Rocky Landing

Now that this thread has fallen onto pure semantics, I would nitpick the above, bolded statement. It is illogical. All 32 starting QBs are NFL caliber. The range that currently exists literally defines that caliber. Currently, NFL caliber would be defined as Brady*/Rogers, down to Paxton Lynch, or whomever is the crappiest, current starter. Taylor lands around the middle of that scale.

But, do we knead him?

What the hell are you talking about??? Do you really think that the millions of dollars spent on evaluating players entering the draft, and the people who spend their professional lives doing the evaluation have no idea what they're doing??? You may want to rethink that bolded statement!

Really, there are two separate philosophies. On one hand, you have the corporate model, which espouses the PAAC philosophy (profit at all cost). On the other hand, there is the philosophy that a football team provides a service that benefits the community as a whole (which includes the players, and the owners). Performance based contracts, or (as Oldmanfan suggested) lower salaries, would work well under PAAC, and does not hold ownership, or shareholders accountable in any way. IMO, if such a contract existed in the NFL, it would most certainly need comprehensive protections for players who suffer injury, and incentives to keep players from playing injured. But, I understand the frustration with players who pedal their efforts back after they land a big contract. But, I wonder if there weren't some more player-friendly (and safety-friendly) options that would help the same issues? How about profit sharing for players,and coaches? Perhaps a certain portion of each team could be owned by the community in which they reside, like the Packers' structure, but at a percentage? What people often don't realize about an organized labor force is that the labor force operates under the same economic pressures that the business does. If the company doesn't thrive, then neither do the workers. The more invested the labor force is in the product, the higher the motivation to put out a high quality product.

He had a pretty steep drop-off in production from 2016 to 2017. I have a hard time believing that it's simply a question of age. Players don't generally decline that quickly. He's only 30-- a year older than Shady. I was super happy with signing. Was was a beast in '15, and '16, but I would like to know the reason for his decline last year. A Shady/Ivory duo could be great.

I was exactly the same way. I believed in Tyrod, too. I even believed in Thad Lewis for a game, or two. I'll even believe in Peterman in the unlikely event he starts the season. One more confession from me, though: I despise three-way QB competitions. I think they damage a team's early-season development.

Also, I would think that McD would be loath to be forced to start Allen before he is ready, and that alone would be reason to keep all three. The chances of McCarron, (or Peterman, in the unlikely event he starts) getting injured early in the season behind a newly formed O-line is high enough for this consideration. McCarron certainly doesn't envision himself as a career backup, so the question for me is: has Peterman shown that he can be a competent backup? If he has, then keep all three.

I’m married to a Pats* fan. My father-in-law* is a fanatic. No amount is penance can absolve you of that last confession.

You will say anything to prop up Peterman to the point where it is weird. Is there another QB alive (or any other player, for that matter), that you are so willing to give such a long tether?

I’m a great lover of Tobasco, myself. But when it comes to a Southern sausage gravy (nothing else should be served with crow) it’s Red Rooster, or Crystal, ftw.

I believe that conspiracy theory started as a result of the miked up defensive player on the Chargers (I forget who it was) who came out and said of Mills, "he literally didn't block me..." But, I don't believe for a second that any of that was intentional. I was actually at that game (and, if I have any resentment towards Peterman... OK, I do... it is because I spent good money to watch that piece of history), and I have always maintained that the five interceptions only told half the story. No one on that field wanted to throw a game. Not when we were in playoff contention. But, what I saw in that first half was utter confusion. You could see it in their body language. When Taylor came out the second half, they looked like a different team.

Pretty much agree with all of this. And, I will say this about Peterman: If he bounces back from such an historically bad rookie outing to the point where he is a viable starter, it would be momentous. To the bolded: he probably would have if they left him in.

I completely understand what you're saying, and in some ways, I feel the same. But, to be honest, I'm rooting for Tyrod. I was a Tyrod fan while he was here. He was fun to watch when he was good, which, admittedly, was not often enough. But, I loved his athleticism, and the way he extended plays, and I loved his attitude. And, I always wanted him to be better. He's got some good weapons in Cleveland this year. I would love to see him lose to the Bills in the playoffs. This is very true. Although, he didn't have a huge number of opportunities to throw to, or build a rapport with Benjamin.

It will at least be fun to be in a competitive division for a change.

Probably the Jets, or the Dolphins. (..psst, trolling...)

Then I will stand on my original statement: Literally NOBODY has suggested that they want Peterman to fail. And, the only offense I have seen are from people who feel like a disagreement regarding the negative analysis of a player amounts to "hating." It doesn't. Perhaps people should learn to not be so offended by disagreement?

I did not say you had called anyone dumb. If you think I did, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. But, speaking of jumping to conclusions: How about you put your money where your mouth is. Who in this thread do you think "wants him to fail just so they can say I told you so?"

I feel like it's been a while since we've had a WR who could consistently catch those kinds of ropes that Newton throws.

This is often a problem with these threads. Literally NOBODY has suggested that they want Peterman to fail. It is a discussion about who they think will be the starting QB, and some think that Peterman is extremely unlikely to be the starter. Some think he sucks, and the game in LA was closer to who he is as a QB, and not an outlier. If Peterman does actually become the starter, will Kirby be the dumbest poster on this thread? Nope. All his points are valid. It's not a question of SMH. And, if you're going to assume these accusations, why does Burple want McCarron to fail? Did Burple used to date McCarron's wife?

I was thinking about writing my doctoral thesis on "Sociodemographic Profiles of Persistent Delusional Disorder" by following how increasingly unhinged posters on this site will become during this slow NFL period. But then I remembered that I'm not a doctoral student.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but the bolded blows me away. What game did you watch? Decisive??? What I saw on that field (and I was there, 10th row) was confusion.

Then there's guys like Karlos Williams, and John Miller... I know that Zay wasn't supposed to be the top-end, playmaking star WR. What he was supposed to be was consistent, and NFL-ready. He's been none of that. For the record, I'm not trying to hate on him, and I'm not advocating to cut him. But, at the same time, I don't think he should be valued above any rookie that out-performs him in the preseason, and it boggles my mind that he continues to be considered by many to be the "presumed #2." Then this may be where Jones is an outlier. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, Jones wasn't projected to be a stud physical specimen, or outstanding playmaker, but as someone who had an enormous amount of playing time, who had started for four years in college, and had reliable hands-- someone who would be consistent, and ready to play day one. But, this is just my recollection from last year.

To the bolded quotes: An argument could be made for the former, but I certainly agree with the latter.

Is that true? It strikes me that the sophomore year is when many players have their biggest slump.

Obviously, his draft position means a lot less after his rookie season. Also, IIRC, his big selling point when he was drafted was not that he was a big playmaker, but that he was the most NFL-ready WR of his class. That has certainly not proven to be the case. I believe you're right that he is very likely to make the roster. But, I think that says a lot more about how thin we are at WR than anything else. I have to think that most other teams would not value him the way we seem to, and if we dropped him today, is there another team in the NFL that would pick him up?