FireChan

You're right, we will see.

Chris Williams actually looked okay at times, if not good. I don't expect Whaley to bat 1.000. He even may think the impact of a Revis is worth the crappy G's. He may be right. My only point was by chasing these big contract positions is putting the chance to sign a good G in jeopardy. Maybe Whaley thinks there's 3-4 day one starters in the draft. I don't know. I just don't know if the #3 defense and the #25 offense should be signing more $10 million per year DB's.

I wish there was a "throw my hands up" emoji.

See above. Our GM thought Chris Williams/Urbik were quality G's. I don't have the faith that he won't make the same mistake twice.

Yes, the Bills probably think they can, and they might think if we get Revis, it won't matter what crappy guard we have on offense. Which was my original point.

Well then, we'll see.

Does it matter if I don't believe we can?

We'll see.

Sure. But the difference between signing 4 players in the top 5 at their position and drafting 4 players in the top 5 at their position is about $50 million a year.

I hear there's all this finagling that can be done. It hasn't happened yet.

I think the Seattle blueprint is drafting 3-4 players who are the best at their positions in a short period of time.

With Revis and Hughes and Clay? I'll believe that when it happens. Oh, and we need more than 1 player.

Gets you to 9-7?

Self-fulfilling prophecy to insure that the offense sucks again. Spend 70% of your cap on defense before signing a right guard.

It's like no one has been bamboozled by Twitter before.

Well all of us naysaying idiots were almost incorrect for a second there.

That's why you always get a link

And that's not what the poll said. It wasn't yes or no.

Fleeced.

N equals 1 though.

No.

A motion just needs to be seconded. Once that happens, we need to wait 7-10 business days in order to call a vote. Once we call the vote, we cannot decide either way until it is unanimous. Then, we can motion for the tabling of the discussion. All need to be present for the seconding of that motion. Then the discussion will successfully be tabled by March 2016, which coincidentally, will be the month after this process is finally finished. Perfect.

I was a little unclear, let me dig it up. It was originally "informed last night he is cut, will be announced tomorrow" but it was edited. That's my point with inside sources. You need to be less definitive or you'll be flat out wrong. If that means you don't get the "props" on an anonymous message board, so be it. Because I think that might be a driving force for some.

They got nothing on my Posluzny.