ieatcrayonz

First quarter hour this morning? Not bad for an amateur.

Something tells me you might not be objective when assessing your own work.

Look who's talking.

If the Bills trade back into the first and select Mallet they will be serving $1 shots of hemlock.

So we should take an average guy if one of the best players of all time is available? Good one.

Just yesterday you seemed to like Peterson and now this? Taking the best player in the draft is not stupid. You point out that you are a long time life long fan which is admirable. The drawback to this is that you may think of football in yesterday's terms. Today's NFL is about speed and agility, not simply size. Think of it this way: those little rovers they put on Mars sent back tons of valuable information to Earth. They were built to be nimble and used innovative engineering ideas. They also built a device that scooped up pieces of a comet and brought it back to Earth furthering science even more. These things are like cornerbacks. They are small and you barely know they are there, but they are valuable. Contrast this with the Apollo missions which are like lineman. Of course the Apollo missions were ground breaking in their time and should be admired forever, but what really happened? We had a lumbering, clunky ship that only got to our next door cosmic neighbor and all we got was a bunch of rocks and some dude got to hit a golf ball further than Tiger Woods. Big whoop. I'll take the corner. So will Bill Parcells.

That's not all you're saying. What you're saying is that whomever the Bills pick you are going to cherry pick negative opinions and whine like a kid whose candy has been stolen.

That's a deal as long as you don't complain about the player. He might be high on some boards.

I have bolded the part where you, me and Parcells all agree. I'm glad to see you've come around. In about 36 hours it sure would be nice to consider Patrick Peterson or Prince Ahkomoniwannalaya a part of our solution. I respectfully disagree about neglecting both lines and am wondering if you're being sarcastic. In the past you have advocated the Bills drafting 903 O lineman per draft. We can only use 5 at a time. I think a judicious use of picks for the lines is appropriate. Maybe one OL this year in the 3rd and a DL in the 5th. I would have said the 4th for DL but I think we should use both 4ths on Casey Matthews just so we can be sure we'll get him. I think with the 3rd rounder our OL will be good unless we are dumb and draft a QB that runs like Frankenstein and expect him to play. That would be dumb. There has not been a successful clod QB in the NFL since Johnny Unitas. Our DL will benefit from the guys we picked last year. Here is our draft strictly by position, not player, if I had my way: 1 - CB 2 - WR/TE 3 - OL 4 - Casey Matthews 4 - Casey Matthews again just in case. What I mean by this is use both 4ths to trade up for Casey Matthews 5- DL 6 - DB; could be either CB or S, best value here 7 - Long snapper 7 - Punter as insurance in case Moorman is hurt. I doubt this is what we do, but we should.

Do you own a Bently?

It proves they are losers. Winning teams are not built with losers.

Or better yet Peterson as Parcells points out. What I don't get from this thread: We have done well selecting CBs but have let them walk. I get that part. Most people's "solution" is to not pick them anymore. :wallbash: How about we do pick one but just don't let him walk? Peterson is the right pick. Just pick him.

I didn't get inferred. I'm not even mad at all. I was just saying that I disagree and that when a player like Peterson is available at a position like CB you have to take him.

According to Parcells if the Bills don't like one of the QBs, probably Gabbert because Newton will be gone, then they should go Peterson or Miller. So I'd guess you'd prefer Miller? That seems fine. Marcel Dareus is at a position too low for the #3 and he is French. Two strikes.....he's out. Fairley? Maybe but he seems to be lower on people's boards. I would say Peterson or Miller or trade down if they can.

So you don't want to take the clearly most talented player in the draft at a position that Parcells sees as the 2nd most important on the field? You like to take a less talented player at a less important position?

Parcells was on Mike and Mike this morning discussing the draft. One of the Mike's asked if there was a position that would never merit a #1 overall pick. While he clearly stated QB was the top priority if the guy is there, the order of the rest of his response was: CB OLB/DE LT WR/RB S DT He said no to: ILB OG Clearly he sees the NFL for what it is, not what it used to be. If the Bills pick Peterson as they should, please keep Parcells sediments in mind.

I was going to predict a post draft quote of you whining but you preempted that already. Ah, the heck with it. I'll still predict a post draft quote of you whining.

I'm saying that they don't let crappy racehorses become studs. You figure out the rest. I think rooting for the Bills to lose so they can get Luck is ridiculous. If you always root for them to lose as it appears you do, then by all means keep it up; just don't do it in hopes of getting Luck.

I originally said it would be an unusual team and/or a cinderella/heartwarming story. On paper I would never like the Knicks but they are a potential good story line. The same to an extent with the Bulls. Truth is, I don't think the winner is from the East as I noted. If the Knicks beat the Heat if would be a good guy, bad guy story line. I don't think it will happen.

Why is thread so inactive? No Buftex even.

The Sabres were not eliminated by the Rangers and the C's have already been eliminated by Stern.

And Luck's father was good in college but could not get off the bench in the NFL. The apple is sitting right under the tree. I'll pass.

The part about him being right is the ironical part.

As long as we can get Casey Matthews in the 4th anything you do is fine with me.

I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while: