starrymessenger

Both QBs have had to deal with untimely drops.

There's always a world of opinion out there. My reason: I saw him make throws (two good fades) that Tyrod just cannot make. He also made a few other throws (slants) that Tyrod can make, but Peterman's ball was more accurate. IMO if Peterman once gets a chance to acclimate to NFL game speed he will adjust and impress. He might even be good, but for sure he will make rookie mistakes. They all do. Patience.

In this O Tyrod is clearly not better than Peterman. With a week of first team reps and a mediocre opponent, we will have our best chance so far to evaluate Peterman. If he is terrible that really won't be good for him. My prediction is that he will impress especially if KB is good to go.

No one is saying we shouldn't.

He will close out the season now. Then we will have a better idea, including those who think they have already figured things out.

Pat least the ball is in the right area code

You mean when Bosa's not choking him.

We shall see.

No separation on that play, but there was on others.

Does Coach have the balls to pull TT again and put in Nate? Doubt it.

Yeah but there is a whole half to go lol.

If I was sure we couldn't expect more from Tyrod in the second half I'd rather roll the dice with Peterman. Because if Tyrod can't suck it up we are sure to lose.

Cadet's hands are ok.

Oh because it might get picked off lol

Overthrow. Too bad.

Two Tyrod's are better than one!

I don't make excuses for Tyrod. He's not very good at throwing a football, esp. from the pocket. But he doesn't look 100% physically to me today.

Have a notion he is not 100% physically.

Pass was tipped, changed trajectory.

Romo says receivers in area. That was coaches challenge based on.

Yep. Affected the throw too IMO.

Use to be teammates. Use to be.

Petertime

There were a few good posters over there but overall the level was always a notch below TSW. In fact, depending on what exactly you may be looking for in terms of tone/mood I always thought the smaller boards, the Range (now HCBBT) and the Zone were a lot more fun than the BBMB. Certain mods there made for a stifling experience. That T&C guy used to give me infractions just because another member would ask him to. Overall it was way too politically correct and in your face for my taste.

I don't think if Republican voters send RM to the Senate it will be to express their contempt for the institution. That would be the case if they saw him as manifestly unfit to serve as a senator, in the same way that a horse might be. No, if they send him there it will be for other reasons: to help consolidate conservative control of congress and, more generally, support all aspects of the conservative agenda as it impacts many behavioral norms and choices. That they may be willing to do this even if means being represented by a pedophile evidences the strength of their deeply held convictions, be they right or wrong. If they are right, it is surely a case of the end justifying the means i.e. a pedophile is better than an honourable Democrat (assuming that such a thing exists). If they are wrong, they are just a collection of backward people, hypocrites and/or moral embeciles. The classical reference is however instructive in another way IMO. There have been three Romes i.e. acknowledged preeminent global superpowers: the original of course, the British Empire (on which at its height the Sun never set) and the post WWII American Empire/Hegemony. As products of human endeavor empires are organic in nature and therefore susceptible to decay and destruction. Sometimes they rot from within, sometimes they are overtaken by competing and hostile forces, and sometimes both things happen at once. At least that is what happened to the Romans and the Brits. Why should America be different? When I look at Trump, an incompetent and clownish bafoon, I see a big step down from even his more modestly accomplished predecessors, let alone the Lincolns and the FDRs. Similarly, the Julian line produced not only Julius and Augustus but also Caligula, the guy who appointed his horse to the Roman senate, and the greatest Antonine, Marcus Aurelius, was succeeded by his son Commodus, who actually fancied himself a gladiator instead of a head of state. The historian Gibbon blames Christianity for the fall of Rome. I think that the real problem, as is so often the case, was the lack of a succession planning mechanism designed to ensure that the most qualified candidate (or at least a good one) got the top job. I'm sure that there were plenty of Romans hanging around who were more qualified than Heliogabulus. The question with respect to America is whether a carefully crafted Constitution and frequent plebiscites are sufficient safeguards against the election to the highest office of a patently unworthy person and against the damage that he or she might do. While the American system is clearly much better and more efficient than that of Imperial Rome or Ottoman Turkey, it looks to me that it is not foolproof either.