Dan

OK. upon the gmac's advice of "leave TBD and go register now" I did just that. Although, I must admit it was more difficult than I anticipated.... leaving TBD, that is. But , Idid it. I went to GoDaddy and got the domain name. Now I have to wait some undetermined amount of time before I can setup up the website. I got a virtual server, as well. So, we'll see how it goes.

The name I'm thinking of hasn't been taken. Hard to imagine in this day. So, I should be good to go with it. Never heard of moniker.com.

Definitely good to know. So any suggestions on where to register?

Nope nothing inflammatory at all. Well, I wouldn't think so. A friend of mine wants to set up a simple internet site to sell shirts, hats, etc. I'm handy making a simple website, but I've never registered or hosted a site. So, I was wondering what to advise. The few places I've looked at all seem pretty similar in price and features (paypal account), but just wondering if there's something I'm missing.

Interesting! So, I can register a domain, just for the heck of it, and some company could take it because they have a legit business with that same name. What if you have the domain and then someone starts a business with the same name? Very interesting indeed.

I would think it would be legal. If they don't have the domain, I always thought it was fair game. And certainly anyone can put just about anything on the net. The only concern I'd have would be the ole slander/liable issue. So just don't say anything that'll get you in trouble.

I'm thinking about setting up my own website. I need to register a new domain and have it hosted. I know GoDaddy does that, but are there any other sites/outfits out there that people have used that they think might be better?

I would like to add a hearty... of course. I definitely support this approach to the draft.

I would say this is a no brainer. Of course, schools that do well athletically get promoted and people hear all about them. Hence, the free rides to top athletes. I just don't get why its called the Flutie Effect. Surely, Unversities noticed this trend well before Flutie?

Again, I don't' completely disagree. We don't know that anyone would establish themselves as a true #2 WR. However, we also don't know that McFadden will come in and be Adrian Peterson, either. You couldn't have had a bigger name than Reggie Bush being drafted, but a few years later what has he accomplished? Not a whole lot. So, you say we need a DT. OK. I buy that. But, then to say we should forego that plan to get McFadden is exactly what landed us guys like Parish and McGehee (not that Parish is bad, but it left us without the players we really needed). We had needs, there were players that would fill those needs - yet we passed them by for flashes that looked too good to pass by. The thing I like most about the FO over the last few years is they seem to have a plan, and they're sticking to that plan. They're not getting the flashy players; they're not over spending for quick fix FAs; they're addressing the team's needs one position at a time. What about this idea... probably the 2 biggest holes on the team right now are WR and DT. So, I say when we pick you take the best WR or DT available. If Ellis or Dorsey are there - obviously take them. But if they're off the board how big of a drop is it from this Harvey guy to the next one? If it's not much, then maybe its best to take a top WR and get the DT later. Either way, I say stay away from the flashy toys.

I would agree we deffinitely need more play makers. But, I also think we need to fill a few more holes, specifically WR, TE, DT. I know we just got Stroud, but there's no guarantee he'll be the probowl player he was. So, as good a move as that was, I still view it as a position of need until he proves otherwise. SO, I would suggest that we're 1 more year away from having all major holes filled and being able to pick the best player available, ie. a Mcfadden. Without another good WR, defefnses will continue to stack the box and make life tough on any RB. Simultaneously, without a solod DL, we'll never get the ball back and allow that play maker to do hs thing. Hence, I say get best available WR or DT at #11; shore up pthe remaining glaring weaknesses, then next year start taking the best guys we can get.

But you seem to be contradicting yourself a little. If McFadden is there, we have to take him; but we have to build from the lines out. So which is it? Another promlem with this line of thinking... If McFadden is the great player that people think and we select him; wat happens when there's another super great RB that's sure to be great? Do we take a RB for a 3rd year in a row? Another problem I have is.... the Bills had Bruce and OJ, but won how many Supebowls with them? Sometimes its not about getting the most talent, its about getting the best team of players. The Pats* won a Superbowl with A. Smith as their running back. So, I would suggest that sometimes it the right player, not the best player, that should be selected.

I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting we pick best player available, ie. a RB? Or best player available that fits a need?

Perhaps someone can help me out. But, I don't really get all the secrecy with the draft. I know teams do it; I get that. But, why? Does any team select a player just because some other team wants him? Is it because teams don't want someone trading above them to take the same guy? Either way, I'd say it would be stupid for a team to do that. It seems to me, you should do your research and draft the best player for your team and not worry about what other teams are doing. Happy Easter.

First we need big WRs, then a big center, of course big DT, pretty sure a big TE is a good thing, and now we need big CBs. Is there no room on the team for short people? Do short people really have no reason to live?

I never said anything about getting laid. I'm married and have no intentions of laying anyone and hence have several good female friends (of course my wife hates that). But, it doesn't mean I still wouldn't rather talk to and look at a hot babe over an ugly guy anyday. I try not to be intellectual, but I defintely agree with the stimulating part.

I'm not even sure what google desktop does (other than cause machines to the crawl). And of the ones, I've seen, yes, google toolbar is by far the most benign. But, it is getting more invasive. Anotherr one I just thought of is the Southwest "Ding" thing. I've seen it installed on comps that I know they've never bought a plane ticket. Me, personally, I hate anything on my computer that does anything "automatically". All these automatic updates and constantly searching the net for the latest version of their software that has more "features" that no one needs and less stability drives me nuts. I usually leave the Windows auto update turned on, on others people comps. But all the others I turn off and/or disable.

Who wouldn't want to hang around with hot women all day? No offense to any guy, but if I have a choice of working, talking, eating, playing, or doning anything with some guy or a hot babe... I'm siding with the hot babe anyday. I'd even take an ugly chick, cause sooner or later we'll meet up with her friends and maybe some of them will be hot. Sorry, just the way it is. As to the original question, I think men and women can be friends. However, once the guy said he wants to take it to the next level... its over. Friendship is out of the question. He may say he changed his mind; he may appear to back down; but he hasn't. He's buyin his time to see if he can change your opinion of him.

I agree and despise all of those things! I've never run across sidestep, but google desktop, google toolbar, yahoo toolbar, mysearch assistant, and that damn weatherbug are the more common ones I've seen and they all blow. Why is this software even legal? All it does is bloat your machine and clog the whole thing down with useless features that no one needs.

I've noticed tat as well.

I completely disagree with the OP (yeah you know me). The NFL Newtork is about the only national outlet that shows anything on the Bills. They've done the show 6 days to Sunday about how the Bills linebackers prepare for a game. They've done the State of the Bills franchise twice now this offseason. I've seen Shchobel, and Dockery interviewed, and plenty of other stuff. Now, do they cover the Bills as much as the Pats.... perhaps not. But, they do cover the Bills. Actually I'd say they do fairly well at covering all teams.

Then why am I here?

If Dallas wants to move up and KC is willing to move down, why wouldn't KC and Dallas just work out a trade? What would be the incentive for adding Buffalo into the mix (unless KC just wanted to drop from 5 to 11 and not further down)?

No way would I shoot the messenger; definitely appreciate the scoop. Just noting how these guys always make these bold claims. It'd be great if one of them actually had the balls to back their mouth up. If anyone does, it'd probably be Chad. But, I highly doubt it.

Isn't that what Briggs said this time last year in Chicago. And just about every other player that's unhappy and thinks he's all that. But somehow, they all seem to play that next year. We'll see if he's serious or not. But, my money is on him playing in Cinci.