And just when I thought that I couldn’t read anything stupider than I previously had in this thread.

Yes, sure,, Buffalo was a great game..

We lost to every afc playoff team we faced. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Tennessee (once), Baltimore all in the regular season, then Buffalo in the playoffs. Im pretty sure we would have lost to the chiefs. We also lost to the jags. If we are talking about close games, we nearly lost to houston, twice.

I'm not saying rivers is better than brissett, or that Eason is our qb answer. I'm saying we traded a year of our qb development (whoever that may have been) for our Philip rivers shot at the superbowl.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

They beat GB and would've beat TEN both games if Buckner wasn't on the COVID list for the second game. Games against playoff teams are hard, so are games against franchise QBs. For the latter portion, ask any AFC South rival about the last 20 years prior to 2019. It was much more enjoyable to watch an 11-5 team that had a puncher's chance in the playoffs than it would've been to watch a 5-11 team where all the talent on this roster went to waste.

I'm just wondering if maybe Eason is closer than we know, and we're just getting a lot of coach-speak because they want him to keep working hard.

We will see if they start him. They say nice things, but their actions show their real intentions.

There is a contingent of Colt fans on twitter that want to start Brisset again. I can't understand why. Brisset was so good they brought in Rivers.

Playing in games does not always equate to development. Game situation, if he was not near ready, could have harmed his development.

Agree with both points here, especially the first. Ballard said he wants to build talent through the draft so we have long term solutions. But then he signs rivers.

We know brissett is not the answer, we know rivers is not the answer. If Ballard hadn't deviated from his stated intentions, we would know if Eason was or wasn't the answer. We would likely also have the same number of playoff wins.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I understand that could have harmed his development. But how does that make a case for getting Rivers? We could "protect Eason's development" by putting brissett in front of him.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Because they already tried the brissett experiment. Rivers was a good and convenient option. Knew the system and plenty of experience which were important given the lack of preseason. They knew it was a short term solution, only tied to one year, possibly stretch to second year, no real impact to our cap. That would give eason 1-2 years to learn which he could probably do better under a QB like rivers than brissett. Low risk with potential for a higher reward than brissett could have provided. Seems like a well thought out decision to me.

o

Pez is an otherwise solid poster.

o