RuntheDamnBall

I think a lot of your answers are going to be determined by whether your respondents have daughters, or dogs, or both. As a father, the fact at Ben is that much of a scumbag (or worse) and faces few consequences trumps Vick's crime. I think the problems for many are: 1) that Ben wasn't convicted of anything, Vick was 2) there are inherent racial politics in such a poll, and 3) saying one was worse suggests to some people the conclusion that the other act isn't bad - which is ludicrous.

Man, with Merriman, Shockey and Sanders this team just might win Super Bowl XLI.

Shawn Springs is the highest drafted CB since 1996 at No. 3 overall.

Did you say "buy," or "burn?"

As big a mistake as it was to draft him, it will be a far greater one to let him go and give the team an excuse to draft another DB in the first two days. They should only let him hit the market if his asking price is in franchise territory and/or they feel that Wilson, Scott, Byrd and maybe a FA / 4th rd pickup can do the job.

I think you can guarantee that if one person thought of it, several people did at the same time. My buddies and I called him that watching games long ago and never heard of Dan LeBastard.

There are plenty on this board who feel Newton is a sure thing, but I agree with you.

Stupid JP. He was ruining the team even then. I think our current run defense would be better if we never drafted him.

Aren't the Falcons alternate helmets red? I was given slug-stuff as gifts but never bought a thing with that monstrosity on it. Most of us were happy to see it go.

It'd be nice, but it's been a long time since Ralph shelled out big bucks for an upper-echelon FA (and that the guy wanted to come here - there certainly may have been offers refused). The last one I can remember is Takeo Spikes.

Ever considered that part of what made Ryan Leaf "Ryan Leaf" was that he was handed the keys and viewed as a savior at #2 in the draft? I guarantee things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well for Aaron Rodgers had he started on day one for a terrible team. I am not at all excusing the guy - he sucked, and likely always would have sucked. But he was a colossal bust because he came with a very high price tag and very high expectations. If he was a late-first or second-rounder and sat behind another great, experienced, mature starter for awhile, his chances would have been better IMO - and if he never amounted to anything, he'd still have been a bust, but not the dictionary definition of one. I would so take Mallett if he could be had with a second round pick and could learn and mature behind Fitz for two seasons. I didn't think he dominated in the championship game - not even close to as much as VY did. Dominating JUCO potentially shows something, but then, it potentially doesn't. I'd be a hell of a lot less wary of Cam Newton if he'd stay in school and show us that he can adjust when the whole world has had a year to game-plan for him. That would be a pretty good model for success in the NFL. Right now, there are a lot of question marks. Total waste of time? Probably not. Anyone who thinks he's a sure thing is absolutely nuts, though, IMO.

Obviously he's never met Se7en Aurelius.

I wish they were announcing an improvement to the actual on-field product, not the decoration, but it'll be fun to see what they come up with. I was hoping for throwbacks made permanent, though. Maybe we'll see white charging buffalo helmets with some variant of the throwback jerseys? That'd be pretty rad.

Great, rational post, and you won my heart over with the WAR reference. "game changer" is much like clutch hitter in baseball parlance - oft-referenced and usually not accurate or reliably measurable. I think anyone trying to quantify impact on the game would agree with your 94 LB vs 95 WR argument.

1) I don't recall ANYONE saying that about Brees, and to the contrary, I think many thought of the Chargers as winners by using their picks to secure both LT and Brees - as opposed to just Vick. 2) How can a 6th rounder bust? It's like a lottery ticket. You expect nothing special; success means you hopefully get your dollar back, maybe a little bit more; and actually winning merits an insane celebration.

That, and systematic destruction of all the TVs in the training facility.

What's Dane cook? Something delicious, I hope. Also, my correction was a non-correction. Sorry, I'm out of material. Back to making wings and hoping for my big break.

Believe what you want. You don't see good teams wasting their top picks on receivers when they have other, greater needs. And you especially don't see good teams wasting their picks on the rare occasion that they're in the top half of the draft. :censored: :censored: NO, THE POINT IS THAT VERY GOOD RECEIVERS ARE RARELY THE CATALYST FOR VERY GOOD TEAMS, and that VERY GOOD TEAMS SOMEHOW SEEM TO FIND RECEIVERS EVEN WHEN THEY'RE MISSING OUT ON THE "CAN'T MISS" RECEIVERS AT THE FRONT END OF THE DRAFT. sorry, I left my caps-lock on.

I knew a big thyme scout once. Knew everything about it. Ask him about oregano, and the dude was lost, though.

On the contrary, the stronger franchises can hone in on specific needs and don't have to acquiesce to the most exciting game-changer on the board, just good football players. The Pats, Steelers, and Green Bay have been sitting pretty in this position for a long time, where lots of good interior linemen and TEs lie, coincidentally (not that they exclusively go there). GB's line did in fact need help last year, but you rarely see them making the mistake of picking an exciting player just for the sake of doing so. My implication is really that those teams would rarely go for the dazzling WR or CB pick when they have other, greater needs to fill.

Ignore the heart of the question by dismissing it as a blanket statement. Good one. Most teams at #3 are there because they were not good football teams the year before. As such, do they not have more needs, and different needs, than those who have established, successful candidates at QB, at OL, and in the front 7? It's just foolish to believe otherwise, and the Bills will be the laughingstock of the league not just on draft day but for the rest of the season if they try to follow the Detroit Lions' path to suck-cess.

Right there with ya. This is insanity. BTW I think I like your mock draft.

you need to recognize the difference between the 3rd overall pick in the draft and a regular "1st round pick," b/c there is a difference. drafting a WR at 25, when you have other pieces in place is one thing, and drafting a WR at 3 when you have 10 other holes is a completely different animal. Bingo. Also, he named a tight end (which I think the Bills need). Burress, Tyree, Toomer, Ward, Santonio Holmes, Meachem, these guys are all "once-in-a-lifetime," draft'em at #3 talents? That's !@#$ing laughable, man. And I like Harrison, Jennings, Driver, Colston (pick #252 of 255ish), Ward, and Wayne, but of those guys MAYBE only Reggie Wayne is a guy I would consider at #3. Also, I would probably only go there if my other options were total red flags, and I had Peyton Manning already. Ward is a great player and does many little things on the field very well, but I wouldn't be betting on getting that kind of veteran perspective on the game from a rookie WR.

I am just not sold on that improving the offense too much. While I appreciate the idea that big-time talent will strengthen the offense, I think that Fitz's big plus is his ability to distribute the ball and that the weapons they have could be good enough for improvement, so long as Bell adds strength, they solve the RT issue, add depth on the OL, and get the man a TIGHT END. Right now you have an improving Stevie Johnson, Lee Evans (who I believe will rebound), Parrish (who was having a great start prior to the injury), Spiller (an underutilized and underperforming speed threat), Fred Jackson (a better all-purpose back than we were able to discover last year), David Nelson (an emerging end zone threat with height), and any of Marcus Easley, Naaman Roosevelt, Donald Jones and other decent 5th/6th WR candidates. Unless they're moving Evans for less value than he holds for the Bills (an idea I can't stand), or not re-signing Parrish (in which case, who plays slot?), I don't understand why they'd prioritize adding to this pool when its potential is yet unexploited. Couple this with the dearth of talent in the Front 7 and it just doesn't make sense. Not at #3 where you should have some pretty great options.

At least ESPN got rid of Joe Morgan ("you see he's got a lot of movement on that ball. What you need is movement." "they cannot beat them by outscoring them." "If I can put runs on the board, it will make my pitcher more comfortable, so I believe in lineups." "But it's always hard to speculate on what someone would or would not do.")