ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

No, I don't think he was "great." You wrote that the Bills NEVER (all caps yours) had a TE, and also wrote that it's an area where we've "always" been bad. McKeller won't make anybody forget Tony Gonzalez, but TEs that can both catch and block, as opposed to just catch, are frequently under-rated. My point was simply that McKeller could not fairly be characterized as "bad," even if he didn't have gaudy reception stats. McKeller's versatility helped make the K-gun work, as explained with some historical context here: http://www.buddynixon.com/analysis/the-kgun-offense-beyond-no-huddle But this is an Internet message board, so if you want to claim that every Bills' TE who failed to make the Pro Bowl was "bad" - - post away.

Well, it's not like the #1 offense in the league for a while was named the K-gun or anything.

I thought the "vegetarian zombies" were pretty imaginative.

I guess the pre-draft physicals don't include vision tests:

I don't know about you, but I feel safer: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/zombie-apocalypse-dont-worry-pentagon-has-plan/nfxKk/

Antarctica - - extraterrestrial neutrinos, a hole under the ice bigger than the Grand Canyon, and now the aliens have uncorked a planetary wine bottle that was preventing glaciers from melting: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/12/antarctic-ice-melt.html #TheyLive

According to MIT, Reynolds wrap can be used, in various hat shapes: http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

"Barry Bremen strikes again!" P.S. - - If you don't get the oblique reference to sports history: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/07/goodbye_great_imposter_metro_d.html

Kind of ironic that fan favorite Bon Jovi wrote a song about it: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bonjovi/yougiveloveabadname.html

I suppose the fans watching the game on TV at home could just "call Ralph on the big white phone:" http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/ralph "Sell the Buick?" - - seems like it shoulda been "Jump start the Taurus."

World would be a dull place if everybody had the exact same opinions!

Well, if you're a Ukrainian gas giant and gas inventory is running low, who better than somebody with 50% of Joe Biden's DNA?

My older brother Darryl did not know this, so because of social media, he no longer listens to "A Whiter Shade of Pale" #SoTheAdministrationAccomplishedThat

"Most people think that a scope is a liability in close-quarters combat - - but in Hollywood I learned that if you reverse it then nearby targets look far away - - just what the rifle is designed to hit."

Or we could just graft bio-looney-escent fish DNA onto human foreheads and make humans their own light source.

Also makes a difference if you expect to generally stay at campsites with electrical hookups or plan to "bushwhack" out in the boonies where you need to be more "self-contained." The sites with hookups are nice for overnight stays while trying to get to your destination or get home, but I usually prefer to get as far out in the boonies as possible for my actual destination. I like to hike, and with some exceptions, the best hiking trails are often more accessible from smaller, more remote campsites with no hookups. To each his/her own, though. Jboyst posted a nice list. One thing I would add is tiered-step blocks for 2 wheels. Depending on what type of camper you have, you may need to keep the camper level for a propane-powered fridge to run, for example. The blocks let you use such a fridge in campsites that would otherwise not be flat enough. Enjoy!

Three months from now, Mike Mayock and Cyril Richardson discussing how Cyril got hazed in training camp by the OL veterans: http://www.quotes.net/movies/1495

Which means that you have invested one draft pick in that player. We invested two firsts and one fourth in Watkins. The result of the trade Whaley actually made is exactly the same as it would be if Cleveland stayed at #4 overall, selected Watkins with that pick, and then traded Watkins to us for 2 firsts and a fourth. Now thump your chest some more and tell us how smart you are.

http://www.economist.com/node/13361472 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

Seems like "haboob" would be more apt than "tsunami" . . .

You can legitimately criticize Kiper for a lot of things, but you choose to criticize him for grading "tough" because he grades at a "B- curve?" So you're from Lake Wobegon, and a B- midpoint for the curve isn't far enough above average to satisfy you? http://www.theonion.com/articles/mel-kiper-trapped-for-3-days-under-toppled-big-boa,35979/

When the draft started we had this year's first rounder, next year's first rounder and next year's fourth rounder. We now have Watkins, and none of those three picks. Do the math.

The picks have time value to the people making the decisions, because they are employed by impatient owners who will fire them if they don't show results fairly quickly. But as a fan, I'm all for making trades that give the Bills the best chance of winning a Super Bowl, even if that takes a few years. Maybe if I had a terminal disease, and knew I wouldn't be around to enjoy some future Super Bowl victory, I would value draft picks the way you suggest. What would you rather have - - (1) no playoffs in 2014, playoffs in 2015, and a Super Bowl victory a few years later, or (2) playoffs in 2014 and 2015 but no future championship? Personally, I would go for the future championship. If most fans would prefer immediate playoffs with no championship, that says more about (1) how fans value immediate psychological gratification, than it does about (2) how much future draft picks can improve the team.

Actually, $1 million cash right now is worth more than $1 million in cash next year because of inflation. You don't even have to compare (1) cash in hand, with (2) a mere promise to pay the same amount of cash in the future, to reach that conclusion. Unless you think the NFL will fold before next year's draft, the comparison is between a pick this year and a pick next year - - not between a pick this year and a mere promise that you'll be allowed to make a pick next year. But the whole "time value of money" thing is a false analogy. Money has value because you can exchange it for stuff. Money has "time value" because $100 will usually buy you less pencils a year from now than it will today, because inflation will make the cost of each pencil higher a year from now. But draft picks are different. The #1 overall pick in this year's draft can be exchanged for the best player in this year's draft. The #1 overall pick in next year's draft can be exchanged for the best player in next year's draft. So unless you have some reason to think that the overall talent level of football players is declining each year, the #1 overall pick next year is generally worth just as much as the #1 overall pick this year (in terms of the amount of talent it can add to your team). Sometimes conventional wisdom is a whole lot more conventional than it is wise.

If it's true that the talent in this years draft runs much deeper than the talent expected to be available in next year's draft, then you can make a rational argument that, at least for this particular year, "a 1st next year is worth a 2nd this year." But that's not what you're saying. By saying it's a "general rule," you're claiming that you should always discount next year's picks by 1 round. The OP also claims that picks in a draft 1 year later should be discounted - - by 50% of their point value on the trade chart. I realize that both of you may have read these claims somewhere, but what's the logic behind that thinking? Why is a pick a year in the future ALWAYS worth so much less than a pick now? I'm curious about the rationale, because that makes no sense to me. I can see how future picks are always worth less to the GM, because he might get fired before next year's draft comes around. But if you aren't a Bills employee, how does that make any sense? Do Olympic athletes win gold medals with successively slower times every four years? Is the general population of college age kids becoming gradually less athletically capable over time? Please give me some rational explanation for why a future pick in any given round should ALWAYS be evaluated at a discount compared to this year's pick in the same round. I don't think that makes any sense.