purple haze

Nobody knew if Luck was coming out early either. Folks assumed he would. He never said he was. But his play kept his name at the top of the conversation. Nobody knew Newton either. His play put him at the top of the conversation with Luck. Gabbert's play wasn't that hot. He was good, but hardly top 10 good.

If I were Nix I would make that trade all day and twice on Sunday. You could get Cameron Jordan/JJ Watt, Gabe Carimi/Derek Sherrod, Akeem Ayers/Justin Houston and a QB. No brainer. And still have 3rd rounder to get an ILB. Can't beat that with a bat.

Exactly why I don't really want him. To me he's a version of Ryan Fitzpatrick with a bit more talent. Why spend a number 3 for a guy who is like the guy they already have? Draft a player who can transcend the status quo in the future not be more of the same.

They might like Gabbert, but I don't think they will take him at #3. Maybe if they traded down... Just my intuition. If it's not Newton they go defense.

RT @jsizzle215: What do u think bills best draft choices for first 2 rds are? ... Von Miller or Marcell Dareus, then the best DL in rd 2. That's a question. Schefter gives his opinion. Come on dude...

Yes he does have a good arm. He's just not accurate the deeper he throws the ball and didn't stand out in the Big 12 conference. Also the jury is out on whether he can transition from the spread offense to a pro style offense. Those are some facts. That's not to say he won't be a good pro because it's all a crap shoot. But I'm not drinking his kool-aid in the top 10. Watch his games and tell me he looks like the best player in the country.

What you fail to mention is that both guys did their job pretty well when they played. Especially Henry.

Possible first round pick and people saying Gabbert is the first pick in the draft are two very different opinions. Possible is what folks are saying about Ponder and Locker. They aren't going number one in the draft and very likely could be picked in 2nd round. Gabbert is a good player, but he doesn't stand out when you watch his games. Definitely not a guy you look at and say he's the best player in the country. Not by far.

Why does everybody think NeverGiveUp is Jim Kelly?? Strange... LoL

Don't make the mistake of believing what we see and what the organization sees will dovetail. It doesn't appear WR is a need. But on the inside, with access to people and info we would never know, they might feel they need a WR. I want the Bills to draft elite talent when given the opportunity and not draft "safe" players if that even really exists since no draftee is a guarantee to pan out. Green is elite. He's my last choice at 3, but if they took him I could understand why and wouldn't throw a fit. If Newton is there at 3, to me, Nix has to pull the trigger if him and Gailey are comfortable with him. But I think Newton is going to Carolina. My next choices: 1. Miller 2. Peterson 3. Dareus/Fairley If Bowers looks like himself at his pro day on Friday and his knee checks out, He would be in Dareus, Fairley category.

Like this strategy as well in rounds 2-7. In first round I'm more open.

No, actually that's not the truth. More whites are on welfare. And why wouldn't that be the case as whites make up the majority of the population; for the time being anyway. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974473,00.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819/ http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=152 http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/welfare01b.htm As far as the Super Bowl winning QB argument that is just ignorant for obvious reasons any thinking person can see.

Long ago he said he was joking and he doesn't care where he plays. That being said, Fairley or Miller would be good with me. And I'd prefer Miller.

The Wonderlic can be prepared for. Or so it's been said. Preparation is included in many prospects' pre-combine work. So that's why I say memorization. If one can get hold of a variety of the tests it's possible a lot of information can be memorized. Of course some information on the test is very basic and wouldn't need to be. Standardized tests, I don't believe are a good indication of ability based on various factors. Everyone doesn't have the same type of education. Parochial, private and particularly public education in this country varies wildly and in cities and rural areas kids, often times, don't get a similar educational experience. Over-crowed classrooms. Decaying facilities, out of date materials and ineffective teachers are serious problems. As well as out of control kids.I do understand that standardized tests are used to weed prospective students out and narrow the choices for admittance. I think different schools weigh it differently however. But that's not something we would necessarily be told by an institution. A standardized test won't tell one how insightful a person is on any particular topic. It won't tell one if a person can express their opinion or debate in an informative way. It won't tell one if a person is well adjusted and has the make-up to succeed in an environment where there are differing opinions and temperaments. It won't tell one if a person can adjust to criticism and use that critique to contribute something better in the future. It won't tell one if a person can lead a group of peers amongst other things. To me a person's grades and statement of purpose are more important as they speak to the person's ability to complete work at a certain level and allow the admissions officers to read, in the applicants own words, what their vision is for themselves. In that letter an admissions officer can gain insight into a students ability to present themselves, persuade, define goals and give insight into themselves and their credentials. Writing is like a signature or a fingerprint and definitely identifies a person in a certain way. To me that should be looked at before any results of a standardized test. All that tells me is a student knows a lot of information. It doesn't tell me how they can use it, if they can use it at all.

The probably won't be. The blue logo stands out more against a red or white background. And red is more striking than white. I think the red hat is simply about contrast with the logo and visual appeal.

That belief started well before the wonderlic scores became public. And there was no accurate basis for it then and there still isn't. I disagree. Change the information on the test and see how they do. Memorization of random knowledge doesn't make one intelligent at all. If you can tell me what shape X is = to or any other equation so what? Gabbert got 40 or so on the test and he has low pocket awareness. How does knowing the value of a shape help with that problem? Or the fact that his throws down the field lack accuracy? And how does that tell us how one would navigate through life in general? It's great that people do well on the test, but it's just a test with info that someone thinks is important for whatever reason. I can make up a test that you might not do well on. Wouldn't make you less intelligent. There could be reasons you didn't do well, from you might not be a good test taker, to you weren't exposed to some of the information within the test for whatever reason, to you didn't prepare well enough. I happen to have two college degrees and was accepted into a 2nd Master's program not long ago. SAT and GRE scores? Far from great; In fact they were bad when compared to the national average at those times. Had my scores been released to the public I'm sure many people would have said, "unintelligent". However, that wouldn't necessarily make it true. One doesn't know someone's intelligence unless they are around the person. That would give one a truer indication.

Newton. Go back and watch his games. Then go watch Gabbert's games. You tell me who the difference maker is. Not just running, but throwing. NEITHER of them had to read defenses in college the way the will have to learn to in the pros. So I don't know why the pro Gabbert supporters overlook that fact. If the Bills took Gabbert I would trust Nix and Gailey. But I don't think they are that crazy to overlook what the tape will tell them. The draft isn't about personalities. It's about talent. It's about future possibility. Don't like Newton's personality? So what. Newton has size, athleticism and arm strength. He can play the game. And he's already demonstrated his ability to lead teams to the ultimate goal. He went to JUCO and won a title then earned the starting job at Auburn and dominated there too. That took a lot of work. He had to work his way back up from the bottom and he did that. He also demonstrated an ability to play under adversity. And he played well; better and better each week. What other QB in the draft has proven that capability? The other QB's will be found out about when they hit the NFL field. We already know Newton can perform under pressure. I'm glad the draft isn't up to some Bills fans. Small thinking is Buffalo, NY's main problem. It's why bridges are talked about for years and never built. It's why that property goldmine in waiting, the waterfront, is still not fully developed. And the same small thinking would choose Blaine Gabbert, who DIDN'T stand out at Mizzou. Who DIDN'T dominate his competition in the Big 12. The same guy who refused to throw at the combine because he wants to play draft games. Take him why? Because he has no character flags that anyone knows about? Because he doesn't want to be an icon? Whatever. Go big or go home. Go back to ESPN or SI.com or Foxsports and call up their headlines from October to December. Tell me how many featured Gabbert. Maybe one. Because he wasn't that hot. The game tape doesn't lie. Take Newton if they take a QB at #3. If not, take Von Miller or Pat Peterson. Bills need elite athletes and playmakers on this team. Keep that feel good, he's a good guy, he "fits" in BS. It's time for this organization and Buffalo, NY to take their place at the top and that's done with big thinking, risk taking and elite talent that can possibly transcend over time. There are no guarantees in life. That's no reason to not try.

Miller played OLB last season. DE the year before that.

It's not crap at all. Everybody is different, but I haven't met the naturally thin person who puts on the girth you describe. Unless, as I said, they were taking steroids. Which is a different discussion. All of these players work out. They are professionals. It's part of what they do. Why is that a Jairus Byrd weighs 210 and not 280? Why does Spiller weigh 200 and not 250? They lift weights more than the average person. Could it be they have maximized their natural frame? They CAN get stronger without getting much bigger. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. You speak of lifting. Do you perform any cardio? Can you move well? Are you quick? Are you flexible? Being strong and big is one thing. Being strong and big and able to move quickly, with speed and flexibility is something else altogether. Maybin being 280 and slow does him no good either.

They are working him out this weekend in Missouri. But his game tape isn't amazing. If you've ever watched his games, he looks like a good player. Number one pick in the draft? Not even close.

Is he? Maybe he just doesn't take tests well. Maybe the test isn't a true indicator of intelligence. He doesn't seem to have any problems being understood. This is just one interview. There are many more. Be careful assuming anything about anyone's intelligence based off a test. Just because one gets a good score on a test doesn't necessarily make them intelligent. Change the subject of the test, change other dynamics of the test maybe they will do better or not as well. Maybe he blew off the test. Who knows.

Anyone CAN get bigger, but that is all relative. He can work out like a fiend and drink protein shakes and eat steaks all day. If he doesn't have the frame to carry weight (girth) he won't get that much bigger. He will get bigger in relation to his natural frame. It's becoming apparent he was never meant to be a bulky man. It doesn't mean he's not working out hard or eating right. LOOK at the dude. He obviously works out. And I'm sure eats pretty well. How 'bout this reality? He just doesn't have the frame to be 250 or more, consistently. Simple as that. He can get a nutritionist if he doesn't already have one and they can feed him specialized diets, but unless they include growth hormones or other drugs it will only go so far. Is that what you all would prefer? If Maybin is just eating and working out naturally then his body will be what it was meant to be. He's probably as big as he can get naturally. Don't forget part of his workouts, I'm sure, include heavy cardio activities which won't help keep weight on either. He's a naturally "thin for the position he plays" guy. He was never meant to carry a lot of girth.

This is something we all should keep in mind when reading about Pro Days or any other piece of draft information: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/17/on-writing-about-a-pro-day-without-actually-being-there/

I'm glad he did well on his pro day and he's a good prospect, but watching Gabbert in actual games he didn't stand out. There was nothing special about him. He was good, but an impact player? Not really.

Shouldn't be any comparisons between them anyway. NOT the same player/leader. And the wonderlic is pretty meaningless anyway. High scores don't mean a QB will be successful any more than a lower score indicates that they won't be. Vince Young got a 9, has maturity issues, not a great leader and STILL has a winning record as a starting QB in the NFL. Fitz scored 48 and doesn't have a winning record as a starter on any team he's been on. Chad Pennington scored 25? He was a finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship. Wonderlic is a bunch of random information. Change the info and people who didn't do as well could do better or vice versa.