like_that;1333372 wrote:Look at my post right above yours lol. I have to call you out on this one BR, nice fail .

Too much crack...:laugh: my bad

Honey badger entering draft. Id love to take a 6th or so round flyer on him.

Rotinaj;1333380 wrote:Honey badger entering draft. Id love to take a 6th or so round flyer on him.

I am sure some team will take a chance on him earlier than that.

like_that;1333383 wrote:I am sure some team will take a chance on him earlier than that.

I heard late second round talent that will be taken in the 4th due to obvious issues.

Hell id still throw a 4th at him. Cant be any worse than what we have at CB.

Rotinaj;1333403 wrote:Hell id still throw a 4th at him. Cant be any worse than what we have at CB.

Yeah I would def throw a 4th at him. It's not like we have used two 2nd round picks on guys who missed out a year on football or anything.

I don't want Mathieu at all.

Mulva;1333471 wrote:I don't want Mathieu at all.

Agree he's not very good in coverage

I think Matheiu can be a real nice player if he stays away from the drugs (unlikely). He makes plays.

Brees throws 5 picks last night and the Falcons only scored 23 points. This against one of the worst defenses in the league. I think the Falcons should probably look to draft a QB. This is really an unacceptable performance. /sarcasm

Pick6;1333540 wrote:I think Matheiu can be a real nice player if he stays away from the drugs (unlikely). He makes plays.

claiborne helped him a lot, though

royal_k;1333609 wrote:Brees throws 5 picks last night and the Falcons only scored 23 points. This against one of the worst defenses in the league. I think the Falcons should probably look to draft a QB. This is really an unacceptable performance. /sarcasm

Comparing Ryan to Weeden is highly laughable. You probably shouldn't have posted this. Pretty dumb.

Rotinaj;1333624 wrote:Comparing Ryan to Weeden is highly laughable. You probably shouldn't have posted this. Pretty dumb.

Just like it's stupid to rip on a rookie QB for helping put up 20 points against the #1 defense in the league off of 8 turnovers.

BR1986FB;1333625 wrote:Just like it's stupid to rip on a rookie QB for helping put up 20 points against the #1 defense in the league off of 8 turnovers.

Only good offense they played all year scored 31. 20 points on 8 turnovers isn't horrible but it's certainly not close to good.

Rotinaj;1333629 wrote:Only good offense they played all year scored 31. 20 points on 8 turnovers isn't horrible but it's certainly not close to good.

It wasn't good but they won and ANY win against the Steelers is cause for celebration.

Rotinaj;1333624 wrote:Comparing Ryan to Weeden is highly laughable. You probably shouldn't have posted this. Pretty dumb.[/QUOTE

Wasn't comparing them at all. Just pointing out the lack of points put up by a good QB on a bad defense with an abundance of turnovers.

Lol Weeden apologists are funny

BR1986FB;1333635 wrote:ANY win against the Steelers is cause for celebration.

So we're supposed to celebrate the win and just completely ignore how terrible Weeden was? Get the f*ck out of here with that completely idiotic BS.

like_that;1333407 wrote:Yeah I would def throw a 4th at him. It's not like we have used two 2nd round picks on guys who missed out a year on football or anything.

Gordon was a good use of a 2nd rounder. Based on what he's done so far, if he were in next year's draft (after this year) he'd be drafted in the 1st round.

lhslep134;1333748 wrote:So we're supposed to celebrate the win and just completely ignore how terrible Weeden was? Get the f*ck out of here with that completely idiotic BS.

Then give the same shit to Matt Ryan who could only manage 23 point off of 6 turnovers against one of the WORST defenses in the league.

And to comment on the "comparing Ryan to Weeden" comment, it's not comparing their skillsets (because Ryan is MUCH better)...it's comparing similar situations. If a stud #1 QB looks like shit against one of the worst defenses in the league, a ROOKIE QB should be given a little slack for putting up 20 points against the best defense.

SportsAndLady;1333747 wrote:Lol Weeden apologists are funny

As are the Weeden (rookie QB) bashers...

Rotinaj;1333380 wrote:Honey badger entering draft. Id love to take a 6th or so round flyer on him.

like_that;1333383 wrote:I am sure some team will take a chance on him earlier than that.

Yeah he will be taken well before the 6th round. I'd say 4th at the latest. Depending on what he does at the combine I could see him going in the 2nd round.

BR1986FB;1333923 wrote:Then give the same **** to Matt Ryan who could only manage 23 point off of 6 turnovers against one of the WORST defenses in the league.

I truly mean this when I say: you are a reflection of your posts, and your post was f*cking stupid. You are bringing up Matt Ryan, who I didn't mention ONCE, to somehow justify Brandon Weeden's performance. Let's analyze this:

1) Matt Ryan is not Brandon Weeden. I think this speaks for itself.

2) I said Brandon Weeden played terribly. You failed to address this head on, and meekly offered that he should be given less slack. However, that "slack" is in comparison to Matt Ryan.

3). I did not mention Matt Ryan once.

4). You completely danced around Brandon Weeden's terrible performance, in what I am inferring to be actions caused by what is commonly called denial.


So yes, I feel fully justified for calling you stupid for your "attempt" to explain away Weeden's incompetence.

lhslep134;1334865 wrote:I truly mean this when I say: you are a reflection of your posts, and your post was f*cking stupid. You are bringing up Matt Ryan, who I didn't mention ONCE, to somehow justify Brandon Weeden's performance. Let's analyze this:

1) Matt Ryan is not Brandon Weeden. I think this speaks for itself.

2) I said Brandon Weeden played terribly. You failed to address this head on, and meekly offered that he should be given less slack. However, that "slack" is in comparison to Matt Ryan.

3). I did not mention Matt Ryan once.

4). You completely danced around Brandon Weeden's terrible performance, in what I am inferring to be actions caused by what is commonly called denial.


So yes, I feel fully justified for calling you stupid for your "attempt" to explain away Weeden's incompetence.

Many reps to you

lhslep134;1334865 wrote:I truly mean this when I say: you are a reflection of your posts, and your post was f*cking stupid. You are bringing up Matt Ryan, who I didn't mention ONCE, to somehow justify Brandon Weeden's performance. Let's analyze this:

1) Matt Ryan is not Brandon Weeden. I think this speaks for itself.

2) I said Brandon Weeden played terribly. You failed to address this head on, and meekly offered that he should be given less slack. However, that "slack" is in comparison to Matt Ryan.

3). I did not mention Matt Ryan once.

4). You completely danced around Brandon Weeden's terrible performance, in what I am inferring to be actions caused by what is commonly called denial.


So yes, I feel fully justified for calling you stupid for your "attempt" to explain away Weeden's incompetence.

I agree that Weeden played less than spectacular. Something interesting to ponder, however, is that through 12 games: Brandon Weeden "sucks" and Andrew Luck is "phenomenal" in most people's eyes. However, statistically, Luck and Weeden each have 16 INT's through 12 games, and Weeden is actually completing a higher percentage of passes than Luck (57.04% to 55.47%).

Now, anyone would agree that Luck is a better QB than Weeden, and the gap will be pretty significant when all is said and done, but keep in mind that Weeden is a rookie with a horrible offensive coordinator and head coach. The important thing is that despite his poor performance, he still found a way to drive down the field with the game on the line and punch it in the end zone to get the win. Hopefully, with a new and hopefully better coach next year, he will progress further and make some strides to push us into playoff contention.