're willing to stretch that far.

That was merely the example that got the conversation going.

You don't need to apologize for anything other than making presumptuous ad hominem attack, but that's ok. I forgive you for that. It's actually the points you stand by that I find most ridiculous. No offense, plenty of people I care about have similar opinions as yours, so I'm not going to judge you as a person for saying that, but I have no respect for those opinions. I see your point that it doesn't matter how you treat someone who has committed a crime as primitive and a disturbing combination of naivety, self-rightousness, and ignorance. Unfortunately that's fairly common, even among otherwise reasonable people. You've stated that anything less than 100% adherence to the rules set forth collectively by mouth-whore politicians rightfully subjects one to whatever fate political judicial officers cast upon them. I couldn't disagree more. You're obviously unaware that virtually everyone could be charged with felonies with great regularity if the right person with the right information felt inclined to bring those charges. I'm guessing if we had unfettered access to the archives of your life we could put you away for a while. And even though most people who are charged with crimes are technically guilty, the number of completely innocent people who are falsely accused, particularly of domestic violence and sex crimes, is not insignificant. And plenty of other people commit "crimes" that most objective observers would understand, or at least sympathize with. God knows how many people who struggle with addiction are serving long prison sentences because it wasn't as easy for them as it is for you to stay sober. God forbid you ever had a roommate who you shoved after he intentionally defecated in your laundry. Because once you've shoved him you've forgone your right to self defense, so if he fights back causing you to have to take the fight where you never intended it to go and he gets hurt, that's your ass. Because now you've committed a crime that you may spend the better part of a decade in prison for. God forbid some dickhead cop finds you parked off the side of the road in an odd spot eating fast food and thinks it's suspicious, then starts ordering you to get down on your knees and start picking up trash that isn't yours out of a gutter, despite the fact that he has no legitimate legal authority to do so, and is in fact breaking the law himself, and you exercise your God given (and legal) right to use reasonable force to protect your rights by punching him 3 times and running away. Because if he has a superficial cut, that'll get you 10 years in prison, provided you're in the right state and in front of the right judge. But you're probably one who thinks you should get on your knees and suck the cop's dick if he tells you to, and if you don't take it you deserve what you get. Personally, I don't think that's cool, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as the proper venue goes, this wouldn't be the ideal case to go to the SC to set precedent b/c people want to mold the policy to get the desired outcome without thinking of the broader implications. It is, however, a good time to shine a light on the fact that that's what's happening. And trying to help people understand that you can't throw the rights of one scumbag away without throwing those same rights away for everyone else.

I really don't want to be rude but this post is just so incredibly stupid on so many levels. You're so far out of your depth, and you don't even know enough to know how far out of your depth you are. If you had a clue you'd be embarrassed for having said this.

You just hate facts.