Max Fischer

GW = David Morse. Another great character actor. You won't know his name but will say, "oh, yeah, he was good in . . ." Overall good acting, well paced (for 50 years of history), and great sets and customs. Not exactly the "good old days." Big fan of Giamatti - American Slendor, Sideways, The Illusionist, etc.

While I congratuate you on your number crunching, I've always wondered where the "cut line" for combine results really are for each position. Since combine skills don't necessarily translate onto the field, what may be the general "cut line" for these tests that suggest they can't cut it on the field? Does a 7.7 in the cone drill mean they can't be a first round pick? Why? Does it really matter? If all things are "generally" equal, instincts in sports are very critical, if not THE critical factor that separates the players. In other words, do they "play fast" or even play stronger, tougher - jump higher on the field? Instinctual timing, getting a jump on the play, knowing how to use your body (etc) can't be measured in combines. You can shave a second off your shuttle speed on the field because the cones are moving and you just "know" how to get around them faster than the next guy, you can out jump taller players because you "know when" to jump, you could out muscle bigger opponents because you can use your leverage. And if you don't know where you're going on the field no amount of speed will get you there. [My favorite example is great outfielders. They are great not because they're the fastest or have the strongest arms, but because they know where the ball will go and get a "jump" on it, shaving a great amount of time of their "40". ] To me, as long as the times are generally the same the only way you can tell the difference between one or the other is what they did on the field and do they possess the capacity to "learn" how to be faster, stronger, quicker on the field.

1. Smithwick's (Guiness brand) Yuengling with a bit more bite. 2. Yuengling 3. Guiness Draught (125 calories - "not on purpose")

Ridiculous. Turn on any "satirical" radio program or comedy show and you'll find something just as offensive to someone. Imus has had characters on his show has continually skewered every demographic (including white guys) for years. Hell, every nearly every rap song is worse.

Step away from the panic button, Mr. Nervesofsteel. Clearly you don't spend a lot of time in pressure situations. Reign in your overactive imagination and relax. Go read a book.

Not that I want to end the senseless bashing, but "presser" is common name for "press conference" in the media world.

Pittman seems like a fast guy who can get through huge holes. Oh, wait, you don't see those kind of holes in the NFL, or at least by the Bills. Looks like a nice change-of-pace back but not an every down kind of guy.

What happened?

Seriously, $33M?

Thank you. I thought it was just me. Just horrible. Did they have a microphone for the crowd? Every once and a while a good KC play would happen and you heard a smattering of applause. I thought: maybe they're in Denver? Nope, just amateur hour at NFL Network.

You are a joy to be around.

With idiot friends like that . . .

Just dreadful Someone should get fired. What's up with the big brown leather chairs. Looks like their about to have cigar and brandy at the Club and discuss their portfolios.

That IS a friggin crime. I won't drink that piss either.

No more than the usual crap shoot. I always get a kick out of seeing which picks were considered "sure things" and others as "bust written all over them." I'm sure there's stats somewhere that say juniors succeed and fail at the same rate as seniors. Though perhaps one year later . . .

I woud have thought Tennessee at #3 would make more of a trading partner. They would have known the Bills, Jets (Leinart I think made more sense here), GB and SF would not have taken Young. Only obstacle were the Raiders at #8 (thought I suppose that is 50?50 and a big gamble - though I don't think they should have picked Young anyway - but that's another post topic).

All evidence suggests the opposite is true. Huff going to Oak was 50-50; no one "panics" with those odds, they simply go to the next player on their board.

Don't know him - he must suck.

What pick would be OK with you?

"Fit the system" is the key. Hard to argue these two guys are not (potentially) an excellent fit in the new defense. We can go around and around about when, where and who else the Bills could have got but if they start and contribute there is no way to know if anyone would have been any better. If they fail, then we know but we won't know until the season starts. Right now, all I know is McGargo looks like a good starter at DT and Whitner could be solid at SS -- filling two needs. Hopefully we add nice depth elsewhere by the end of the draft.

Why would they trade when they can stil get Lienart?

You'd think someone on the board would've mentioned it.

Teams almost always take the full 15 minutes because they'll entertain trades, have last minute debates and most important: because ESPN wants to them to take time so they can run commercials, trot out all the analysis and promote their NFL schedule.

Do you know Marv well or is this simply more negative speculation? Try to avoid letting your personal distain color your "analysis."

You say "ugh." So I assume you mean 1 of 8 are starters is bad, correct?