San Jose Bills Fan

Great, great football player. That scouting report was pretty fair. It said that he had trouble disengaging from blocks but should have restated that he's almost never blocked. This guy weaves through traffic and fakes out blockers constantly. It's really an amazing thing. I thought Mason Foster did some of the same things last year but he's nowhere near as good as David, IMO. This guy would be a weapon and I think he would create all sorts of havoc.

No, I saw the same thing you and everyone else saw, which was not much. But it seems the brass really likes the kid or at least they seem strongly committed to giving him every opportunity. They had him at the Senior Bowl and it seems like they see something in Shep. On a tangent, the new regime really hasn't cut one of their own highly-drafted players yet. They cut ties with Wang pretty quickly but he was a 5th rounder. There may come a day where they finally cannibalize one of their own. It's still early for that I guess. But Carrington and Troup have to show something this year. It's really make or break for those guys.

On the other hand, if the Bills moved down 5 spots and came away with a player they ranked as good as their 10th best player (in other words, if they had 10-15 ranked evenly)… and they could pick up an extra 3rd, why not? You always want to get as much as possible but what if the bottom line on the trade is that it helps the team? Very good!

LOL. Don't forget the keys to the city.

Easy now or you'll take the sail out of our winds. Remember when his schwaunz was captured on television inadvertently? That was funny.

So my idea of an impromptu Vegas weekend is a bad bet?

I think there's a good chance that Gilmore is the pick. If he's as good as everyone is saying, I'd be alright with taking him. If he is he'd go straight into the starting lineup and upgrade the position. With the new pass rush, you want as many ball athletes in the defensive backfield as you can find. Rush the passer and cover his targets. Create pass game turnovers.

Yes but I'll bet that the majority of the players would rather not be tested for marijuana. Besides that it's a policy because the league and the owners want it that way while the players don't want to take a PR hit by using pot use as a bargaining chip in the CBAs. The players would rather bargain for other things. Actually the best time to have eliminated pot from the list of tested substances would have been this last CBA when the players traded income growth in exchange for better working conditions. But again, weed is not a good bargaining chip from a PR standpoint and the players won big concessions in their working schedules (shorter work year, fewer offseason activities, fewer practices in pads, etc) which is undoubtedly a higher priority for them. If anything, pot acceptance is going in the other direction… for the longest time the NBA did not include marijuana or any recreational drugs in their policy. They only tested for performance-enhancing drugs. It's only fairly recent history (1998?) that they started testing for pot. Anyways, there were estimates before their new drug policy that 70% of NBA players used marijuana. Marijuana has a very medicinal and healing quality to it. It also heightens the self-awareness of one's own body. There are many legitimate medicinal and healing uses for marijuana, especially for a pro athlete, or a construction worker, or anyone who has a physically demanding job. Anyways, HAPPY 420 EVERYONE!!!

Brian Urlacher is 6'4" and 260… although he was such a rangy athlete (and still is) that he was a safety in college. The people comparing Kuechly to Urlacher are wrong, IMO. I don't see that much similarity in their games. Urlacher is a better natural athlete AND a bigger man. As for Sheppard, the Bills staff coached him at the Senior Bowl. They had him all of last year and they're STILL high on the guy. Maybe they know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Good stuff. Didn't the Raiders just sign a tight end prospect who hadn't played college football? I think it was a guy who played basketball in college. Maybe I missed it but I don't remember the article stating Brown's height and weight.

Again, sorry for the early snippiness. I suppose one could make that argument. As you know the counter-argument could also be made, that Newton was a rookie who because of the lockout was deprived of all the offseason workouts, organized team activities, and minicamps. Having an offseason to study up could very well offset the ability for teams to game plan for him. It should be fun to watch. I think he'll take another positive step in his development.

Moreover, he was told not to wear orange unless he didn't mind losing hundreds of thousands of dollars… possibly even a million dollars… and he still wore orange. I'm not sure if this is more of an indictment of his judgement or his intelligence.

His own jock or Kuekly's?

Sorry to offend you. Bill inquired as to my point and I guess I got a bit superfluous. My apologies. I was very curious on your Nixley take and I didn't view your comments as an attack on him/them. I did want to know what your position was on the current regime because as I stated before, besides a brief criticism, you don't often expound on a viewpoint. It seems that you're saying that you're taking a wait and see attitude but that you aren't convinced that the present regime is beyond making another Maybin error. I guess the third year will make things clearer. Be that as it may (I never use that expression but it seems fitting), everyone knows the main ingredient in an NFL QB's success is what's between his ears. Pretty clearly Mayock didn't think Newton had it upstairs as far as reading defenses (intellect) or his desire and motivation. Bottom line, Mayock was most likely very wrong about Newton. Love Mayock but many people here seem to treat his opinions as gospel.

Thanks. I haven't seen him play football since what you aptly described as a magical season. So I haven't seen him in the context of NFL players. I knew he wasn't huge but I didn't know he had a slight frame.

McNabb too nice of a guy? He always struck me as a phony. JMO. Disagree with you about McNabb over Kelly. But I agree with your Pittsburgh take. Besides all the talent you mentioned around Bradshaw, he also had a HOF running back and a couple HOF offensive linemen. I think those Pittsburgh teams could have won a few Super Bowls with Gary Marangi at quarterback. Totally spot on, Buftex. Before reading your post I was gonna say that McNabb was incredible (at least to me) early in his career. I had never seen a quarterback play like a point guard before. His improvisational skills and ability to break down the defense using his instincts and athleticism were something I'd never seen before. The infamous Super Bowl loss to New England seemed to be a turning point. To me it was an epic failure and instead of answering his critics and coming back better (AND FITTER) he seemed to get worse every year until the sad last few years. I thought that McNabb could have been a Hall of Famer but at the critical moment in his career he came up short and the rest of his career after that was an anticlimax. No for McNabb in the HOF… but yes for Warner, IMO.

Anyways while most of the top prospects are counting down the hours till the draft, Mike Adams is presumably counting down the hours till 420. Who's "they?"

What is your prediction for Coby Fleener or that linebacker with the kookie name?

I ain't gonna touch this one with a ten foot pole. But if I were you I'd push my luck. Tell her that you and your buddies are planning a Vegas trip. Sounds like you smashed through the window of opportunity and took some of the wall out, too.

Did you HAVE TO say that?

That's good to know.

Thank you!

Great post, Cash.

He was way off on Cam Newton. It wasn't till about a week before the draft that he moved Newton up ahead of Jake Locker… but still behind Gabbert. In fact I believe Cam Newton didn't make Mayock's Top 20 prospects. I like Mayock too but too many people around here treat his word like gospel.

Awesome quote, Lurker. That does clear things up a bit. I interpret that clarification to mean (and again it's still guessing) that they are not leaning towards offensive tackle at #10. Thanks for the link, too.