NFL 2018 V: The Packers Win With A Loss While The Cowboys Lose With A Win

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Bronn Stone said:

That was a TERRIBLE interception.  Low and flat to a covered guy in the end zone when your receiver had a significant height advantage.  Cam just isn't right these days.  He's never been a super "Xs and Os" guy, but made up for it with amazing physical skills.  He must really be hurting.

Cam is clearly hurt. He can’t throw the ball. I knew this going into the game and still started him. That’s on me, even if there were only bad options available.

27 minutes ago, briantw said:

I was really worried I was going to spend the offseason kicking myself for starting Baker Mayfield over Cam Newton in a match I only lost by six (primarily because Keenan Allen got hurt on the first possession of the game and laid a goose egg).  Guess that won't be happening.  Would have lost by fifteen if I'd started Cam.

Sigh, if Cam had made literally one good play I would have won. I was up by .5 with a minute or so left and the Saints had to fumble the ball and McCaffrey got a meaningless catch to cost me the game.

[briantw]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sigh, if Cam had made literally one good play I would have won. I was up by .5 with a minute or so left and the Saints had to fumble the ball and McCaffrey got a meaningless catch to cost me the game.

Yeah, after seeing how godawful he was against the Browns throwing the ball, I opted to bench him this week, even though he had the best match-up.  Didn't end up mattering, though, as Mayfield and Rodgers were my other two QBs (it's dynasty, otherwise I'd only have one back-up) and they both scored about the same.

[Jace, Extat]

I was trying to push him off on anyone left alive in C the last two weeks. Nobody bit.

[A True Kaniggit]

10 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 

Ugh. Dick move Bond. You already have the nuts, just flip your cards over instead of giving everyone false hope. What a slow rolling jackass.

Bad Form.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This stat is amazing:

The Oakland Raiders have played 14 games and have 12 sacks. Khalil Mack has played 12 games and has 12.5 sacks.

Don’t complain about your lack of a pass rush, Jon Gruden. You did it to yourself.

[Cas Stark]

I, for one, am glad that Gruden is exactly as bad as I thought he would be, he may even have exceeded my expectations of badness and is veering into the entertainingly bad levels of the Rex Ryan Jets and the post-Harbaugh pre-Shanahan 49rs.

[Rhom]

I like the Chiefs, but I kinda hope they lose in their first game just to maintain the crazy stat that no Big XII quarterback has ever won an NFL playoff game.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I, for one, am glad that Gruden is exactly as bad as I thought he would be, he may even have exceeded my expectations of badness and is veering into the entertainingly bad levels of the Rex Ryan Jets and the post-Harbaugh pre-Shanahan 49rs.

You knew he was going to be bad the moment he said he wanted to play late 90’s style football.  

19 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I like the Chiefs, but I kinda hope they lose in their first game just to maintain the crazy stat that no Big XII quarterback has ever won an NFL playoff game.

It’s quite possible that they will lose because of that defense, but Mahomes will end that streak at some point, be it this year or in the future.   

[Bronn Stone]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s quite possible that they will lose because of that defense, but Mahomes will end that streak at some point, be it this year or in the future.   

If Mayfield doesn't beat him to it.

[Maithanet]

Further evidence of both collusion and the Raiders incompetence. The Oakland Raiders are bringing in Nathan Peterman.

Quote

That’s the same Nathan Peterman who passed for three touchdowns and 12 interceptions in eight appearances over two seasons with the Buffalo Bills. He was the designated starter when the season opened but was replaced by rookie Josh Allen after throwing two interceptions and passing for only 24 yards against the Baltimore Ravens in Week 1.

Gruden, according to Bills beat writer Ryan Talbot of New York Upstate, is “very high” on Peterman, who will work out for the team Wednesday in Oakland.

 

I'll be honest, this is truly astonishing to me.  I mean, Nathan Peterman isn't a young quarterback experiencing growing pains, he is the worst quarterback in NFL history.  Of all the guys that have started an NFL game at quarterback, he is the worst.  And yet this is the guy you're bringing in?  Was Jimmy Clausen too busy frosting his tips?  Is Tim Tebow too focused on his minor league baseball career?  Because bad as both those guys are, they're better than Nathan Peterman.

[Bronn Stone]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Further evidence of both collusion and the Raiders incompetence. The Oakland Raiders are bringing in Nathan Peterman.

 

I'll be honest, this is truly astonishing to me.  I mean, Nathan Peterman isn't a young quarterback experiencing growing pains, he is the worst quarterback in NFL history.  Of all the guys that have started an NFL game at quarterback, he is the worst.  And yet this is the guy you're bringing in?  Was Jimmy Clausen too busy frosting his tips?  Is Tim Tebow too focused on his minor league baseball career?  Because bad as both those guys are, they're better than Nathan Peterman.

There must be something Peterman shows in practice that just doesn't translate to games.  It's the only explanation I can think of.  Gruden may be a dinosaur, but he's not a complete idiot.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Bronn Stone said:

There must be something Peterman shows in practice that just doesn't translate to games.  It's the only explanation I can think of.  Gruden may be a dinosaur, but he's not a complete idiot.

But how much better could he possibly be that you are ignoring his increasingly substantial game film?  Peterman isn't like Rex Grossman where he makes an amazing play followed by a horrible one.  It's just checkdowns and interceptions for this guy.  Sometimes both. 

[Bronn Stone]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But how much better could he possibly be that you are ignoring his increasingly substantial game film?  Peterman isn't like Rex Grossman where he makes an amazing play followed by a horrible one.  It's just checkdowns and interceptions for this guy.  Sometimes both. 

I'm not arguing he is good. I'm arguing he LOOKS good in practice and nothing more.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Peterman is the worst QB I’ve ever seen. But he also affords us many jokes. This is wonderful news!!!

[Ferrum Aeternum]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Peterman is the worst QB I’ve ever seen. But he also affords us many jokes. This is wonderful news!!!

I want to see Gruden defending the Peterman's performance in an actual game situation. In fact, I didn't know until now just exactly how much I need that in my life. 

[Maithanet]

Look, if Gruden is bringing back terrible quarterbacks, can't we at least get the return of the Sex Cannon?  I mean, by the standard of "Is he better than Nathan Peterman?" the answer is clearly yes, even four years into retirement.  Amiright @Jaime L?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

I want to see Gruden defending the Peterman's performance in an actual game situation. In fact, I didn't know until now just exactly how much I need that in my life. 

It gets better:

Quote

We're about to find out how accurate Jon Gruden was with his pre-draft assessment of former Pitt quarterback Nathan Peterman. 

In the days leading up to the NFL Draft back in April, there was a lot of debate about who the top quarterback was. Some people thought it was Deshaun Watson, some people thought it was Mitchell Trubisky and other people thought it was Patrick Mahomes. However, that's not how Gruden saw things. 

The former Buccaneers coach had an interesting prediction for Peterman: Gruden said he would be the rookie quarterback best suited to start in the NFL from Day 1. 

Before the draft, Gruden wrote extensively on why he thought Peterman was the most pro-ready quarterback in the 2017 class. 

"Peterman is ready to walk in and be a contributor from day one," Gruden wrote on ESPN.com in April. "He just looks like a pro quarterback -- coming out of the huddle, running an offense with different formations, shifting, motioning, different patterns that other colleges don't run. Peterman will recognize route combinations and associate formations."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jon-gruden-made-wild-prediction-about-nathan-peterman-before-2017-nfl-draft/

[Jaime L]

36 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Look, if Gruden is bringing back terrible quarterbacks, can't we at least get the return of the Sex Cannon?  I mean, by the standard of "Is he better than Nathan Peterman?" the answer is clearly yes, even four years into retirement.  Amiright @Jaime L?

Oh, clearly. He might not be a "good" quarterback by traditional metrics but the WRs will get their air yards and the women (and a good chunk of the men) in the crowd will leave completely satisfied.

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It gets better:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jon-gruden-made-wild-prediction-about-nathan-peterman-before-2017-nfl-draft/

This is amazing. Love that this is guy with 3 first round picks next year. I'm pumped for when he takes Isaac Hempstead Wright with the 2nd overall pick next year. 

[Bronn Stone]

41 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

This is amazing. Love that this is guy with 3 first round picks next year. I'm pumped for when he takes Isaac Hempstead Wright with the 2nd overall pick next year. 

Hold the ball!
Hold the ball!
(etc)

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Jaime L said:

Oh, clearly. He might not be a "good" quarterback by traditional metrics but the WRs will get their air yards and the women (and a good chunk of the men) in the crowd will leave completely satisfied.

This is amazing. Love that this is guy with 3 first round picks next year. I'm pumped for when he takes Isaac Hempstead Wright with the 2nd overall pick next year. 

Just wait until he takes Isaac Hayes with the 18th