dayman

I don't know much about this guy I'll be the first to admit. I do know Wisconsin was good and he was a topic of discussion and he led in passing percentage by a large margin. I also know he's mobile and ellusive, a good leader and has a great arm. I also know he's 5'11. Here's a CBS sports write up, Gruden's interview, and a random highlight tape the three things I just sort of looked at. I'm convinced for the moment that he would be an amazing pick up at 3. Let me know what you think. Could be the perfect guy to have behind Fitz for the coming years. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1272242/russell-wilson'>http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1272242/russell-wilson http://www.youtub e.com/wat ch?v=YmH3JhGeIU0 http://www .youtube.c m/watch?v=B8r7wLnb1xc

If they take stuff out they will have to put stuff in. If they want to change it around go ahead but keep it exciting. They don't HAVE to make the game worse with every change.

100,000,000

Man I hadn't seen that. Poor Lankster.

I'm sure they like that you are constantly saying that all summer.

They say it takes 3 years? Well it's been 3 years. How would you grade out the final draft from the old administration? Round Pick Overall Pos. Player College 1 11 11 DE Aaron Maybin Penn St. 1 28* 28 G/C Eric Wood Louisville 2 10 42 S/CB Jairus Byrd Oregon 2 19*** 51 G/OT Andy Levitre Oregon St. 4 21** 121 TE Shawn Nelson Southern Mississippi 5 11 147 OLB/S Nic Harris Oklahoma 6 10 183 CB Cary Harris USC 7 11 220 CB Ellis Lankster West Virginia

Fearsome Four (I also tried)

Reach for the stars Buddy

Agreed. It's those "experts" giving themselves reach-arounds when someone destroys their picks. If that guy is some all start guard take him. We've had a lot of injuries on the interior lately.

Throw me in the "don't care" category. Gronk is fine. He's a character, there's no rule against that.

Hey if we can add a starting OT and CB (as you have done) I'm all for it. Then draft only WRs after that and make sure we get the "surprise" one. haha (not really just saying)

On the other hand there's no suspension for having children out of wedlock… and there's no suspension for being a deadbeat dad. You could actually argue that having kids to support is good motivation for an athlete. The pot thing is a much bigger deal in my book. You would think someone would sit him down (maybe T.O. lol) and explain that this money is going to go to the baby moma b/c the law is insane and it take 10s of thousands of dollars to raise a small baby each month if his dad is in the NFL...as a result you need a big second contract and all your pay checks so no weed. I mean...in college it's the risk of making a fool out of yourself and dropping in the draft in the NFL it's the risk of being a complete failure and ending up broke and out of the league.

Still say you would all be thrilled if we actually did pick him in the second despite concerns now. Character a bit overrated. You can't have the team fall apart but you can bring in a guy here and there who is super talented that needs a little more of a hands-on approach off the field.

Do you really care about his judgment regarding women though?

Top 10 talent, an Urban Meyer guy (Beli loves them), and they have a billion picks. I agree. But it would be nice if he were a Bill.

A little info...he was a TRUE baller on the Gators. By far the most talented player on the D (and captain) when he was kicked off by incoming coach Muschamp. He was sort of allowed to get away with stuff under Urban and had the rug pulled out from him by Muschamp and was let go. He smokes pot. So do a lot of players including good players in the league who somehow don't miss games. In my opinion he could be a Revis type talent. If he falls to us at 10 in the second and we nab him and put him opposite Williams so long as he doesn't destroy himself we would have CB locked up for 4 years +. Thing is there's the risk w/ the character issues. Thoughts? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8284835f/article/is-janoris-jenkins-worth-the-risk?campaign=Twitter_atl Is Janoris Jenkins worth the risk? By Marc Sessler NFL.com Writer Published: April 13, 2012 at 07:50 a.m. Updated: April 13, 2012 at 10:36 a.m. Print Janoris Jenkins is widely viewed as one of the top cover corners in this month's draft, but an array of off-the-field issues have some NFL teams weary. NFL Network's Albert Breer painted a disturbing picture Thursday of Jenkins' continued drug use after he was dismissed from Florida and migrated to Div. II North Alabama last season. "They gave him every chance in the world at Florida, and it didn't work," one NFC personnel executive told Breer. "And he gets to North Alabama, and he's still smoking because he's got this big-fish, little-pond thing going. I don't see him going in the first round, and a lot of teams have him off their board completely." Despite his off-field issues (a trio of arrests, positive drug tests and four children with three women) Jenkins remains intriguing to scouts for his work at Florida against big-name receivers. A.J. Green caught only seven passes in two games against Jenkins and Julio Jones was kept to six catches for 47 yards in two meetings. NFL Network's Charley Casserly recently called Jenkins a better man-to-man cover guy than either South Carolina's Stephon Gilmore or Alabama's Dre Kirkpatrick. "I went back and watched half a dozen games when he was at Florida," Casserly said on the positive side. "This guy can press, he can mirror off the press, he can mirror and trail and break, backpedal. He's quick, he's explosive out of it. ... You can see him do all the things you want to see him do to play man coverage, and he can play zone. Davis: Mock Draft 4.0 Watch out, Matt Cassel! Charles Davis has the Chiefs snagging a QB with the 11th pick in his latest mock draft. More ... "... It's the rest of the story that's going to cost him draft spots," Casserly said, noting that Jenkins could fall out of the first round because it's hard to recall another player in the draft with such a notorious rap sheet. One AFC scout told Breer: "He's not a bad person. He just makes a lot of dumb, dumb mistakes. He just smokes and (has sex), and that's essentially what it is. ... And there's just awful decision-making associated with that. I don't think he's a bad person. But he has a lot of soul-searching to do. I wouldn't touch him in the first round." Breer pointed to Vikings receiver Percy Harvin and Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez as former Florida players testing positive before the draft. It's not just Florida's problem, and we've seen troubled players go on to productive careers. With Jenkins, it's the diversity of the issues that has scouts running in the other direction. If you bring him in, you have to consider your coaching staff, your locker room, your team's reputation. This is what scouts are toying with today.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8166 Wall Street is, of course, broadly supportive. What this is is the industry's great desire to weaken Sarbanes–Oxley. Sarbanes–Oxley was the reform law passed after the Enron-era scandals, and it has always been Wall Street's dream to weaken that law. People forget that Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary under Bush, that was his leading objective. As the crisis was building up in mortgages, Treasury, the United States government, did nothing to stop the crisis. Why? Because Treasury was focused 100 percent, in terms of priority, in instead weakening Sarbanes–Oxley. So, yes, Wall Street loves anything that will allow them to start the process of gutting Sarbanes–Oxley. This law, the Jobs Act, which of course begins by torturing the English language to create this acronym, is premised on precisely the logic—if you can call it logic—that led to our recurrent crises. The logic is the regulatory race to the bottom, that we need weaker rules than the City of London, because otherwise the people will move their offerings to the City of London, where it will be easier to commit fraud. And, of course, if we weaken our rules, then the City of London will weaken its rules, and then that'll be the excuse for us to weaken our rules further.

That might be the most glowing comment I think I have ever read/heard about Romney from any source including his own campaign.

There's nothing to analyze for me it would just be part of a campaign, an issue that presented itself that can possibly be used to generate momentum. Pretty much standard operating procedure for all politicians. It is just a campaign decision it doesn't make him thin skinned to me, it just means he/his campaign thinks this could be a good thing to focus on. I don't really find making an issue out of the makeup of the supreme court offensive in an election having followed many significant 5-4 decisions. Also the docket is geared to keep it going there's a few more significant ones coming.

Not disputing just saying that would be a likely Repub spin on it and the Democrat spin would be something the opposite I guess I don't know. Well a coded temper tantrum but yes. That is what I'm saying, not everyone else though just Federal Judges.

That is interesting. I guess that would be the view from the right.

When it comes to this issue certain members of the court absolutely should be told that in my opinion. And many on the right think that about certain members. Not limited to SC either. Hell Gingrich was talking about wanting to abolish the 9th circuit haha.

Did he explain why? I mean any added fuel to rally what has been criticized in recent months as a passive Democratic base would probably be good for him no? It's not like the Republican's can spin it around and say "oh now we love the supreme court and nobody should question them"...both parties bring out the old SC bashing when it suits them. Obviously some over the top crusade would be stupid but making it apart of a more general campaign pointing out that if he can make it another 4 years all these 5-4 decisions handed down recently that his base doesn't like would be different in the future b/c he could swing the court w/ new appointees? I'm just interested in why that would be so stupid?

It's not a defense of POTUS throwing a fit as the right thing to do necessarily, but it's an acknowledgment if he wants to do so he can and the judge should not throw a fit back. Judge Smith would be wise to reflect on the history of the court being at odds with the President and how that goes. It's a delicate line the judiciary walks. The way I see it is president is reminding them to tread lightly in terms of the proper scope of judicial review. I saw the clip and it was a bumble but everybody knows that anyone graduating from Harvard law knows about judicial review and that it exists. The question of the proper scope of that review is another issue all together and one that courts struggle with in all sorts of scenarios. The proper scope of review/level of scrutiny to apply to lower court rulings, agency rulings, congress, the president, various levels of review...that's the sort of thing Courts constantly debate/rule on/consider and the sort of thing that evolves and changes over time. And either way you splice it the original Marburydecision was one of the most brilliant power grabs in American history. Not that the validity of judicial review is being questioned in modern times but the parameters of it are always fair game.

Haha, this is why Smith seems like such an out of control hot head to me right now. To sit from the bench in the 5th circuit and basically use an active case to demand an answer from the president through the DOJ about a comment he makes publicly regarding his opinion of the possible ruling in the States case? Get over yourself. Obama is the president he will do what all politicians do and he will speak his mind and lead his side as he sees fit. As a sitting judge you STFU when the President speaks (are you listening Alito?) act judgly and then go about your day. Nobody is threatening judicial review, but if you were smart you would show humility as a judge and appreciate the concerns about the recent (and more importantly possible future) trend in showing too little defernce (according to some not all) to the elected branches who are also sworn to uphold the constitution. When someone accuses you of a power grab you don't threaten to punch them unless they take it back. Certainly not when they can just decline to take it back and you can't punch them.