UConn James

Yeah, in one sentence, it says he'll be tough against the run. And then right below that, it says he shies away from the run and won't contribute to run D. So, fuggin'.... which is it?

We'll get a marginal boost from Dareus. But to think he's going to magically cure the DL in place of Stroud is foolish. Our LBs are questionable at best, and there is **** for depth at this most-frequently-injured position. Searcy will improve our run D? That's funny, considering that outlooks say he 'shies away from run support.' Depending on DBs to stop the run, as this team has done, and from the looks of it, will continue to do for the near future, is a recipe to continue being 32nd D because you're getting your ass handed to you by the other teams' RBs / "mobile" QBs.

Need to run and stop the run. I don't see how they've appreciably improved the "stop the run" part --- our biggest weakness --- in this draft.

The point, tho, is that you draft Front 7 to a) stop the run and b) hurry the passer into making poor decisions, which helps your DBs. Not generating pressure means you cede teams 7-8 seconds to throw. And that puts whatever DBs you do have on an island where they need to have near perfect coverage skills for all that time. I'm sorry, but coverage sacks are few and far between, and when we even got them at more than 1-2-3 per game, it took a Winfield & Clements. And then, when our ****ty Front 7 still wasn't even good enough to get a coverage sack (think, Schoebel lying on the ground reaching for Brady's ankles 3 yards away), the play went too long, and we got toasted. I don't know how people expect that getting rid of Stroud and plugging in Dareus is going to be some kind of magic bullet. We've had 3 GMs, 4 HCs (not counting interims) trying the same losing strategy of ignoring the lines with our highest picks combined with an inability to scout them (especially DL) well. The common denominator --- Tom Modrak. I've never been a tar and pitchfork kind of person myself, but I think it's time for him to be shown the door.

Per ESPN draft coverage, Adam Schefter just said that a St. Louis court has ruled that the lockout IS re-instated pending appeal.

Plus, iirc Youboty is a free agent, and it looks like they want some insurance on McKelvin. I would've preferred one of the LBs that dropped --- Houston or Ayers. There's no denying that CB is a need; I just don't think it was as big a need as LB. And not for someone who'll probably project to nickel or dime. But, as has been said, they go with the BPA rather than need. I agree to a degree, but we need !@#$ing LBs. The 3-4 goes through LBs really fast --- am I the only one who remembers in the latter years before the switch to the 4-3, when we had only 3 guys left at LB in one game b/c of injuries? They were dropping like flies.

Another thing, the Redemption Island clustering also has effects on jury communication. They are not sequestered at Ponderosa (and, as an aside, in the latest video from the ranch, man-face Julie takes a little too much joy in brushing her teeth) so there is ample time to discuss and form jury alliances, critique what they see and hear at tribal council, and they may be thinking more clearly with full bellies and a comfortable bed --> good sleep that really does affect the decision-making process. It can change you. Sure, they have nothing to win other than possible revenge/spite, but they will determine the outcome based on who they liked, who did them favors or backstabbed, (or, in Rob's lingo --- frontstabbed ) them, who they think played the game best, etc. By this time w/o Redemption, there would be what, six people on the jury? Right now, there's two. Now, they can still talk on Redemption, but they're still playing the game there. I actually would be in favor of sequestering b/c it's kind of unfair for the jury to have that pre-vote interaction, but barring that, keeping more people on Redemption isn't a bad alternative. I really hope they keep this game-twist in the future.

I see Fitz as kind of similar to Jay Fiedler. I think he can at least be a stopgap while this team builds up (especially on D) back to where it needs to be. No real point in bringing in a so-called "franchise QB" when most of the parts around him aren't adequate. It's like buying a new battery for a car whose alternator isn't functioning well enough to keep charge on the battery.

That is sexist, but it's also generally been the truth over 22 series. Men and women have very different social behavior patterns. But over all that time, you would think there'd be more like Parvati, given the feminine proclivity for passive-aggressiveness and the masculine inability to decode much beyond than the obvious when it comes to women.

1) Then again, Carolina took 3 QBs last year, and took Newton this year. 2) Any QB can go from a sure-thing to a bum faster than you can say Brian Brohm. Injury, personal performance decline, team decline, etc. 3) Teams won't be shy about drafting a guy who could overtake their current starter, or who might just be a backup. Everyone knows that it just takes one hit to end a season/career. Teams don't act in a rookie's best interest and bring him to a situation that's most convenient to the betterment of his career. They don't mind all that much if a QB's golden arm rusts from disuse over a few seasons --- they can get another QB next year and show this guy out. Don't tell me you've never seen this before. 4) Whenever a new CBA is reached, first-round rookie pay is likely to take a major hit, which would make trading up much more palatable than it is currently. Unless you're ready to sacrifice prime picks, it only takes two or three teams to start a bidding war the Bills probably can't win/won't engage in.

OK. I'll cover my eyes and admit... I watched it. Total Anglophile and monarch history buff. Plus, there's just something about the ladies' accents....

What if the people "left behind" become believers after May 21 and before October 21? Or did they find Revelation 22:22 written in invisible ink that read, "SORRY, NO RAINCHECKS!"

Sgt Hulka: "Son, there ain't no draft no more...."

I don't know about the second, but it does raise the issue of Survivor being something like Calvinball. It kind of sucks that the show runners seemingly can make things up on the fly to produce --- or at least gently nudge toward --- the outcome they want. Not having an understood set of rules for Redemption Island adds to the drama, sure, but it's like making a six-year-old play Monopoly for the first time without more than "Land on spaces and buy them" as instructions. The early seasons I saw were not nearly this convoluted.

Yeah, looks like Phillip's "crazy like a fox!" strategy has worked. If I were Rob, that would be my plan now too. Brilliant move by Phillip. Even if something else develops, they've ALL got to be wanting Phillip at their side in the finale. He may not have a snowball's chance with the jury after what he's pulled, but he'll be there and whatever odds he gets, it's better than zero. This was a good move by the Survivor execs. Otherwise it would've just been another week of knowing exactly who had the target on their back. This gets us right to the heart of the matter. Next week is a crucial time for Rob. I think Steve, like Stephanie did earlier on, planted a seed in tonight's tribal... Rob's screwed people over before; he'll smile right in your face while he's stabbing you in the back. But, it's going to be a question of how strong that Phillip-->Rob<--Natalie cohesive bond is. Rob put in all their minds over the past few weeks that Andrea is the first former Yellow on the chopping block, and this will probably provide some level of comfort. Should be an interesting Redemption next week, with 4 competitors, and who knows how many will be eliminated. Matt's whole schtick of 'I'm not sure' and then the next morning suddenly waking with a new perspective/plan, inspiration from God, etc. is now getting very irritating. He can compete in the challenges, yep, but his biggest failing in the game is not sticking to a plan, or being able to be trusted to do that. People who can't say what they mean and then do what they say are !@#$ useless.

I just watched the first two episodes of BB. Holy crap!

We've drawn down in Iraq, to near a level that's probably not going to drop significantly in the next 30-50 years. When do we stop calling it a war? Do we still count policing the DMZ in Korea as a war? Libya has been handed over to NATO. We still have troops in Bosnia. Do you count that as a war? I'll give you Afghanistan. I didn't read the context from Romney, so I won't comment on that.... But my brother has now done 5 tours there, most recently returning last fall. He said that things there are pretty much coasting, sergeants (he is a First Sgt.) are eying the calender and scaling back missions, basically making it a "war for cheese." After a surge last year, there just isn't the sense that we're going to turn the corner there... or that there is a corner to turn. Just doesn't seem we're making any progress --- at least the way the war has been prosecuted with one arm tied behind our backs --- and the longer we hold up Karzai's house of cards and corruption the worse we're going to look. I hate to say it, but if we continue doing what we've done, it doesn't seem like there's going to be a "win" there whatever your definition of that is.

+1. After what those little f--kers did in my uncle's attic, my neighbor's summer house (got in through his chimney somehow, tore up curtains, shredded carpet and broke nearly every dish in the place), my "bird" feeder, plus when they go over every inch of my garden and dig up seeds/roots, I have zero sympathy for these neurotic bushy-tailed rats. I take pot-shots with a small BB gun from time to time, which is enough faze, but it's not enough to kill.

I remember a handful of times that this organization bent over backward to get guys a bonus. The most recent being Fitzpatrick sitting out the last game of the year so he could preserve his completion % instead of lose it to a badweather game. Gailey et al. said it was to evaluate Brohm, and there was probably a little bit of "make sure Fitz doesn't have a major injury in a nothing game" ... but when Chris Brown interviewed Fitz before the game, there was a sheepish little grin. The FO wanted to kick a little bonus to show their appreciation. They've done this before to guys they think deserve it.

These will not be used for the draft. Per Chris Brown's blog:

Survivor video preview Matt seems on the verge of a breakdown, Phillip gets even crazier (is that possible?) and Jeff Probst introduces a mysterious bundle.

As much as DeMaurice Smith said yesterday that there shouldn't be any worry about liability issues, there've gotta be insurance liability issues. If a player gets hurt while training, then an injunction is granted while the owners' appeal is considered, then a team has themselves a headache. There's also probably issues with staffing, as the Bills have reduced staff, and staff hours during the lockout. One day (for a tentative ruling) is not warning enough to have people back at OBD.

To be accurate, they have a 0 percent chance of ever being used.

The Nike sets were confirmed at the time to be stylized sets and nothing more. Nike has little or no influence over teams' individual trademarks. The most they'll determine is some treatment of striping, etc. given the seams in the so-called "Pro Combat" jerseys. The last set was fan-created/-posted (one can tell it's not a professional imaging) on the Chris Creamer logo discussion site, based on the verbal descriptors from the Bills' press release, and judging by the screen caps, has turned out to be very nearly accurate (there appear to be several striping differences). It was not a leak, per se, no matter its level of accuracy. In fact, the poster added in the navy striping in a re-do after several of that board's users mentioned it. In retrospect, not adding the navy stripes, it would have been almost dead-on.

Well, it's not a moderator issue, it's a Terms of Service issue. The mods have enough to deal with, w/o having to tidy up after everyone. Copy your post and put it into the existing thread where this is already being discussed. Then click "Edit" on your original post and delete it. Case closed.