SouthNYfan

I would like to know how much of his stats were garbage time.

Adding to what I said before I think kaep protested himself outta the league, but was not good quality starter material anyway, and the fact that he said he would only start (early on) was what doomed him on combination with the protesting/media. Happened to Tebow also. Many teams don't want the drama.

I think some of his actions were bs early on (the cop-pig socks for example). I think when some teammates and vets reached out to him in support, and requested he kneel instead of sit, and he did so, I was like "that's cool" and he calmed down with some of the over the top stuff he was doing early on. I was just saying that, as a league driven by profits, who has a majority conservative fan-base, the NFL is well within it's right to deny hiring somebody who might bring negative press. Look at the antics of some players, as their talent/production diminishes, they tend to have shortened careers. TO, ochocinco, Ray Rice are good examples. They all could have been 2nd or 3rd string players for another 3-5 years, but their antics caused them to be not worth the headache.

Nothing illegal about him not being signed. Private corporation can absolutely choose to not employ somebody if they feel there is negative press surrounding that person, which could affect the business.

If Rosen drops, and we take Rudolph over him, our entire front office should be fired and checked for mental health problems.

I didn't know Johnny manziel wasn't "real life" I do know that you are completely wrong, guaranteed, and Rosen will go before Rudolph. That's a fact, barring Rosen drastically injuring himself or murdering somebody pre-draft.

I think you're rounding up.

TO had a pretty good year, something like 850 yards, for not much of a contract. Dockery is prob the worst.

Except your other posts imply otherwise. To get "shown up be a rookie" Detroit would have to A) draft a QB B) have that QB outperform Stafford, which isn't that easy to do Before you bring up Dallas and Romo/Dak, that situation was different. Stafford is 30 and just signed a massive extension. Romo was 35, had only played 4 games the previous season due to a shoulder injury, and then fractured his back. Stafford is in his prime. No rookie is going to outplay him or supplant him.

You're clueless if you think Detroit is drafting a QB to "compete" with him, or if you think that any rookie this year is on his level.

I'm not sure why they would get sick of Stafford. They just signed him to a huge extension last year, and he's been very good his whole career. He's not the problem in Detroit.

Whichever QB goes to Denver

It does. It's an old saying. Not a meme.

Except the new management is changing that dramatically. They also have actual receivers on the team

I agree I was just spitballing It's also good that if you want #2 and the Giants might want to trade, this could make them jump on it thinking they might lose the trade partner

True. Could also be that they are using the Giants' and Browns' asking prices against each other Beane: "hey, listen, gettleman, the browns want XYZ for the first pick, that's even less than what you told me for #2, so you willing to go lower than them?"

I'll even requote your original post. pretty much EVERYBODY agrees they got lucky with the tuck

I read it three times. The bills backed into the playoffs. Their situation was nothing like the tuck rule pats. And those teams also "back into the playoffs"

Your point is you have no idea what you are talking about because the two situations are not the same. YOU are making up your own "narrative" and trying to justify it with another situation that isn't even remotely similar. Teams "back into the playoffs" all the time. The chargers were a hotter team than we were, but dug too big a hole earlier in the season. I would bet that if you asked and NFL GM about who they would have played in the wild card: 2017 "3 point, Cincinnati miracle, tyrod Taylor led" Bills or the "Joey bossa qb eating and Phil Rivers led" chargers, every single GM and coach would say they would rather have faced the bills. You sound like you're WHINING about the 2017 Bills barely making the playoffs and not getting enough respect. Maybe you should scroll up and take your own advice about whining on another board.

But it does matter. You're using the 2001 #2 seed 11-5 Patriots, who were #6/#6 offense and defense, and beat the raiders on a stupid "tuck rule" that was eventually dropped by the NFL, and comparing to the 2017 9-7 Buffalo Bills, #22/#18 offense and defense, who got into the playoffs by winning 4 of their last 6 (chiefs were reeling on a 5 game losing streak, the colts and dolphins finished a combined 10-22) and finally got in BECAUSE ANOTHER TEAM CHOKED ON A MIRACLE PLAY to try and justify your point. They are literally not even close to each other. Seriously.

I don't hate Peterman. I'm willing to give him more time. My point was he was viewed as the "most NFL ready QB" also Then he crapped the bed and looked like a deer in headlights in his first start. That's not what "NFL ready" looks like.

Um. #2 isn't a narrative, you're memory must be fuzzy. The Patriots didn't "back into the playoffs" that year. They were 11-5, the #2 seed in the AFC (behind the Steelers) and ranked #6 in the NFL on both offense and defense. The Pats didn't sqeueak into the playoffs in 2001. They, again, were the #2 AFC team. They beat the raiders on the "tuck rule" which isn't a "narrative" but a fact. The rule was in place from 1999-2013. They would not have won without that rule. Kordell Stewart collapsed against them. They filled the Rams final pregame walkthrough, then upset the Rams with Warner throwing 3 picks. As for the Bills last year, #22 offense and #18 defense in NFL, made it into the playoffs because ANOTHER TEAM had to win a miracle game. Then proceeded to have one of the worst wild card showings ever. We backed in. We were nothing like the 2001 Pats. As for another narrative , 1999 we were #16 offense but #2 defense. We might have had a shot in the rest of the playoffs, but I wouldn't say we were serious contenders.

Nathan Peterman was the "most NFL ready" college QB last year also. So yeah. There's that.

Except this thread is about THIS UPCOMING SEASON, not about who will have more years left. The answer to who ANY team in football would rather have next year alone is Shady > Barkley. The answer to who ANY team in football would rather have for the next 5 years of Barkley > Shady. Yep. We should have been terrible last year.

RB. I don't care how good Barkley is, if they even draft him, shady is still much better, currently. He's a very high bar to reach. Secondary. White and Hyde are better than anybody in the Brown's secondary. Poyer looks to be as well. If Davis is 80% his former self than he's better too. That's about all I can be sure of. Honestly though? The Browns might win 8-9 games. They have done a great job rebuilding on paper. That is a very strong possibility though