Dibs

Clever thread title, yes?

I'm hoping the improved secondary with the return of Gilmore, Byrd & a full time McKelvin will provide an extra little edge for Mario to produce. It's not going to happen that he breaks the record this season (he's a Bill....that stuff doesn't happen for us).....but 20 would be great!

Hell, I could have told you that from spending 5 minutes reading through PPP,

I didn't forget about it.....because I didn't know about it. (I'm Australian and don't really know the inns and outs of all of the intricacies on this particular governmental shut down). I have no view one way or the other on Obamacare. It is irrelevant to the point that I was making though. The point being that there is a standard way in which laws are made/changed/removed and forcing a shut-down is effectively a loophole in this system(first used in 1976). I'm sure there would also be a standard way in which an unconstitutional law could be reviewed and subsequently revoked/expunged without resorting to the shutdown loophole.

Umm....I don't understand that in reference to what I had said. I wasn't implying that laws do not (should not) change.....simply that there is an entire law making/changing process that has attempted to be circumvented by the shutdown. .....and if a congress can resort to such drastic action over an extremely important existing law, they can also in theory resort to such drastic action over lesser existing laws if is their want......instead of going through the regular law making/changing processes.

Aaaarrrrgggghhh.....Crazy Eyes!!!

As an Australian who has no ties to the US, I think I can give some sort of spin on this without resorting to the terms democrat or republican. Though I am only a novice with regards to US politics and have only offhanded interest in it's machinations, the shutdown effects the rest of the world....hence my interest in the situation. Please excuse my lack of correct terminology.....and also please correct(or excuse) me where I may have misunderstood the exact processes involved in your government. As an impartial observer, it seems to me that it is not the political parties, nor the health care issues that are the problem. It is your system itself that has become the problem. At some point a loophole in the system was discovered and exploited(the first government shutdown, whenever that was). It enabled the congress to attempt to bypass the law making process. As I see it, laws are made/changed/rejected etc through a series of checks and balances, voted on by elected representatives of the people of the day. Having a situation where any new congress can dictate what laws(that have been made and passed through the system) should or shouldn't be changed/removed seems counter intuitive to the entire process and relocates a lot of the powers controlled by the other arms of government to the congress. The fact that it is being done specifically on an important issue is quite irrelevant to the concept that it can be done at any point on any issue. Though this situation has only been a rare occurrence, it doesn't necessarily have to be. In theory a congress could hold the rest of the government to ransom and threaten to shut it down(by not passing funding) if they don't change/remove hundreds of laws that philosophically they didn't agree with. Until your government shuts this loophole, this could become a far more common thing in the future.....particularly considering the progressive polarization of views in the modern western world. This all reminds me of a famous international cricket match between Australia and New Zealand. (Btw, I'm not a fan of cricket but I think this example fits well).... NZ needed a 6(a hit over the boundary) to win the match....with one ball remaining. Australia bowled the ball underarm and rolled it down the pitch.....thus giving NZ no chance to smash it over the boundary. There was nothing in the rules about not bowling it underarm. Australia basically exploited a loophole in the rules. The rules were quickly changed afterwards to avoid future embarrassments. The general cricket fan's reaction was, as far as I can tell, similar to your current political situation. All of NZ saw it as cheating.....and a good number of Australians saw it as cheating. There was of course a large number of Australians who thought it was all fair and good as it was not breaking any rules.

Mmm-hmm. Sure you are.

Well, your thread does say "pro bowl" safety.

2-1 record

You beat me to it. He has 18-204.....extrapolated for 16 games would be 58-653 His most productive season(last year 2012) was 43-571

I totally agree with you in that mid/late draft picks have a very low success rate and that if one can trade one for an established proven player (at a position of great weakness) then one should do it(every time IMO). You are however wrong in your assertion that the above occurs with the Bills and not the rest of the league. You mentioned an ESPN article that has me extremely curious. Of the 64 starting CBs in the league, 20 are 1st round picks, 11 are 2nd, and 8 are 3rd. (39 of 64 being 61%). This leaves 39% who are 4th round - undrafted......which is around half(at a stretch). I cannot see however that around half of the 'best' CBs in the league are from that 39% who were drafted 4th round or later. Below is a list of those 39% CBs(25 players). Apart from perhaps Samuel and Sherman, I can't see any who are considered to be in the 'best' category. Having read the article, perhaps you can highlight which ones are considered to be the best in the league? 4th Round: PIT: Taylor IND: Toler TEN: McCourty TEN: Verner JAX: Blackmon PHIL: Boykin ATL: Samuel SEA; Sherman 5th Round: CLE: Skrine BAL: Graham DAL: Carr CAR: J.Thomas SF: Brown 6th Round: None 7th Round NWE: Dennard JAX: Ball PHIL: C.Williams CAR: Munnerlyn STL: Finnegan Undrafted: MIA: Grimes DEN: Harris GB: T.Williams GB: Shields MIN: Jefferson NO: Greer SEA: Browner

Though some obviously have problems with the concept of trading mid/late draft picks for proven players, most I think would be happy with the concept. The problem of course is that the discussion is futile if nobody actually knows of any proven talent that is not only on the trade blocks but is also acquirable for a mid/late pick.

I was responding to the statement... "Hindsight is 20/20 but to go into a NFL season with two rookie QB's is only something the Bills would do." I was only answering a trivia question.....It wasn't only something that the Bills would do....the Redskins did it. After only limited playing time, I leave the assessments of how good/bad a player is going to be to you experts.

That most of our secondary are injured perhaps?

Redskins 2012

I didn't realize that you were so punny, Simon.

I'm sorry but that opinion is wrong. Some opinions are indeed wrong. They don't just run contrary to mainstream belief, they run contrary to actual facts and can be proven to be incorrect. For example, somebody of the opinion that Fitzpatrick has as strong an arm as EJ. This can physically proven to be incorrect, therefore the person has an opinion that is wrong. Furthering to that are all of the opinions that are not simply contrary to mainstream belief, but are lacking in any form of rational judgement. As example, somebody saying that even though the Bills have missed 13 years of playoffs that we have been competitive every year. On every reasonable way of assessing the situation, this statement is obviously wrong though it technically cannot be proven to be incorrect. IMO there are quite a lot of views that get opined around here that are either factually incorrect or obviously wrong.

Aliens abducted Kiko Alonso and He anally probed THEM! Um....maybe not.

They're the same guy, yes?

I'd agree if you're talking about all of those awful designer lettuce leaves they have nowadays (rocket etc).....but traditional iceberg lettuce, Yum!

Apart from the concept that saying that isn't really saying much(as we only had bad QBs here).....Drew Bledsoe.

I think that every player knows that it is part of the job to play when not at 100%.....but I don't believe that is fully established in the player contracts nor the CBA documents(though I haven't looked it up). As you said....."a hazy grey area". As far as I'm aware, for a player to take the field he has to be cleared by the doctor.....and has to give the okay himself. I don't blame Byrd because just like the Bills he is following the rules. He definitely had the condition last season and he chose to play when not 100%. He has it again this season and chooses not to play when not 100%. I don't believe he is doing himself any favours by not playing(assuming his PF hasn't become chronically bad) and is IMO likely hurting his chances of landing more money than if he plays.....but it is his decision to make.

A player playing in the last year of his contract(example: Byrd last season) was playing with just as much risk but without the Franchise Tags money level. The only players that are not at risk are those that have large guaranteed monies still remaining in their contracts.

3 fumbles for EJ is too many....agreed.....but it isn't a horrendous stat. There are 22 other QBs in the league within 1 of that or worse. 6: Tannehill 5: Roethlisberger 4: RG3, Stafford, Wilson 3: Kaepernick, Dalton, G.Smith, Vick, Manuel 2: Ponder, Brady, Cutler, Pryor, Locker, Bradford, Flacco, Romo, P.Manning, Flynn, Freeman, Palmer, E.Manning CJ and Freddie however both have 3 and in relation to their peers do not look very good....both leading the league with only 7 other RBs within 1. 3: CJ, Freddie 2: Murray, Mendenhall, D.Williams, Martin, Ball, Wilson, Peterson