SDS

to where we talked about previously?

yikes. I need to be coached up?

I was riveting... haha

Never learn what? Rob Johnson is now the gold standard of all backup QB situations? All of the other counter examples should be dismissed?

Don't forget 16 interceptions that bounce off his hands...

!@#$ me. Did you really ask, in a pinned thread, titled NFL Draft Tie-Breaking Procedures why this was the case?

TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION MEETING Clubs not participating in the playoffs shall select in the first through 20th positions in reverse standings order. The Super Bowl winner is last and Super Bowl loser is next-to-last. The losers of the Conference Championship games shall select 29th and 30th based on won-lost-tied percentage. The losers of the Divisional playoff games shall select 25th through 28th based on won-lost-tied percentage. The losers of the Wild Card games shall select 21st through 24th based on won-lost-tied percentage. If ties exist in any grouping except (2) above, such ties shall be broken by strength-of-schedule. If any ties cannot be broken by strength-of-schedule, the divisional or conference tie-breakers, if applicable, shall be applied. Any ties that still exist shall be broken by a coin flip.

Big deal. That happened to me yesterday when I left my socks in the living room.

I hate it because it is a distinction without a difference. I don't think you need to spin the data, it is damning enough without trying to manufacture what their intentions were. Who was Detroits QB in 1983? Maybe the Bills were confident Kelly would be there? I also think in 2004 we would have drafted a QB other than Losman if he fell to us. Agree?

Yeah, we should redo it and draft Cam. !@#$ing brilliant.

That's not the way it works.

I don't ever remember seeing this issue discussed, but this seems back-asswards to me. Let's say Miami beats the Bills this weekend and then both teams lose out. Both teams end the season 5-11 and therefore strength of schedule determines draft order. However, look what happens. Miami defeats the Bills twice, thereby LOWERING their SoS by making their opponent worse. The Bills lose twice to Miami and therefore RAISE their SoS number. So, the act of beating the Bills twice raises Miami's chance of holding the tie-breaker against them in the draft. That seems.... wrong.

What, they just can't say "Michael Irvin" now?

There are like 6 teams ahead of us that need QB's too. We ain't getting squat in Rd1 for QB.

I have to say - I truly despise the semantics of this argument (DD used it too). Kelly was drafted two picks after Hunter. Making a distinction between picking a QB at 14 instead of 12 is just game of words. Likewise, you could say they "drafted" Johnson with the #9 pick or Bledsoe with whatever # that pick was. You can say your original claim is a fact, but it is one without context and it is more than disingenuous.

We have a baseball forum?

That is not an answerable question. It is all in the specifics as I detailed previously. If John went off on you in such a manner, not by questioning your particular opinion on a specific subject, but questioning your very livelihood and how you perform your job, then well, I suspect John would own his words and wouldn't care if reminded of them. Then again, I don't think John would express himself like that to a fellow poster. Which is really the point. Again, neither John nor PTR has a problem with this. I suspect no one else really should either.

____________?

bump.

but maybe that's the issue...

Not that my opinion matters here, but PTR's original post wasn't a one-off post. He beats the anti-media drum pretty fervently. The one in question was especially over-the-top offensive to anyone in the industry and it called John out by name. I have no problem with John bringing it up. John is a member of the community here and he has a right to respond. I also appreciate PTR's response in that he said he owns those words. It seems to me a more level-headed criticism would not have evoked this response, but it is what it is. If neither has a problem with it, then I don't see the problem either...

These 70,80,90/100k seat stadiums are a tribute to days gone by. With more and more people enjoying the game from home. Ticket prices becoming out of control, maybe new stadiums should be 25-35k high-priced seats? These would be cheaper to make, they would guarantee your sell-outs and maximize TV viewing... Do we really need stadiums the size of what we currently have?

I use the "hard C" when I pronounce this?

I can't believe I never connected those dots.

Run to the Hills - Iron Maiden There is more adrenaline in that song than you could ever want.