VOR

Amazing, isn't it?

It's easy if you try.

Apparently so too is AKC.

Depends. Would the average bear know to use "you're" and not "your?" And yes, you won the battle (mainly because I forgot to say "rookie" non-1st round RB last year...), but you lost the war with your inane "it's worthless to draft a RB in the first round..." But feel free to celebrate your hollow victory over a comped beer and how it signifies that you're smart AND important.

LOL! Well, since you seem to enjoy prodding the bear... Yes Westbrook was 3rd in rushing yards last year and Parker was 4th. But who were 1st and 2nd and what round were they drafted in? And why stop at the top 4 (FYI that's a rhetorical question because I know why)? Why not tell me in what round the RB's from 5th-11th were drafted? So among the top 11 (since you used top-4) RB's last year, 9 were former 1st rounders, 1 was a 3rd rounder, and 1 was an UDFA. So your conclusion that it's a waste to draft a RB in the 1st is...what?

Not to worry. The Fins "improved much more" than the Bills did over the off-season in other areas. They won't need a QB.

You mean the Patriots, who drafted a RB in the 1st round a couple years ago? If I could assure myself of hitting with lower round RB's, I'd obviously go that route. The problem is, you can't. Tell me how many non-1st round RB's last year did anything noteworthy?

Obviously a great O-line helps, although the Ravens, from whom both Holmes and Taylor came, were no slouches in those departments, and those players didn't do nearly as well there (while Jamal Lewis did). Some players get better with age.

Actually, it's not. While it's easy to say "you can find a RB in the rounds past the 1st round," the hard part is FINDING one. Running backs taken in the 1st round have a much higher rate of success than those taken later. This is tantamount to saying that you don't need to waste a 1st rounder on an OL because you can find them in later rounds, and they take time to develop.

I was going to respond to krazy's post on this, but you beat me to it. How anyone can claim that salaries "have levelled-off" since the 2002 is beyond explanation.

There has been very little news about her. She reportedly was allowed to walk to the ambulance, was treated at a local ER by receiving seven stitches to her hip, and released within a few hours. There has been no report of what part of the car she struck (I've heard it was the sideview mirror), whether she was drinking that night, and what her "other injuries" are. But the bottom line, whether she was drunk and/or walked into the car or not, is she got hit by Lynch's car and deserves some sort of compensation.

I expect that all but McKelvin will be signed before camp, with McKelvin signing a day after it opens.

Yeah, he got it prior to 2006. He played RT for more than half of 2005 and almost half of 2006 before switching to LT.

I agree, and the Bills should have done this WELL before it got to the point of Peters skipping OTA's and mini-camp. They did it with Schobel, and later with Williams and Butler, and the latter 2 aren't near Peters' caliber and haven't been starting as long.

When these guys get their $100M and they've still underperformed their contracts, then we'll talk. Until then, we'll see what effect an inept OC, rookie QB and rookie RB had on the offense.

Versus an "unverified claim" alert? I'm still waiting to hear about all these starting quality backup LT's teams have. Or how Hardy couldn't beat the jam or get separation in college.

Maybe at the end of the season, if the DL struggles again. All of the DT's will see plenty of time.

I'd have no problem with the Bills losing leverage with players who come off All-Pro seasons. And giving him a deal now, a year before the next round of free agency hits and contracts skyrocket again, might not cost the Bills much more than if they wait, and it will make Peters feel better.

Name the teams who do. Now.

Baby steps. Getting into the playoffs, however it happens, will be a good thing. And that wasn't the first year the Fins made the playoffs under JJ. It was another year of more of the same.

Nevermind. I should have kept it at "we'll agree to disagree and see how the season plays out."

Exactly. Even a 7-win season (again) would be grounds for dismissal. There is more talent on this team than Adam is willing to admit.

You obviously didn't follow the team back then. After the 2001 season, the team played half their games in Champlain in 2002 and lost a ton of players to injury. Then after the season, new GM Jerry Angelo let 2 of their best defensive players, Colvin and Washington, leave and signed no one good in FA (Kordell Stewart was their big name FA, if that tells you anything). As would be expected, Jauron was fired after a 7-9 2003 season, which still represented an improvement over the 4-12 season in 2002. Basically Angelo wanted Jauron gone and made it a self-fulfilling prophesy. And any talk of his record as a head coach with the hapless Lions is moot. Now this isn't to say that Jauron is a great head coach. But to claim he had "tons of talent" and/or a great situation in Chicago is flat-out wrong.

6-10? Last year, despite 17 injuries, a rookie QB and RB, significant FA losses and a harder schedule, they went 7-9. What 10 teams do you see them losing to this year? Where are the major holes left to be filled?

I agree that it was classless. The response should have been "I'm a Bills fan, but wasn't a fan of your cousin, but thanks for asking" and then walking away. I agree that the cousin showed restraint by not swearing at mac, although anything physical would have been equally inappropriate.