DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

One of my bigger concerns regarding SS is with so many of his fans claiming he improved as the season went along, I had trouble believing that. I remember those last 2 games (Pitt & Cincy) and thinking the offense was very weak.
Some O stats from those games, but focusing on QB stats

Pitt game; Offense had 262 net yards. 184 net yards passing 78 rushing only 3.1 per carry. 1 TD, 2 ints. Defense held the Steelers to 2 FGs Browns won 13-6

Bengals; Offense had exactly 200 yards of offense, 82 net yards passing. team 4.9 YPC rushing, SS fumble giving Bengals ball at Browns 29 leading to a Bengals TD. 0 passing TDs, 0 ints. Browns 2 TDs came on back-to-back series by the D. 90+ year int then a fumble return. These were the 2 plays that both drew unsportsmanlike flags. SS did have a 10 play 40 yard drive in 1:29 for the 49 yard FG for the win. Browns won 20-18

To me, both of those games were won more by the D, more than the O, although SS did direct a GW FG drive to end the game.

I hope Shedeur improves and that he can be the guy. Maybe a rebuilt O-line and more weapons will help.

I agree with that. Poster who are fanboys of SS are eager to make him the starter with wishful thinking about his performance last season. They have written off Gabriel, conveniently ignoring his tougher opponents, crappy line play, and abominable receivers. SS had some decent stats with lousy play. Picks vs. TDs, taking sacks, were bad. One thing not mentioned is that the play caller changed and gave more opportunity than Gabe to SS. I believed that was part of the issue because Ski was relieved of his duties again. His offense flopped; I do apples to oranges here, and I believe SS could play better than he did and should have. We have exaggerated his "success" and much of the opining we are reading here seems to be wishful thinking from the fanboys. I hope Monken measures their performance with solid comparisons. I want part of that to involve the newest QB who intrigues me. I think we draft a QB next draft. Write Watson off.

I think that it probably was, but it just didn't result in anything positive, instead frequently resulting in a turnover.

Aw dangit... I thought I was only using starts (and not partial games). I guess that's what I get for just trusting the output I was getting.

That said, the reason I posted what I did instead of deleting it because the stats weren't saying what I thought they would is because my eye saw something (the offense seemed to move easier) that doesn't seem to be supported by any actual facts. I wasn't the only one who said this (that that offense seemed to move with him in there).

I just thought it was kind of interesting that even though the offense felt a little different with Sanders throwing, it really wasn't when you get down to it.

That helps clarify things at least to a certain extent. But like you said, stats can still be murky. Combing stats in games played by multiple QB's certainly doesn't reflect the big picture.

Killer Instinct definitely isn't a term I'd assign to him. More like "unnecessary risk taker that sometimes doesn't get bitten in the butt".

Part of the math is total games, but even that is wonky.

Sanders: played in 8, but started 7
Gabriel: played in 10, but started 6.

Adjusting their PPG to use only games started changes thing dramatically.
Gabriel: 17.7 points
Sanders: 16.7 points
Flacco: 14.0 points


First Downs per Game (starts only)
Gabriel: 16.2
Sanders: 15.9
Flacco: 15.0

I agree there is a lot more nuance in how they arrived at those numbers than the raw numbers themselves. You gave just a few basic examples. I've heard people use terms like "aggressive"and "killer instinct" in regards to Sanders. But the results of that in terms of passing were 7td's and 10int's. So those are not terms I would use to describe him.

Lebron informed the Lakers that he is moving on and will play somewhere else.

It would be very cool for him to come back. He will do as he pleases.

But if he comes back. I am watching them play.

I am not a huge basketball fan. It comes and goes with me. Sometimes I get into it. Other times I lose interest.

I will say when the Cavs won it all with Lebron. I lost my mind. I could believe they won.

I saw the old Bird vs Magic games and of course Michael.

But I have never seen a player play like Lebron played in that championship series.

That was something to see.

While certainly not on my personal playlist these songs certainly seems quite appropriate for the current weather conditions..........

Yes, I would agree the 4.4 pts per game is significant and is why Sanders was 3-4 in his starts, Flacco was 1-3 in his starts and Gabriel was 1-5 in his starts.

Was it enough? Or course not, but carry over the rookie season to his first veteran off season and all the added tools, that could change more drastic than I would think we would see with Gabriel. The mind set of each of them is very different. They both like to protect the ball, to a fault, but Shedeur is much more willing to push the ball up field, resulting in bigger plays. Only .5 first downs per game could have as much to do with plays over 15 yards reducing the number of chances at a first down.

If Gabriel drives 39 yards and punts, but gets 3 first downs on the drive, you don't have much to gain from the drive.
If Sanders drives 60 yards for a FG, but does it only making 2 first downs because one of the first downs went for 45 yards, then there is fruition in the drive.

Unfortunately, I saw a lot of drives from Gabriel stall near the 50 yard line. He doesn't have a killer instinct or take chances on 3rd and 8 or longer to extend drives. He is just as happy checking down on 3rd and 8 for a 3 yard gain as he is on 1st and 10 to get the same yards.. same play, one gets the drive started, the other ends the drive completely.

It may be significant, it may not be. It actually needs more data. Sanders had the same number of TDs as Gabriel, so any increase in PPG was added field goals, or even defensive scores, depending upon how PPG was calculated.
The first down could literally just be the OLine committing fewer drive killing penalties as the season went on. I'm not saying that is the difference, but it is a quick and simple example of how easily the numbers could be skewed to appear better.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”

Three conservative justices would have allowed the restrictions to take effect.

“The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 91-page dissent, more than three times as long as Roberts’ opinion. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

The Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S.

During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order’s legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump’s unprecedented attendance in the courtroom.

The case framed another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices.

The justices ruled on Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.

Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic.

He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize “dumb judges and justices” and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship.

Trump’s order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause is written more broadly. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it reads.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen.

Roberts, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, said the amendment’s language, the historical context and the 1898 case make clear that children born to parents illegally or temporarily in the U.S. “are citizens at birth.”

But there was only a bare majority of five justices on the constitutional question.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority, but only because of a federal law that makes those children citizens.

Kavanaugh joined the dissenters in finding that Trump’s order does not violate the Constitution. His view would enable a future Congress to change the law to restrict birthright citizenship.

The Trump administration had argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.

While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...gration-c73cf0c70bb550ebf0a55fafddbd935c

While I'm happy to see that the SCOTUS upheld the constitution in this case it's also sad that the vote was so close on this issue.

U.S.-Iran Latest: Peace deal efforts inch along, mired by Israel's fight with Hezbollah

6:53 AM
Iran says delegation heading to Qatar won't meet with U.S.

Iran on Monday said a delegation of experts would travel to Qatar's capital of Doha this week for discussions on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding with the U.S., but no meetings would be happening between the two countries.

"An expert delegation from the Islamic Republic of Iran will travel to Doha later this week" to discuss the implementation of clauses of the memorandum, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said.

"We have not yet entered the stage of negotiating a final agreement," he said, noting that "over the coming days, we will not have any negotiation meetings with the U.S. side at any level."

6:53 AM
Trump says U.S. efforts in Qatar will be "perhaps important, perhaps not"

President Trump said U.S. officials' planned efforts in Qatar this week would be "perhaps important, perhaps not" after Iran denied that its negotiators would be meeting with Americans in the Middle East.

"The meeting in Doha is going to be perhaps important, perhaps not," Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, referring to Qatar's capital. "We're going to find out."

6:53 AM
Iran war has cost Americans $1,000 per household, economist estimates

The Iran war has cost Americans roughly $1,000 per household in higher fuel, food and other expenses since the start of the conflict in February, according to an estimate shared last week by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

Zandi's analysis comes as government data shows inflation in May hit its highest level in three years, and with the U.S. and Iran yet to broker a lasting peace deal.

6:53 AM
Expert doubts Strait of Hormuz will return to how it was before war

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, expressed doubt on CBS News' "The Takeout" that ships would return to moving through the Strait of Hormuz as freely as they were before the war.

"Whether it's the horse has left the barn or the genie's out of the bottle or I don't know what other cliche you could use, we are not going back to Feb. 27, where the straits were free and unfettered," Miller said, referring to the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another key waterway.

"Iran has their hands all over them," Miller said, "and they're going to seek remuneration to use those straits, weaponizing geography, basically as leverage."

6:53 AM
"Terrorists" shoot dead two Guards members in Iran, says state media

Attackers shot dead two members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards at their home in the western city of Paveh, near the border with Iraq's Kurdistan region, state media reported Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the shooting but Tehran has frequently blamed Kurdish separatist groups in the area for previous violence, accusing them of links to the United States and Israel.

The two IRGC members were killed in "a terrorist and cowardly act," state television said, while two other Guards members were wounded.

State television said "exact details of this incident and the measures being taken to identify those responsible are under review."

Separately, "a family's vehicle was sprayed with bullets" on Monday in the southeastern town of Saravan in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing the father and wounding the mother, state television reported.

The woman later died of her wounds.

Authorities did not immediately identify those responsible or provide further details about the victims.

But state television said the attack "was carried out by Zionist-American mercenaries," a term Iranian officials commonly use for separatist and militant groups.

Sistan-Baluchistan, which borders Pakistan and Afghanistan, has long seen clashes between security forces, insurgents and drug smugglers.

One of Iran's poorest provinces, it is home to a sizable ethnic Baloch population, most of whom are Sunni Muslims in a Shiite-majority nation.

6:53 AM
Analysts say Lebanon ceasefire could complicate things, as "Israel won't withdraw" and "Hezbollah won't disarm"

An agreement signed four days ago between the Israeli and Lebanese governments, which links Israel pulling its forces out of southern Lebanon with Hezbollah being disarmed, could effectively keep Israeli troops in the neighboring nation indefinitely, analysts say, and that could make a final peace deal between the U.S. and Iran harder to achieve.

Hezbollah has thus far refused to lay down its weapons, and the Lebanese government has proven unable to make the well-armed Iranian-backed group do so.

"This is ‌not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement," a senior Lebanese politician, who declined to be named, told the Reuters news agency. The lawmaker was quoted as saying Lebanon's army is simply incapable of forcing Hezbollah to disarm.

"This agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon," Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, told Reuters. It "creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain [in southern Lebanon] indefinitely."

Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the deal was "born dead."

Gerges told Reuters the agreement was a "gift" to Israel as it could effectively give Israeli officials a pretext to further consolidate and even extend the occupied "security zone" that extends six miles into southern Lebanon.

The deal "won't lead us anywhere except ‌to civil conflict, and ⁠maybe an insurrection by the Shiite [Muslim] community," said Young.

Regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz told Reuters the dismantling of Hezbollah is "something that would ‌never happen," ⁠and the deal ultimately legitimizes an indefinite Israeli military presence in Lebanon.

He said any Israeli prime minister is unlikely to halt the fight against Hezbollah while the group still poses a threat, so "nothing will happen. Israel won't withdraw, and Hezbollah won't dismantle."

Iran and Hezbollah have both insisted repeatedly that Israel must withdraw its forces from Lebanon as part of any full peace deal between Washington and Tehran.

7:42 AM
Witkoff and Kushner meet mediators in Qatar, but no "direct meetings scheduled" with Iran

U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – the president's son-in-law – met Tuesday with Qatari mediators trying to broker a permanent peace deal with Iran, the Gulf state's foreign ministry spokesman said.

"Mr. Steve Witkoff and Mr. Jared Kushner are here in Doha to meet with mediators, with Qatari officials, and the talks will be around all regional issues," foreign ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari said.

The talks were expected to include discussions on Iran and Lebanon, the spokesman said, adding: "They are not here for their negotiations with the Iranians."

Both the U.S. and Iran had said they would send officials for meetings in Qatar to discuss the memorandum of understanding signed by President Trump and his Iranian counterpart. Mr. Trump first announced the meeting, claiming Iran had requested it in a social media post on Monday.

"To the best of my knowledge, there are no direct meetings scheduled between the two parties in the coming days," Al Ansari said Tuesday.

He added that an Iranian "technical delegation travels to and from Doha based on the progress of negotiations," and "there is currently no high-level delegation present."

Qatar initially refused to mediate after Tehran launched unprecedented aerial attacks on Gulf states in retaliation for the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes launched on Feb. 28, but the Gulf emirate has played an active role in negotiations in recent weeks after an initial April ceasefire was brokered by Pakistan.

8:14 AM
Ambassador Mike Huckabee says Israel and U.S. "will continue to be partners as long as we exist"

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee again compared the relationship between the two countries to a marriage, saying "we will continue to be partners as long as we exist," in remarks reported by Israeli news site Ynet.

Speaking at an Israeli-American Council (IAC) event commemorating 250 years of American independence, Huckabee said: "When people ask: 'Is it possible that the U.S. and Israel will split and no longer enjoy this extraordinary partnership?', I say: 'No. I hope we will never be that foolish. We will continue to be partners as long as we exist.'"

"It's like a marriage," he added. "If we separate, neither country will be able to afford the alimony."

Huckabee said in February that Israel had a right to much of the Middle East, telling Tucker Carlson "It would be fine if they took it all."

His comments prompted condemnation from the governments of numerous Arab and Muslim majority states.

8:48 AM
No frozen assets have been transferred to Iran, says Qatar

No frozen assets have been transferred to Iran, Qatar said Tuesday, after Iran's president said $6 billion would be released under the memorandum of understanding signed by Iran and the U.S. about two weeks ago .

"So far, no funds have been transferred," foreign ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari said Tuesday.

"Qatar is not the owner of these funds," Al Ansari added. "It only plays the role of a financial mediator managing these accounts within the framework of this agreement between the parties."

"The matter of transferring funds or not is carried out according to mutual agreement between the two parties and according to the progress of negotiations, which has not yet taken place," he said.

On Monday, Iranian state media quoted President Masoud Pezeshkian as saying the country was set to receive $6 billion in frozen assets currently held in Qatar. The unfreezing of Iran's financial assets is one of the conditions in the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding.

Vice President JD Vance said last week that Washington would ensure any Iranian funds released as a result of the ongoing negotiations would not finance terrorism.

"If we ever unfreeze Iranian assets, we can ensure that ... Iranian money goes to help the people of Iran and not to fund terrorism," he told reporters a day after the first, and so far only, round of direct talks with Iran were held as a result of the MoU.

9:38 AM
Iran to hold talks with Qatar on frozen assets Wednesday, says foreign ministry

Iran will hold talks with mediator Qatar on Wednesday regarding its frozen assets, the Iranian foreign ministry said, denying that any meeting with the U.S. was planned in the Gulf state, where delegations from both sides were expected.

"What is expected to take place in Doha, probably tomorrow, will be discussions regarding the implementation of provisions of the memorandum of understanding, including the provision concerning the release of Iran's restricted assets, and these discussions will be held with the Qatari side," foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told reporters at a weekly press conference.

10:15 AM
UNESCO shared coordinates of heritage sites in Iran with "all parties to the conflict"

Eleven historical buildings in Iran have been damaged in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, according to the Reuters news agency, despite UNESCO sharing coordinates of heritage sites in the country with "all parties to the conflict."

The world body told Reuters it had not been consulted about which cultural sites to avoid during the war, adding "UNESCO calls all parties to conflicts to respect international law, including the protection of cultural property, and to take all necessary measures to prevent damage to cultural heritage."

President Trump has pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO twice, in 2017 and – after President Biden reversed the decision – again in 2025, decrying what he described as "woke, divisive cultural and social causes."

49m ago
U.S. stocks open mixed in last session of winning quarter

Wall Street stocks were mixed early Tuesday in a cautious open to the concluding session of a buoyant semester for U.S. equities.

The broad-based S&P 500 has gained nearly 9% in the first half of 2026, reflecting confidence in the AI boom that has offset concerns about the U.S.-Iran war and the surge in oil prices.

About 10 minutes into trading, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 0.2% at 52,075.80.

The broad-based S&P 500 added 0.1% at 7,449.12, while the tech-rich Nasdaq Composite Index gained 0.3% to 25,890.09.

"For the most part the equity market shrugged off the war and focused primarily on earnings, and estimates continued to rise through the quarter," said Jack Ablin of Cresset Capital.

Oil prices edged higher early Tuesday after strikes over the weekend between the U.S. and Iran added to questions about the durability of their memorandum of understanding.

6m ago
U.S.-Iran communication line "not a military-to-military hotline," says Iran

The line of communication between the U.S. and Iran is "not a military-to-military hotline," an Iranian official said Tuesday.

"Rather, it is a communication channel between the political authorities of the two countries," foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei said in a press briefing.

Pakistani and Qatari mediators said Monday that Iran and the U.S. had agreed to establish the line of communication following their first round of direct talks, held Sunday in Switzerland.

In a joint statement, the mediators said the line would be established "to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz."

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-israel-hezbollah-lebanon-trump-peace-deal/

I would tend to agree with you but my concern is the lack of experience by Vance, who seems to be leading the negotiations in such matters for the U.S. will hinder the results of a better deal. But at the same time I certainly hope for the best.

I had a hunch and did some quick GoogleAI stat comparisons. It turns out I was wrong.

One of my takeaways from last year is that the offense looked completely impotent until Sanders took over. With DG and Flacco, the offense looked like it was stuck in the mud and just couldn't move the ball at all. I was hoping that some stat comparisons would help prove my point, but it turns out I was mostly wrong. I did not confirm these stats, so I apologize if my AI laziness is leading me astray.

Points/game
Sanders: 18.7
Flacco: 14.3
DG: 14.1

First downs/game
Sanders: 17.5
Flacco: 17
DG: 15

Judkins yards/game
Pretty much same lining up behind each of the 3 QBs

Not sure if 2 additional first downs per game is significant in terms of arguing whether one starter is more effective or not. One could argue that 4 additional points/game IS significant given how good our defense was (for the most part they kept games close).

So maybe the points/game is significant (given the whole point of the offense is to score), but I was expecting the stats to show that Sanders chucking the ball was having a measurable effect in opening things up for our various playmakers, and I didn't see that as much as I thought I would.

Thank you for posting the timelines. Following what's going on can be tricky if your eyes aren't glued to a news site.

Honestly, I hope the MoU falls apart. Definitely sucks for everyone in the short term (not least of which the Iranian people and other civilians in neighboring countries), but getting a redo on the terms that we negotiated HAS to be seen as a positive.

A great day of drama ... love watching penalty shoot outs unless the team I am rooting or is taking part!

Yes,!! Thank you for the correction.

Germany 1-0 down to Paraguay at the moment!!! Hard to believe that it will end up that way.....

I've had one person in my life suffer from ALS. It is an experience I hope I never have to relive and I wouldn't wish that disease on anyone. There is nothing I know of that quite compares to it.

oh man, that sucks for him. Average life expectancy isn't great from diagnosis.

ALS is a cruel disease. It takes most of you away, then let's they little it leaves behind to wither away.

When it arrives, just start in on it at the correct dosage. Feel free to eat up the other stuff as well; some folks take in as much as 20g per day when doing a fast load saturation. If you're over 200 lbs, you could be taking 5-10 grams per day just fine, but I'm currently 240 lbs and still only do 5g, for now.

Of the two, between Gabriel and Sanders, I think just because of the hype around his name, Sanders brings the more attractive trade package. If nothing else, a rebuilding team could trade for him to put butts in the seats.

Sanders took more chances last year, and so he had the higher YPA. They had the same number of TDs, though, and Sanders had 5x the INTs with a terrible passer rating.
Sanders only had 10 more completions for 27 more attempts. Basically, Gabe's YPA absolutely sucked and it was straight up the OLine and WR. The reason that Shedeur had the better YPA is two things: he simply reverted to what he did behind that bad CU OLine and he took chances (offer terrible, panicked ones).

In college, the YPA metric was reversed, and because of that, I think there is a real chance that Gabriel outshines Shedeur this year.

We financially cannot absorb the cap hit of cutting him this year. He's here. All of that cap hit pushed to the future accelerates onto this year and next if we cut him (because even if we do it in August, it is a post-June 1 cut).

They were great games. We were switching back and forth between games.