BuffaloHokie13

Last year was easily my worst since 2013. I had 4 exactly right and 11 teams with the correct position, but wrong player. 2017 I had 8 exactly right and 17 correct positions, 2016 I had 6 and 18, 2015 I had 10 exactly right with a ridiculous 19 correct team position selections - my best year by far. EDIT: This was probably more impressive than my actual draft, considering we selected both and I posted it prior to our opening weekend against WVU.

Surely the Jets won't deal in the division.

My guess is actually Mayock on this one, BTW

It's all about Cutcliffe

There's a joke to be made there...

2 inches long, apparently

I personally like Gary for us, but there is no denying that Oliver is a crazy talent. I don't think you can go wrong with either, but if both were available at 9 I think I'm picking Gary.

Made out of leather. Named 'The Brim'.

TSW 2019 Mock Draft Trades 1 Round Round Pick Overall Value Team TSW User Player Position School 1 1 1 3000 Cardinals bkep32 Kyler Murray QB Oklahoma 1 2 2 2600 49ers Kirby Jackson Josh Allen EDGE Kentucky 1 3 3 2200 Jets Reed83HOF Nick Bosa EDGE Ohio State 1 4 4 1800 Raiders whatdrought Devin White LB LSU 1 5 5 1700 Bills TSW Poll Quinnen Williams DT Alabama 1 6 6 1600 Giants BuffaloHokie13 Rashan Gary DL Michigan 1 7 7 1500 Jaguars NewEra TJ Hockenson TE Iowa 1 8 8 1400 Lions Just Joshin' Montez Sweat EDGE Mississippi State 1 9 9 1350 Buccaneers ndirish1978 Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State 1 10 10 1300 Broncos Alphadawg7 Devin Bush LB Michigan 1 11 11 1250 Bengals EmotionallyUnstable Andre Dillard OT Washington State 1 12 12 1200 Packers wppete DK Metcalf WR Ole Miss 1 13 13 1150 Titans Chuck Wagon Ed Oliver DT Houston 1 14 14 1100 Falcons buffalobillswin Jawaan Taylor OT Florida 1 15 15 1050 Redskins Logic Daniel Jones QB Duke 1 16 16 1000 Panthers Golden Goat Jonah Williams OG Alabama 1 17 17 950 Raiders whatdrought Brian Burns EDGE Florida State 1 18 18 900 Eagles Chemical Greedy Williams CB LSU 1 19 19 875 Dolphins RyanC883 Jeffrey Simmons DT Mississippi State 1 20 20 850 Steelers RyanC883 Deandre Baker CB Georgia 1 21 21 800 Seahawks Watkins101 Josh Jacobs RB Alabama 1 22 22 780 Cardinals bkep32 Noah Fant TE Iowa 1 23 23 760 Texans Happy Days Cody Ford OT Oklahoma 1 24 24 740 Giants BuffaloHokie13 Clelin Ferrell EDGE Clemson 1 25 25 720 Vikings section122 Dalton Risner OL Kansas State 1 26 26 700 Colts aristocrat Christian Wilkins DT Clemson 1 27 27 680 Vikings section122 Garrett Bradbury C NC State 1 28 28 660 Chargers NewEra Dexter Lawrence DT Clemson 1 29 29 640 Chiefs JimKellyTryouts Dre'Mont Jones DT Ohio State 1 30 30 620 Packers wppete Marquise Brown WR Oklahoma 1 31 31 600 Rams Alphadawg7 Chris Lindstrom OG Boston College 1 32 32 590 Patriots frostbitmic Drew Lock QB Missouri 2 1 33 580 Patriots frostbitmic Zach Allen EDGE Boston College 2 2 34 560 Colts aristocrat Byron Murphy CB Washington 2 3 35 550 Giants BuffaloHokie13 N'Keal Harry WR Arizona State 2 4 36 540 49ers Kirby Jackson AJ Brown WR Ole Miss 2 5 37 530 Cardinals bkep32 Jerry Tillery DT Notre Dame 2 6 38 520 Jaguars NewEra Nasir Adderley S Delaware 2 7 39 510 Buccaneers ndirish1978 Rock Ya-Sin CB Temple 2 8 40 500 Buccaneers ndirish1978 Erik McCoy C Texas A&M 2 9 41 490 Broncos Alphadawg7 Irv Smith Jr. TE Alabama 2 10 42 480 Bengals EmotionallyUnstable Mack Wilson LB Alabama 2 11 43 470 Lions Just Joshin' Parris Campbell WR Ohio State 2 12 44 460 Packers wppete Greg Little OT Ole Miss 2 13 45 450 Falcons buffalobillswin David Montgomery RB Iowa State 2 14 46 440 Redskins Logic Jaylon Ferguson EDGE Louisiana Tech 2 15 47 430 Panthers Golden Goat Chase Winovich EDGE Michigan 2 16 48 420 Dolphins RyanC883 Kaleb McGary OT Washington 2 17 49 410 Browns bkep32 Johnathan Abram S Mississippi State 2 18 50 400 Raiders whatdrought Chauncey Gardner-Johnson S Florida 2 19 51 390 Dolphins RyanC883 Elgton Jenkins C Mississippi State 2 20 52 380 Steelers RyanC883 Deebo Samuel WR South Carolina 2 21 53 370 Raiders whatdrought Jace Sternberger TE Texas A&M 2 22 54 360 Texans Happy Days Juan Thornhill S Virginia 2 23 55 350 Texans Happy Days Julian Love CB Notre Dame 2 24 56 340 Ravens Virgil Kelvin Harmon WR NC State 2 25 57 330 Eagles Chemical Joejuan Williams CB Vanderbilt 2 26 58 320 Cowboys BuffaloHokie13 Taylor Rapp S Washington 2 27 59 310 Colts aristocrat Hakeem Butler WR Iowa State 2 28 60 300 Chargers NewEra Justin Layne CB Michigan State 2 29 61 292 Chiefs JimKellyTryouts Miles Sanders RB Penn State 2 30 62 284 Saints section122 Charles Omenihu DT Texas 2 31 63 276 Chiefs JimKellyTryouts Amani Oruwariye CB Penn State 2 32 64 270 Ravens Virgil Yodney Cajuste OT West Virginia Trade Tracker Team 1 User 1 Offer Value Team 2 User 2 Offer Value Cardinals bkep32 Josh Rosen 530 Giants BuffaloHokie13 37 530 Buccaneers ndirish1978 5 1,700 Bills TSW Poll 9, 40, 112 1,920 Titans Chuck Wagon 19, 51, 82 1,445 Dolphins RyanC883 13, 116, 151, 233 1,243.6 Giants BuffaloHokie13 17 & 95 1,070 Raiders whatdrought 24 & 35 1,290 Vikings section122 18 900 Eagles Chemical 25, 53 1,090 Cardinals bkep32 33, 65, 139 881 Ravens Virgil 22 780 Raiders whatdrought 27 680 Vikings section122 50, 53, 190 785 Ravens Virgil 33 580 Patriots frostbitmic 56, 64, 205 619

I felt the same until yesterday, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to break up your self described circle jerk. But you decided the best course of action was to squander that opportunity with childish antics. So you're saying that everyone in your area is effected by climate change? Not just certain demographics? Interesting. I dated a girl a couple years ago who grew up in Hawaii. The beach that she, her brother, her mother, and her father grew up on was gone by the time we met. She's a relatively wealthy white catholic girl, but the climate change forgot to spare her. You've done absolutely nothing worth me considering a change in my stance. Quite the opposite, in fact, you completely failed to make a single comprehensive point or address any of the points I raised with your previous google vomit, no context links. Again, this speaks to economics. As I stated previously, there are points to consider on both sides of that discussion (that you are also seemingly unwilling to have). This says absolutely nothing about race or gender. This statement shows ingrained sexist and racist thought patterns, and borders on white supremacy. You honestly believe that the reason anyone has wealth, or lacks it, is due to the color of their skin? Not study or spending habits? Not work ethic or dedication to their craft? Not the drive and initiative to turn a passion into a commodity? You'd rather just look at a demographic breakdown and ignore all context. You'd like to ignore that Asian households actually have the highest net worth in America, not white households. I brought up gender because the context of the entire discussion started with the Green New Deal language, which you said you read. Nearly everything about the gender gap has been thoroughly debunked, but we could pivot there if you want. I used to think that I struggled dating because I lost the majority of my hair by the time I turned 21. Then I realized that, while it was easy to blame that - especially since it was out of my control, the reality was that I wasn't going to the gym or investing in music as much as I used to. I wasn't taking great care of myself, I was eating poorly. My free time habits resembled a depressive cycle of anti-social issues. So I actively worked to change that. It can be difficult to accept that individuals have as much control as they do and be introspective, but the truth almost always lies there - as opposed to surface level. There definitely circumstances that effect everyone differently, but circumstances are very rarely life defining. Also, you say this just isn't a discourse thing. You started your post by saying how much climate change means to you, but when someone is willing to discuss it with you it just isn't worth it? How much does it actually mean to you then? This is a highly self-fulfilling way of thinking. You made a statement, I challenged it, and then you deflected, threw spaghetti at the wall, and made no points worth considering whatsoever. I sorted through the spaghetti and expressed the concerning factors, and you addressed none of those concerns - seemingly just accepting that you context-less backup is fatally flawed. I can certainly see you you would perceive everyone to be entrenched in their stance when you aren't even willing to put forth a compelling point for their consideration. Contesting a statement and asking you to back it up is not ridicule, plain and simple. Your actions following that were absolutely worthy of ridicule, however. Go Bills! Tyrod ended the drought.

I did absolutely nothing of the sort. Yet you felt the need to disrespect me, waste my time, and now actively avoid me simply for engaging in a proper discussion - which you claimed this forum was lacking. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, despite my instincts which I laid out in a previous post, but you proved to just be disrespectful, disingenuous, spineless, and quite frankly pathetic. Now you're probably going to say it wasn't directed at me, but I was the only person actually having the discussion with you.

Pretty good haul for the Colts! Wilkins, Murphy, and Butler Buccaneers ndirish1978 5 1,700 Bills TSW Poll 9, 40, 112 1,920

With the 58th pick in the 2019 NFL Draft, the Dallas Cowboys sprint to the podium to select Taylor Rapp, S, Washington. Safety is a relatively thin position on our roster, and Taylor will provide quality depth to start before being thrust into a starting role. @aristocrat and the Colts are back on the clock.

I thought he did a share of both, but I could be mistaken. It's been a while.

A riot, coming from the person claiming this earlier. Talk to me about a ***** circle jerk. Didn't even have the gall to quote me.

Dueling McShay Kiper mock out. Bills net Ed Oliver, N'Keal Harry, and Dawson Knox in the first 3 rounds. I would be very happy with that!

Hardy - 6'4", 281 lbs, 4.81 speed (1.75 10-split), 21 reps, 35" vertical, 9'9" broad, 7.25 3-cone

If we're getting to that point bending sounds painful.

@HappyDays and the Texans are on the clock with back to back picks.

It's incredibly disappointing that the person coming in to say it's a giant circle jerk doesn't actually want to engage in honest discussion.

So, to be clear, you don't care to make any of your own points or address any of mine?

I said my piece on the response not really being a good faith response. I opted to reply in good faith anyway in this instance. We'll see how it goes.

This is an abstract for an issue of a quarterly journal. The issue was published in 2006 and it's been cited 46 times. The Journal as a whole has an impact factor of 2.316, so it's impact on the larger discussion seems rather minimal. From what I could gather from the abstract, the basis of the paper is about inequity in access to, and control of, natural resources and not climate change. Since it is the abstract and not the report, there are no sources or studies to refer to. The second is also an abstract with no sources or studies linked. This abstract literally implies that everyone else is not conceptualizing the problem correctly - because the author is right and everyone else is wrong. Here's a quote from the abstract It's interesting that the author believes nonwhite bodies are devalued, yet we are seeing a rash of white people pretending to be non-white for political gain, among other things. This one has 7 points! 1) This one boils down to Journalism is bad and the Trans Pacific Partnership (which we backed out of in 2017) is also bad. 2) This cites projections 30-80 years in the future, which is hardly fact based. It also points out that it is unfair that poor countries want to industrialize, but cannot due to environmental regulations. 3) Again, based on a 30 year projection - this time with a broken link as a citation. Says the Syrian migration is due to 'human-induced global warming' and political unrest. Somehow the latter seems to be the primary factor if you talk to any migrants. 4) Cites a broken link in the first part, then mentions 2008 economic impacts, but links to a graphic of agricultural projections for 2030. 5) Cites a study from 1987 that frankly is no longer valid to due the natural change in where people live. Cites the "white flight" to suburbs, but urban settings are where the majority, including the affluent, want to be. Cites whatever.scalzi 6) The primary document backing this point shows negative effects for indigenous people in a few place, but not North America. It then shows opportunity presented to indigenous people in North America by climate change. Seems like a good thing to me, not a negative. 7) The only citation in this point is a broken link. The rest seems to favor a relatively socialist perspective about everyone having a right to their share as opposed to everyone having a right to earn their share. This one cites 2 separate reports with no visible connection to each other. The first is the 30-80 year climate projections, of which I am skeptical since getting the weather right for next week is a challenge. The second is an oxfam study which mostly seems to be an index of what countries have the most socialist policies for wealth redisribution. It has a clear partisan stance on taxes and tax reform. It points out that the US spends a lot on education, but the system is inefficient (thanks gov't). It appears to rate healthcare quality strictly on how much of the population is insured, which seems like a flawed metric as opposed to evaluating the actual care provided. It offers a complaint about minimum wage without weighing the pros and cons of why it is where it is. Other than the two reports cited, it seems to be an opinion piece. This is a study on different demographics and their perception of climate change and climate change policy. It is not about how demographics are unequally impacted. This mentions environment and climate a combined 0 times. This cites a study of cost estimates based on the projected climate from 2080-2099. There is incredibly high variability in all of the data presented. The 2 highest factors of uncertainty are the climate projections and the low-risk labor - the two key points. It has been sourced in policy exactly once. and it focuses on the southeast region. Not a specific demographic. The intro tries to incorporate a racial basis for the article, but no citations are given to back any of the key statements. It clearly states that the majority of New Orleans residents are African-American, and then claims that there is environmental racism because the majority impacted are African-American. Isn't that result expected? The majority demographic is impacted the most? It also goes out of it's way to point out how racism has progressively gotten worse in the city. A city which has had only Democrat mayors since 1872. The Root. No further comment needed. 2 of your tweets are nearly identical and incestuous, I'm not going to dive into the other 2. So, did you have any points you wanted to make?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tVpkCN-Ndi6amDNlLMlztGK1nh0dSJZySRFOScs0BGc/edit?usp=sharing Fitzpatrick needs protection too!

Sheet is also caught up, fwiw.