{::'KayCeeS::}

I was going to think of something, but I don't think I could do better than this!

Wow, don't remember any of the posts in this thread! I should know better than to Drink and PPP! My humble apologies. I'll just slink into a corner for awhile and pray for a QB, even one of the ones I don't want. Do some penance for my posts.

I agree.

Yes, dear? LAUGHING MY ASS OFF::!! oh, i guess that's something.... yeah, i don't like you.

Because both sides of my family are from Buffalo. I was there, with my cousin, who's a year older, when we played the fish in that playoff game in the nineties.

Just tryin' to homeostatis. Who dis? STFU

Yo, what's up! Holla at me! Hey let's look at the rest.... BLAH.

Yes, Duh. Next Question? Not gonna work out there compadre.

No. Sober as a church, he's only a college superstar. /NFL

Yes, so tell me all about Tom Brady's college triumphs! The rest of your argument makes sense to me, but you kinda led with the BS, imho.

Ha! Well played

This. All this BS around him is just hyperbolic clickbaiting, or the nature of the pre-draft football-freak beast... has he had concussions? sure. Legitimate concern. Translates into being injured last year. Okay... but... what, you don't want a confident QB? It offends you that the dude is a very intelligent human being? Who is far and away the most polished passer in the draft? I will eat my Bills hat if he lasts longer than 5. Not gonna happen, imo. I just think the "GM reality" of him greatly differs from the "Fan Hater" reality of him: the evidence speaks for itself, except if you want to hate... which is fine, go forth and conquer and all that... maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but if you win six championships, I will win seven!

Well, probably a perfect canvas for graffiti. Racist statement? No, of course not. Too obvious, would be bad PR: better to just look the other way while the gangs kill each other. It's CLIMATE CHANGE, the perfect excuse for spending over a trillion dollars a year on... certainly not science: no one who has honestly looked at the evidence can honestly say otherwise. But it's great for buying off scientists. It's great for getting, for example, all the righter-winger peeps on this board riled the F up! But True Science is Apolitical. Duh, right?

No, it's a RIDGID stance on my part.

"Who cares what it takes" is overstating it, no? I mean, I get your point about QB drafting. I'm a Rosen Fanboy (trademark) It's just that we have a LOT of holes to fill, especially with Wood and Incognito out of the picture. Two unexpected hits. And do we have linebackers? I like that Boston College kid, but is that it? So yeah: I would trade up for Rosen, but... I'm not going to myocardiacally infarc if we stand pat and draft 6 players in the first three rounds. I like AJ McCarron well enough. There has got to be a "thin red line" somewhere, and I think McBeane knows where that is, and that heartens me, tbh.

No physical fights. Verbal, on the other hand? The number seems closer to than anything else. If you've lived in "enemy" or "foreign" football territory before, you know what I'm saying.

Yes, this, well said. Ironically, our vast geography is vastly limiting in a lot of ways. Think about the cost! We can't pay for **** anyway! I get the dream, though....

Imho, the OP's question is flawed. What's BETTER is neither "no guns" or "more guns". What's better is if our government stopped black-marketing guns around the world! What's better is our own GOVERNMENT cracking down on ITSELF!!! I know What's better is if this black market could magically "disappear", and lawful, respectable gun owners could go about their business like they've always done. But it's like the "War on Drugs", right? But that's another story. No one wants guns in the hands of lunatics. No one. Except the powers-that-be, of course. Why? Makes fertile ground for "social engineering". For motivating people to protest and get up in arms. It's sad: such cynical manipulation. But so it goes. Because a couple super-deranged people kill a bunch of people, then get rid of the thing that the deranged people used to kill the people. So let's get rid of Cars! Because they certainly kill way more people in this country than guns do.

That Sam Darnold high/low is BS. What, so at WORST, he's Andrew Luck? I mean, at WORST?!?! at WORST!??!?! I think all my question marks and exclamation points say it all. I rest my case.

PPP is the Wild F'in West, isn't it? I've strapped both of my six-shooters to my belt, just so ya know. The issue of Gerrymandering is really a two-party issue, right? If we had a multi-party system, would Gerrymandering be an issue? I doubt it. Now, you ask me the pragmatic reality of a multi-party system, and you say, "Never Gonna Happen!", and I would agree: the "American Power Complex" would never allow it, because both major parties are bought and paid for many times over. The Gerrymandering issue is not really one of empowering minority voters, for example, although it's certainly couched like that for PR reasons. And, of course, empowering minority voters is not a bad thing at all. But the real issue at play here is the tug-of-war "rivalry" between the two major parties, which is just part of the overall game for the power elite. It's a "biggest stage" version of RISK, where all those in power or who are part of the "teams" (parties) become enriched to various degrees by their relative success. These people are playing a game that the vast majority of people have no clue about, partly because they don't want to have a clue, and partly because they just don't think like these people do. Next: If the objection to more representatives is that there would just be more self-serving politicians sucking at the teat, then the real issue is with American Republican Democracy, right? So then we're back to the same issue: the System will never substantively change, "Never Gonna Happen!". So the question then becomes: if you accept that nothing will really ever substantively change, then is the Status Quo preferable to any amending whatsoever? Could, for example, repealing the 17th actually make things worse, than if we stood pat? If our political system is completely bought and paid for, any "change" would be one that is allowed and would obviously only be allowed to benefit the "power elite" and the System itself. In a strange way, it would make sense to not change anything ever. THAT is the real problem with our system as it stands: any "revolution" or "amendment", no matter how small or big, just plays into the hands of the entrenched power. It's enriching them instead of limiting them. The co-opting of causes, the turn-over of Presidents, the this and the that are all part of the Game: it gives the Illusion that we have some Agency, when the reality is, of course, that we really don't. So what does it mean to be a Citizen in such a system? What does republican democracy mean if all Agency has become merely a PR illusion to placate us? What does it mean if all "Change" is shepharded/orchestrated by the very people we mean to curb? The answer: In reality, it means nothing. And this neutering, this lobotomizing of us as agent-citizens, I think is something that ALL of us, no matter what party, side, wing, or philosophy, can agree is severely problematic, even if none of us can do a damn thing about it.

This depresses me big time. Another hole in what seems like a sea of them. I think the odds of us trading up just went to slim to none. Which might be a blessing in disguise. Now we may stand pat and just draft 6 players in the first 3 rounds. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Still, what is our OL going to look like? And will they be able to block a Lego?