Bud Adams

Wow. RIP, Junior.

I like mine straight. Unfortunately, he's been shaken, stirred and on the rocks most of his career. BA

I questioned both, and knew quite a bit about both. Kalil dropping was my dream scenario; Obviously that was dashed. My next preference was to trade down and get Glenn, who fell way below nearly everyone's projection, and right to our lap in the second round. So I can live with the Gilmore pick. I hope he proves me wrong, and I'll happily admit it if he does. I'll be rooting for him. BA

Thanks for refreshing my memory. The one season that we played this format I selected Takeo Spikes. I believe it was the year we signed him. In his first game, sack, forced fumble, return for touchdown. That same game he was carted off the field and he was gone.

I play in three money leagues ($1K a pop). Won two SBs last year and lost one. Year before I went 3/3. In each league, I make about 50 transactions throughout the season. I wouldn't dream of taking a defense till second to last round, and kicker in the last round. I routinely cut defenses and kickers and pick up those who have the best matchups for that week. If any of you money guys have room, send me a PM -- I'm game. Always like good competition. BA Edit: The last Bill I had on any team was Jay Riemersma in 2000. I don't like playing with my heart, which is why I rarely select players from my most hated team, the Dolphins (the lone exception being Dan Carpenter a few years back when he was on a tear).

I don't think these guys could even grasp the concept of "Connect 4" ...

Didn't Jacksonville try that?

This sums it up perfectly. BA

If the end of the world means I never have to hear/see/read Kiper again -- Bring it on. BA I went on the record at 11-5 after the schedule was "leaked." I think this team will even surprise those who think the Bills will be a surprise.

Cincy signed a FA QB named "Nathan Dick" and Arizona signed a FB named "Jared Crank." And to think, we could have had Dick and Crank to go with our Levitre and Wood. Too bad Wang got cut. BA

So if you're Brad Herman, TE, Iowa -- What are you thinking signing an UDFA contract with New England? Either not a lot of UDFAs want to sign with the Pats for whatever reason, or they think they're perfect.

They would have had clicks and eyeballs regardless. It's the day after draft week -- Sheesh. PTR: Not blasting the column. Just the timing.

Okay, you got me. And you do have a point. That said, the "commentary" really pissed me off (timing wise) and I had to get it off my chest. Will do the same in the form of a letter to the editor. BA

GREAT take, NNGU. That's the story that should have run all by itself -- piggybacking off the draft/free agency. It's a great, POSITIVE editorial. BA

Except this wasn't news. It was "commentary" that easily could have waited. Classless move. Ask TBD. It's right there -- in your face -- second link down on the home page. BA

Frank Sinatra died when I was the news editor of a daily in SoCal. In our 3 p.m. planning meeting, we discussed AP stories we would use as part of his obit package. I was horrified when our managing editor insisted on running an article entitled, "Sinatra's Shady Past." That wasn't the day for an article like that. I was overruled, and it ran. And we received dozens of complaints. Now, let's take a look at the Buffalo News' "stadium article" from today (http://www.buffalonews.com/city/columns/donn-esmonde/article833616.ece?twobillsdrive). Really? Could this not have waited till Monday? Unless there's breaking, relevant news, give the readers what they want after an exciting draft weekend. The editors' timing could not be worse. Neither could their judgment. Buzz Killington, anyone? BA

Apologies if this has been posted already. For those of you without Insider access, here's Kiper's list, in order. He graded by need and value -- then used an average of the two for his grades. Bills: Needs C; Value B; Overall: B- Patriots: Needs A-; Value C; Overall: B- Dolphins: Needs B; Value D+; Overall: C Jets: Needs C; Value C+; Overall: C Linky

That's what a lot of people are missing. I love this pick. You have a guy who can kick it out of the end zone 42-43% of the time and you've got an AMAZING player. I think a lot of people dogging this pick don't care much about field position. I do. BA

So can we FINALLY call McKelvin a bust and move onward?

Here's the thing, though, NoSaint. I'm sure you'd agree that "evidence" and "sources" are two different things. To some on this board (this thread has made it obvious), there is no difference between the two. In ESPN's second paragraph, it claims ownership of this story by citing its own sources. So the network is very much on the hook, and, despite what some here say, ESPN is not just "reporting what someone else reported." Evidence is for the prosecutor to bring about -- not ESPN. For the record, I have not convicted anyone. I just believe that in a case like this, given the credibility (or lack thereof) of the person(s) in question, there could well be smoke where there is fire. BA

How about answering the point I made to counter your comment that ESPN was not "just reporting what has been reported?" Understandable that you'd bypass my reply and branch off defending others.

So you're saying you know FOR SURE the evidence in this case is "non-existent?" Interesting.

I remember the article, particularly paragraph 2: "Sources familiar with Saints game-day operations told "Outside the Lines" that Loomis, who faces an eight-game suspension from the NFL for his role in the recent bounty scandal, had the ability to secretly listen for most of the 2002 season, his first as general manager of the Saints, and all of the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The sources spoke with "Outside the Lines" under the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals from members of the Saints organization." They are NOT just reporting that it has been reported. They're embedding themselves. BA

Ever hear of "libel" or "defamation?" They are quoting their own anonymous sources -- that's not just "reporting the report." ESPN had better have this on very good authority. Bring up Fine all you want. ESPN had its "sources" on the air (they were muffled, but STILL) -- they had sources. THAT was enough to keep them out of a lawsuit. The allegations were blatantly false, but the accusers were very real. BA

This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what. So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious. As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints. BA