MRW

I think one or two of those teams will take a QB if a guy they like is available, but my guess is they don't value them highly enough to make a big trade to move up in the draft. So signing a journeyman QB is an insurance policy to avoid feeling forced into taking someone just for the sake of taking someone. I would still expect at least 2 or 3 QBs taken in the first, and I would be surprised to see Smith/Barkley still there after the first 15.

Sexual abuse leading to homosexuality is a common argument put forth by anti-gay groups, and it is used as an attempt to counter gay people's accounts of why they are gay (in other words, it's another front in the "is homosexuality innate/natural" argument). There may well be a lot of questions to explore on the issue, but for better or worse it's a minefield.

I comprehended it just fine. If you can't understand why tossing out an essentially unsourced claim that 80% of gay men were abused is children is going to ruffle some feathers, we probably will never see eye to eye. And yes, I get that it's not your claim, but it doesn't really matter. If you're not prepared to back it up, it's just inflammatory.

Something you heard from some guy on the radio doesn't carry any more weight than something I overheard some guy say in a bar. I wouldn't cite statistics by either one. If you consider that snide, so be it, you can easily put me on ignore if you want. Edit to add: You didn't provide any info that could help identify a source, so while you took my question as snarky, I'm seriously wondering why anyone should believe that number. If we knew who said it or what they were referencing, we could investigate. Knowing the radio/TV show discussions that surround these sorts of topics, my take on any statistics thrown around by commentators is that 73.2% of them are completely made up.

In what way did I ignore your question? Good of you to continue along the same line as your initial post, though. I am very glad that you don't have a gay kid. There are too many gay children growing up without a supportive family already.

Why on earth should anyone believe that that number is true?

Well, that's a neat little trap you've constructed there. Handy for you to be able to dismiss anyone who disagrees. I don't have kids, but my brother's gay and I would love to be able to attend his wedding. Yes, I know, you know that I'm secretly uncomfortable with it, thanks for letting me know that I've been deluding myself for 20 years.

Elite QBs are not going to be available at 8 in any draft, based on your definition. Waiting until pick 41 only works if you think that the 5-6 guys you're looking at who are there with pick #8 are truly interchangeable, and you don't care which one you're left with by the time you get to #41.

They grow up so fast! Soon, we'll be sending our playoff drought out to college, or at least kicking it out of the house.

That's pretty much my position. I would never dispute that Levitre is a loss, but I think there is a much deeper pool of "acceptable" G replacements as opposed to other O-line positions such as C or especially LT. Your point about a new guard going between a good C & LT is a good one, as well - people have brought up the stretches of time where guard play was lacking, but my recollection is that the center and LT play at those times was even worse. Get your anchors in place, keep them around, and "acceptable veteran" play doesn't look so bad at the guard position.

Now imagine that spiders are crawling all over your face, and you suck a bunch of them in after you sneeze. That's scary.

I'm afraid of heights.

I highly, highly doubt that.

I'm not too far off your position, I think. I would have liked him to stick around, but an $8 million/yr. price tag would be hard to swallow. Even though it is cheaper than a contract to an equivalent player at a more "premium" position, the team can only absorb so many of those kinds of contracts, and I just can't see it for a guard.

Well, that brings up a good point - should you sign a top tier guard? I'd be inclined to say no. You should invest your money at other positions. It's impossible to have top tier players across the board, and guard is a position where the drop-off between a top player and lower-rated player is less severe. All IMO, of course, and maybe I'm way off base. But I think every personnel decision needs to be approached in that light - really examine what you're losing if you sub in a lesser player.

If you think Levitre is worth $6 million a year, paying a 33% premium on top of that is not sensible in any way, shape, or form. I think $8 million a year is simply too much to pay an OG, and if the Bills are serious about approaching the football operation analytically, this is the kind of decision you need to make - the players you don't sign are as important as the ones you do.

This is good news just about any way you slice it, barring some ridiculous contract. With McKelvin in the fold, you have options - I wouldn't be wild about him as a starter, but he's definitely a better choice than Williams, and probably good enough that you can hold out for value in a FA signing or draft of another corner. But if the opportunity to upgrade that #2 corner is there, you can take it and feel very good with McKelvin at #3.

I have to admit I never really investigated the numbers, so I may well have been mistaken. But either way, it's definitely not a concern now.

A few years ago, I would've disagreed pretty strongly, simply due to the contract demands a first round QB would place on your franchise. But now, there isn't that much downside to using those picks on QBs.

No and no. Thigpen is a FA.

Jackson and Thigpen are FAs, Smith is not a QB. In a month this team will have one QB under contract, Therefore, it's a good idea to get someone signed. I hope when you sober up you can look back on your posts and laugh.

Yes, as long as you acknowledge he is not ever going to be great and don't let his presence deter you from trying to get better. This is probably the best argument for getting rid of Fitz outright, but honestly I think you're too scarred by past QB fiascoes. If the team brings in a rookie, yes, they need to stick with him through a bad patch, but I don't want to see a rookie handed the job outright. Make him beat out Fitzpatrick. Anoint someone the starter just because you drafted him high, and you're back to the Losman days.

I want to highlight this line, because I have to ask, why is this a question? I thought everyone, including Brandon, acknowledged that he was not a success as the de facto GM. That's why we now have Nix/Whaley. So I'm left wondering what you mean by this.

I don't remember the same degree of positive response to Gailey's hiring among NFL reporters/observers/former players. In particular I don't recall reading anything that came close to the things that players who were coached by Marrone have said.

Heh, I hope so. I'll take getting suckered in by him over the alternative.