ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

The Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL govern territorial rights for existing franchises. That document typically gets amended at the annual league meetings every year. The most recent version I have been able to find on-line is the 2006 revision. You can read it at this link (if you have a couple days of free time): http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf See Article IV (starts at page 12), entitled "Territorial Rights." It defines the "Home Territory" of the Bills as the geographic area within 75 miles in every direction from the corporate limits of the City of Buffalo. I don't claim to be familiar with the entire Constitution and Bylaws document, but it spells out the rights of each franchise within its "Home Territory." Just my opinion, but I don't see why any owner of the Bills (current or future) would be required to pay any type of relocation fee to have the Bills play in any stadium that is located within 75 miles (as the crow flies) from any part of the City of Buffalo. Seems like there is a compelling argument that if the Bills play in the Rogers Center, or any future stadium built on Canadian soil that is also within 75 miles of any part of Buffalo, the Bills are still playing in the same "Home Territory" that they have always played in. Again, just my opinion, but this seems to give any Toronto bidders a bit of an advantage in any future bidding war for the Bills' franchise. Somebody who wants to buy the Bills and move them anywhere that is more thsn 75 miles outside the Buffalo city limits will be required to pay a franchise relocation fee. A Toronto bidder who wants the team to play in the Rogers Center, or any future new stadium within 75 miles of Buffalo, won't have to pay that fee if I am interpreting the document correctly. Anybody have a logical rationale for a different interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws document? I don't know if the "Territorial Rights" provision has been amended since 2006, but it seems unlikely. It appears to have survived from 1970 through 2006 intact. I would hate to see the Bills move, but the NFL Constitution and Bylaws document seems to govern any current or future team owner's rights with respect to franchise territory.

Sounds to me like you're big enough to play tuba in the Rose Parade! The lyrics in this music video are a hoot!

At the link papazoid already provided: http://as-camps.com/testimonials/

For me, it's a question of HOW you reach higher. Taking a QB at #3 is a reasonable approach if you believe that the guy will eventually be great. But Fitz is a serviceable QB for now. In general, QBs get too much credit when a team wins, and take too much blame when a team loses. Gailey has a reputation for getting the most out of whatever QB you give him - - based partly on what he got out of Thigpen in KC. Why not take advantage of that coaching strength, and allocate our limited draft pick resources to positions of greater need? We have a defensive coordinator who may or may not have a clue. I'd rather give him the stud #3 and #34 picks for the front 7, because unlike Gailey with QBs, he may need a stud front 7 player to make the 2011 defense effective. Same with the OL - - our OL coach may need a stud ROT to make the OL effective in 2011. And if we don't draft a QB at #3, we are in a very favorable position to trade down with AZ at #5 or some other team in the top 10 that wants to leapfrog Cincy to draft a QB. If we can do that, we can use an extra relatively high pick to grab a ROT. So yeah, my plan for 2011 would be Fitz, Thigpen and Brown at QB, with our first two picks going to front 7 defenders (plus a ROT if we get a chance to trade down from #3). When I eventually do draft a QB to replace Fitz, I want him to be behind an OL that won't get him killed. If Fitz gets killed this year, Thigpen would be a serviceable insurance policy. And because he presumably would have a relatively short learning curve to pick up the offense of a coach who was previously his OC, Thigpen would be an especially good choice for back-up QB this year. Delay in getting the next CBA signed might greatly shorten the time our back-up QB, whoever he winds up being, has to learn Gailey's offense for the 2011 season.

It's conceivable. We got Spiller and Cordero Howard because Gailey liked what he saw in person at Ga. Tech. Gailey got better than expected results from Tyler Thigpen at KC. Although nobody is focusing on free agency yet, there is a reasonable chance that Thigpen, most recently with Miami, will be a free agent when the next CBA is eventually signed, per this link: http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2011/03/miami-dolphins-place-tender-on-tyler-thigpen.html Assuming the Bills don't take a QB at #3 or #34, and you're Thigpen, would you rather try to compete with 2nd round pick Chad Henne in Miami, or with former 7th round pick Fitz in Buffalo where the head coach is a guy who previously had you start? I know that the lock-out rules now prevent player-coach contact, but maybe Thigpen or his agent break the rules to see if Gailey has any interest. I can see Thigpen as a free agent signing to back up Fitz. If that happens, we either keep Levi Brown as #3 or replace him with a late round developmental project Gailey likes better. Personally, I don't think we know yet what Brown can do. I've read he was drafted because of his raw physical tools, and in limited action he looks like he's got a gun. If we have a preseason, let's see how much he learned in a year before we go get another raw tools guy.

1. Cameron Jordan 2. Cameron Heyward 3. Jordan Cameron Play 'em all at the same time, and hope to create some confusion.

I don't know if the NFL considered it, but there is some evidence that terrorists sometimes plan anniversary date attacks to "celebrate" earlier ones. Perhaps not the most authoritative link, but it discusses the phenomenon: http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Terrorism_and_Anniversaries.htm Maybe the NFL didn't want to create a tempting anniversary date target in the NYC area when there was no need to do so - - if you're living in a cave in Afghanistan you might not realize such a game would actually be played in New Jersey.

Best guess - - Nix is thinking that Cincy and AZ might not be willing to part with the draft picks necessary to either trade up to #2 (letting Dareus fall to us) or trade up to #3 (letting us still get a stud front 7 guy), especially if Cincy and AZ think that they can still get a serviceable QB prospect near the top of round 2. But if he can make Cincy and AZ believe that ALL of the top 6 QBs are off the board by then, they are more likely to trade up to #2 or #3. Less likely possibility - - Ralph has told Nix to take a QB at #3 and Nix has already come up with rational-sounding explanation for why he didn't go front 7 defender at #3 and then pick a QB at #34. I really hope it's the Cincy/AZ bluff theory.

I don't know anything about his efforts to diversify use of the stadium, but I think he's probably only getting to keep TV revenue if the NFL season is played. It doesn't get as much publicity as the Brady antitrust suit involving the lockout, but there is a separate lawsuit pending in Minnesota federal court involving the NFL's renegotiation of TV broadcast contracts. Judge Doty already decided that the NFL breached a contractual duty of good faith to the players when the NFL renegotiated TV broadcast contracts to ensure that certain TV revenues would be received by the NFL even if NFL games were cancelled because the players were later locked out. See pages 5 and 21 of Judge Doty's March 1. 2011 opinion and order, signed about 10 days before the lock-out started, at this link: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/4:1992cv00906/57169/675/ The "Historical Context" section of the opinion at pages 3-5 gives an overview of events that have happened since 1992. What I found most interesting was the opinion's finding about why the NFL renegotiated the TV broadcast contracts. Judge Doty says that the NFL was concerned that the NFL's lenders could declare that an "event of default" had occurred if the NFL owners later locked out the players and did not receive TV broadcast revenues as a result. I'm no business loan expert, but it seems at least possible to me that the terms of an NFL loan (which I have not seen) would give the lending bank the right, when an event of default occurs, to call the loan making the full amount owed by the NFL immediately due and payable. Also, note that Judge Doty's 3/1/11 order (at the very last page of the above link), requires that a hearing be held to consider the players' request for injunctive relief and monetary damages caused by the NFL's breach of the White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, as amended in 1993, 1996, 2002 and 2006. I suspect the NFL and Jerrah will easily find the funds needed to pay any damage award and repay any outstanding loans, but I don't think they will be doing it with broadcast TV revenues if the 2011 season isn't played. The OP's thought was projecting what might happen if the 2011 season doesn't get played (even if you think that's unlikely).

This is just my 2 cents - - WEO cna be both stuuborn and abrasive at times (we all have our warts, including me), but he's not totally illogical, and although I haven't tried to verify his math, I'll take his word for it about the calculations he did. There are a lot of links posted in this thread that I admittedly have not read yet (and real life is about to intrude on my Bills' addiction for a few days), so I'm a little hesitant to post. So somebody help me out here - - why does the SI link talk about 52.9 % of "incremental revenue" instead of just "revenue" or "total revenue" or "all revenue?" 52.9% of the DELTA over a four year period could be a far different number than whatever the percentage would be of total revenue in a single year. I/m not saying WEO's right, but the "incremental" adjective in the part of the SI link you quoted leaves me unconvinced that you've proved him wrong. Maybe the remainder of the article does. Again, if the answer is in the previously quoted links my apologies. I just don't have time to read 'em today. I'll check back here in a few days. Thanks in advance for any answers.

Interesting questions that I did not know the answers to, so I decided to see what I could find. Turns out that as a result of a three way deal between the County, the State and the Bills in 1998, there are several related documents, including the Stadium Lease, available at this Erie County website: http://www.erie.gov/billslease/stadium.phtml Based on a very quick review - - the documents are lengthy - - it looks like the County leased the stadium to the Empire State Development Corporation (the "ESDC"), and the ESDC in turn sub=leased the stadium to the Bills. The ESDC doesn't pay rent to the County, but provided $63,250,000 to refurbish and renovate the stadium, which the County owns. The Bills' obligation to pay rent to ESDC is described below. The copy of the Stadium Lease has a few unfilled blanks, but my guess is that it is otherwise accurate. The text of the document includes a requirement at Article 30.13 that it be recorded in the real property records of Erie County, so if that provision survived in the document that was actually signed, there should be a copy of the fully signed lease available to the public at the Erie County Recorder's office just like recorded property deeds are. I can't think of any reason why the County would post an inaccurate copy of the lease on its website. The rent provision is at Article 3. It requires that the Bills pay 1/2 of "Net Ticket Revenue" (as defined in the Stadium Lease) to the ESDC, but only if and to the extent that "Net Ticket Revenue" exceeds "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" (as also defined in the Stadium Lease). The County website has no info about what the "NFL Average Net Ticket Revenue" is, but based on the chart in this link recently posted by papazoid: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl it seems likely that the Bills have never had to actually pay any rent under the terms of this Stadium Lease. BTW, there's some interesting stuff at Articles 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Stadium Lease about what would happen if RW sold the franchise.

Maybe if I was sleep deprived enough and had finished doing my taxes - but hey, I can be a little twisted at times. Seriously, though, I need more information to answer your question: 1. What position is Ralph playing? 2. Ralph is wearing more than just shoulder pads, right, or do you have to be over 18 to get in? 3. Is the TN owner who flipped the bird at the Bills sideline that time also playing? 4. Do I have to cross the Peace Bridge to get there? 5. We're talking AMERICAN football here, not that sissy European "football" stuff that the rest of the world watches, right? 6. Outside on grass, like what I like to call the OldFL, or inside on artificial turf? 7. If Ralph plays well enough to get elected to the NewFL Hall of Fame, who's gonna fact check his induction speech?

I actually find the example posed by New Era pretty thought-provoking. What WOULD it take to trade up from #32 to #1? - - More about that in a minute. It's pretty easy for all the arm-chair expert GMs around here to give an instantaneous off-the-cuff reaction to a hypothetical trade, and do it not only without trying to look up what draft pick trades have been made in the past for reference, but in many cases without even reading the full text of the OP. There's room for intelligent debate about the extent to which the draft value chart can be used to predict what draft picks a team could probably get for trading down in the first round. Don't believe me? Read this link: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/2/21/2004303/dispelling-myths-about-nfl-draft-trades I haven't tried to fact check the author's work, but the article makes a pretty compelling case for how the draft value chart is surprisingly accurate in predicting what you can get in return for trading down, at least where the trade down is one with some sort of historical reference point. In other words, with a few exceptions, pretty much all of the draft pick trades THAT ARE ACTUALLY MADE do seem to fall reasonably close to what the chart predicts as fair value. New Era makes a good case for the values at the top of the chart being "whack" - - so much so that lots of us took whacks at him. In a different thread, he posted an even more comprehensive article that accumulated 16 years of draft pick trades. Here's the link: http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/04/nfl-draft-pick-trade-history.html So based on 16 years of empirical data, what WOULD it take to move up from #32 to #1? Not immediately obvious, because at least for the 16 year period from 1992 to 2008, nobody EVER moved up to #1 from anywhere close to as low as #32. Opinions are like noses - - everybody has one (that's the PG-rated version). Here's some actual facts based on the 16 years of real trade data: 1. The biggest trade down from #1 overall was a move back of only five slots, down to #6. The down-trading team got picks 6, 67, 102 and 207 in return. 2. The two biggest jumps from a starting point in the first round to obtain a single higher pick were: (a) From #30 to #10 - - the down trading team got 30, 94, 119 and the next year's first rounder in return; and (b) From #26 to #8 - - the down trading team got 26, 71, 89, and 125 in return Over the 16 years of actual data, nobody jumped all the way from #32 to #1. So let's see if we can figure out what it would take to put together a series of trades to accomplish the same thing. To avoid arguments about what next year's first rounder might be worth, let's include 2(b) above along the way - - a move back of 18 slots. 3. Here's an actual trade to add to the series: (a) From #6 to #8 - - the down trading team got 8 and 104 in return. 4. So what would it take to make the final trade down from #26 to #32? Closest actual trade in the data is this: (a) From #25 to #32 - - the down trading team got 32, 96 and 129 in return. Summary - - so if you model the hypothetical trade posed by New Era with a series of ACTUAL trade downs in smaller steps instead of 1 giant leap, here's the sequence of steps. Step 1 - Give up #1 to get 6, 67, 102 and 207; Step 2 - Give up newly acquired #6 to get 8 and 104 - - you now have 8, 67, 102, 104 and 207; Step 3 - Give up newly acquired # 8 to get 26, 71, 89 and 125 - - you now have 26, 67, 71, 89, 102, 104, 125 and 207; I don't have an actual trade data point to get from #26 to #32, but I do have a trade from #25 to #32. Using it will VERY slightly overstate what you get from the series of smaller trade downs, but not by much. Let's assume that it's the same: Step 4 - Give up newly acquired #26 to get 32, 96 and 129. Here's what you wind up with: 32, 67, 71, 89, 96, 102, 104, 125, 129 and 207 Here's the same list with the round in parenthesis (assuming 32 picks per round with no compensatory picks to screw up my math): 32(1), 67(3), 71(3), 89(3), 96(3), 102(4), 104(4), 125(4), 129(5) and 207(7). That's admittedly less than two full drafts, but it's quite a bit more than one full draft. Now you can snipe at this all you want - I'm combining trades from different years, I had to assume that #26 = #25, there would not be that many players worth trading up for in a single year, etc. But maybe the reason nobody trades up from #32 to #1 is because (i) it really would take a huge number of picks, and (ii) no GM who wants to keep his cushy job is willing to risk trading his entire draft for a guy who turns out to be the next Ryan Leaf or Tony Mandarich (I know that neither was taken #1 overall, but they were close). Anyway, seems to me like there's plenty of room for debate about just how useful the draft pick trade value chart really is. I can already feel the love.

Personally, if I was the GM, I would probably not trade my 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks to move up from 8 or 9 to #3. There are too many examples of college players that were labeled "Can't Miss" who later wound up being labeled "Can't Play," and nobody knows who they ALL are in advance. I was pretty happy we drafted OT Mike Williams at (#4?) on draft day, but that didn't turn out so well. I would have felt worse if we had given up a lot of other picks to move up to #4 to get him. But I can see how some people might make such a trade, especially if they thought they were on the verge of making a deep play-off run if they could just fill a particular hole on their roster. On the other hand, if I was looking to trade down, I wouldn't care too much if I got as much value in return as the chart says I should get. As long as I could trade down and still get the player I most wanted to fill a position of need, I'd try to squeeze as much out of my trading partner as possible. But in the end, I'd be jazzed about getting the player I wanted and one or more extra picks. I'd be especially inclined to trade down if there were several players who appeared to have roughly equal ability at the position I needed. I think you're right about how the value of a given pick should vary from year to year depending on what player is available at that spot. Seems to me like it should also depend on how big the drop off is from the BPA at a given position to the next best player at that same position, and how many teams want to draft a player at that same position. That will change from year to year, too. That's why I'm surprised by how often the trade value chart appears to be a roughly accurate predictor of what a given draft pick is likely to fetch in trade. Regardless of how we logically analyze the situation, though, the empirical data shows that the chart is USUALLY a fairly accurate predictor of what you can get in return for trading down. Thanks for the link - it's an interesting accumulation of draft pick trade data. The way they are listed makes it easy to see what other teams have gotten in the past for trading down out of any particular spot, like down from our #3 this year.

Just like a lot of coaches use the same chart to determine whether to go for 2 point conversions, I think a lot of front offices use the draft pick trade value chart to get at least a rough sense of whether a proposed trade is fair. But who cares what I think - - what does the actual history of draft pick trades show? You may think the chart is hogwash, but the article at the link below makes a pretty compelling case that the chart gives a reasonably accurate estimate of what a team might be able to get in return for trading down (at least for trading down in the first round and getting only draft picks from the same year in return): http://www.buffaloru...fl-draft-trades I suppose one weakness in the article's analysis is that there haven't been a great number of trade downs from as high as pick #3 so the data is a little sparse, but overall I was pretty surprised at how often actual trades were made at close to what the draft chart predicts as fair value. You could also make a case for the idea that the chart requires teams looking to trade up to give up more to get there than the value of what they get in return- - but that doesn't mean teams don't use the chart. The data analyzed in the article seems to indicate that teams do in fact use the chart. Whether it makes sense is a totally separate issue. I can also see how it would be pretty useful to have some sort of trade value chart to help you quickly analyze proposed trades when you are on the clock and almost out of time to make your pick when a trade offer comes in on your war room phone. Jimmie Johnson is widely credited with creating the chart, but if you read the comments posted at the above link, apparently some people think it was somebody else in the Dallas organization when JJ was the head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league, and it isn't run by rocket scientists. Just like a lot of coaches use the same chart to determine whether to go for 2 point conversions, I think a lot of front offices use the draft pick trade value chart to get at least a rough sense of whether a proposed trade is fair. But who cares what I think - - what does the actual history of draft pick trades show? You may think the chart is hogwash, but the article at the link below makes a pretty compelling case that the chart gives a reasonably accurate estimate of what a team might be able to get in return for trading down (at least for trading down in the first round and getting only draft picks from the same year in return): http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/2/21/2004303/dispelling-myths-about-nfl-draft-trades I suppose one weakness in the article's analysis is that there haven't been a great number of trade downs from as high as pick #3 so the data is a little sparse, but overall I was pretty surprised at how often actual trades were made at close to what the draft chart predicts as fair value. I can also see how it would be pretty useful to have some sort of trade value chart to help you quickly analyze proposed trades when you are on the clock and almost out of time to make your pick when a trade offer comes in on your war room phone.

I can't remember where I saw or heard it (it was quite a while ago), but some NFL head or defensive coach once stated in an interview that he liked to interview college QBs that he expected to be drafted by other teams so he could find out more about how they made in-game decisions. His theory was that he might be defending against them in the not-so-distant future, and he thought he could create more effective defensive game plans if he knew what they liked to key on. Obviously those keys would likely change with time and pro coaching, and might be somewhat observable from future pro game film study anyway, but it struck me as a pretty imaginative use of the interview process. Must be nice to already have enough talent on your roster so that you can use the limited number of allowed pre-draft visits for such a purpose. Sorry I can't remember which coach it was, but it sure sounds like something a defensive-oriented coach like Belicek might do. I had often heard about pre-draft interviews being used to mask true draft intentions, but it was the only time I have ever heard an NFL coach talk about using pre-draft interviews to try to gain a future in-season advantage by learning more about a player that a team had absolutely no intention of drafting. On the other hand, maybe the defensive coach I saw interviewed worked for a team that really did need a QB, and the media interview was itself part of a smokescreen to hide his team's actual QB interest. Who knows? It's mainly smoke and mirrors this time of year.

A relative of mine subscribed for a year but did not renew. He said the service worked fine, and the price was good, but he found it difficult to wait for the broadcast to be available, and sometimes wound up going out to watch the games in real time over a meal elsewhere. Before signing up, make sure you understand exactly how long after the game ends that you can start watching it. I have a vague recollection (not sure) of being told that it wasn't available the minute the game ended (next day?), and hearing the final score before he could watch the game sometimes took some of the fun out of watching the rebroadcast. BTW, he has FIOS, so his internet connection is very fast - - don't know if the experience would be different with a slower broadband connection.

Update - - from the New York Daily News at http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/04/11/2011-04-11_judge_presiding_over_antitrust_suit_orders_nfl_and_its_locked_out_players_back_t.html : "The mediation ... is non-binding."

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Judge Nelson specifically stated that she was ordering the parties to particpate in mediation as a form of "Alternative Dispute Resolution." Courts have "local" court rules governing lots of things, including the procedures that will be followed to try to resolve court cases without time consuming and expensive full-blown trials of whatever the litigants are fighting about. Here's a link to the publicly available local court rules for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the players' antitrust case is pending: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml# The specific local Minnesota federal district court rule about alternative dispute resolution is Local Rule 16.5, the text of which is found here: http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/LR-16-5.html I don't have any inside information about what Judge Nelson did - - I only know what I've read in the media. But the reports I've read seem to fit the description in Local Rule 16.5(b)(1), which reads (bolding added by me): "(1) In the discretion of the Court, the parties, trial counsel, and other persons deemed necessary to attend may be ordered to participate in other non-binding dispute resolution methods before a Judge or Magistrate Judge, including but not limited to, summary jury trials, non-binding arbitration and mediation." While the court-ordered mediation here is technically non-binding, each side knows that if they take unreasonable positions, they may anger the magistrate judge acting as the mediator, and in the likely event that any such anger is communicated to Judge Nelson, the offending side will face a more uphill fight in winning future court battles that ARE binding. The mediation itself is non-binding, because if the lawyer representing a party has the stones to stand up to the opinions of the magistrate judge about how the case should be settled, the magistrate judge presiding over the mediation lacks the power to force that lawyer to accept his settlement views.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but here's what his agent Tom Condon's sworn declaration says about how the NFL's conduct is harming Manning (see paragraphs 3-6 and 12-14): http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00639/119126/9/

OK, but just remember, everybody's trying to rob the same barge, so post a couple of guards on deck.

Fair points. I can see how an expectation to get playing time would be important to a free agent, expecially if a guy had talent but was stuck behind a really good vet on another team. We probably have a better chance at getting an up and coming, relatively young free agent, as opposed to an established star player. I haven't seen a free agent list.

My take on the situation is the exact opposite - - here's why: 1. With occasional exceptions, the Bills have generally not been big spenders in the free agent market. While peoople who live in Buffalo certainly can make a case for it being a good place to live, most of the country, who only know what the media tells them about the place, don't share that view. While I'm hopeful that we can end the play-off drought soon, our team won 4 games last season. If you are a good player and have several offers, why would you choose to play for a team with a bad record in a city that gets bad press? Sure, you can point out exceptions in specific cases where free agents have come to Buffalo, but I think we are at a competitve disadvantage in the free agent market. 2. If there's no free agency before the draft, teams will be forced to put a higher than usual premium on filling needs in the draft this year. That's potentially very good for us. We need front 7 defensive talent, and I keep reading that this year's draft is deep at those positions. That means if we trade down a few spots, we can still get the type of front 7 talent that would usually be gone by then. But you need a willing trade partner to move down. With no free agency to shore up weak spots before the draft, there should be more teams willing to trade up. That's especially true at QB this year. Most of what I read says that Gabbert and Newton are the two best QB's this year, and there is a fairly sharp drop-off in talent after them. Denver took Tebow in the first round last year, so they are unlikely to draft a QB at #2 now. So either Gabbert or Newton will probably still be on the board when the Bills are on the clock at #3. I keep reading that Carson Palmer says he will retire rather than play for Cinci, so lots of teams will expect Cinci to be interested in a QB at #4. It doesn't get much better than that if you want to trade down from #3, because it sure seems like most teams that trade up in the first half of round 1 do it to take a QB early. 3. I'd be happy if we traded down a few spots, took the best remaining front 7 defender, and got a few extra picks in the process. If free agency starts before the draft, somebody willing to trade up to #3 might fill whatever need they have in free agency, and we lose a prospective trade down partner. Our only competitve disadvantage in the draft is the historically poor performance of our scouts/decision makers, which I have great hope will be improved over the recent past. How do you see it the other way?

Hard to evaluate when all you can go by is media accounts, but my impression is that Chan tends to be a pretty straight forward guy who calls him like he sees 'em. If that's true, then you would expect him to be a little uncomfortable, and unpracticed, at blowing smoke. When I see him quoted in the media recently as saying that it was a "joy" to be able to talk football over dinner with Cam Newton, that just doesn't ring true to me. A "joy?" Really? If you hear Gailey making excessively favorable comments about somebody in a way that sounds different than how he usually talks, that might be a prety good indication that he's blowing smoke - - but just not very good at it. My guess is that we won't take a QB at #3, but will try to trade down a few spots with some team that needs one and is afraid that Cinci takes one at #4. Time will tell.