Rubes

This is going to be "Mike Williams vs. Bryant McKinnie" all over again.

What, this thread wasn't good enough for yous guys? As far as Clayton goes, I can't say for sure because I don't recall exactly what he has been saying, but my impression is that the "poison pill" clause that was introduced into the CBA is not finalized. It's part of the CBA that hasn't been formally voted on yet, but will be later this year. So even though it's part of the CBA, it's not officially part of it...yet. I'm guessing that this is where Ralph and Gazoo differ...Gazoo probably is getting on Ralph's case for crying about a clause that isn't officially part of it yet, but Ralph (rightly so, in my mind) is raising a ruckus about it to make sure that as much public support as possible is on his side, forcing the owners' hands. Just my $0.02.

I love Kliban's work. The man was really a pioneer, in some respects. He died a few years back, didn't he?

That was just a thing of beauty.

Easily the best article I've read so far on Wilson and his one-man (perhaps now two-man) crusade. Rehashes a lot of facts that are already known but it does a nice job putting it in perspective. Roth gets it right

Don't forget that if any of the big names happen to drop a couple of slots (D'Brick, Mario, etc), there are going to be other teams itching to move up and grab them way before we get a shot at them.

That did get me fired up. Thanks!

No kidding? Does that mean no more trips to Salt Lake for you? Dang. I wish I got paid the dough they're claiming on that list for what I do.

Dude, she wants to pursue "additional schooling to study medicine". I'm sure I could teach her a thing or two.

And yet...your name is an insult.

I think you forgot to put the title of this thread in ALL CAPS

Wow...trying to restrict season ticket sales to a Redskins credit card? And I thought they couldn't get much worse than charging for watching training camp.

Just when you think you have a grasp on the whole salary cap thing... Okay, so one of the points that has been made time and again during this whole Ralph debacle is the one made (again) today by Pitoniak in the D&C with respect to sh!tbags like Jones and Snyder: They have more dough, so they can pay out higher signing bonuses. WTF? I thought all signing bonuses count against the cap, it's just a matter of how much and over how long a period of time. When don't they count against the cap?

I would imagine that, if Ferguson manages somehow to fall to us at #8, that the price for trading down would almost be too good to pass up... That would make for quite the dilemma.

I still don't understand all of this talk. From all that I'm hearing from OBD, we need a nose tackle and an under tackle. The under tackle is the guy who is the faster, penetrating guy, which is supposed to be Triplett. The nose tackle is the guy who occupies two blockers. Right now, that's Anderson. Isn't this the type of DT we're looking for in the draft? Isn't that what Ngata does? (Not that I'm rooting for Ngata, I just don't understand all of this talk.)

You mean this didn't give it away??? I mean, just imagining Levy saying that breaks me up.

Well, at least he thinks so. I would like both of these signings. If Wells really does drop down to 230-235, that would be a nice guy to bring in off the sidelines, especially if he can pass block. Reyes would help to solidify the LG spot, for certain...or at least make it less of a liability. Sounds like he really liked his visit, so perhaps we'll hear about a contract offer soon.

"Just by trading back a few slots." It's that easy, isn't it? Sure.

I get the concept of trading down, but you only trade down if: (a) you think the guy's value is less than where you are currently sitting, (b) you can find someone to trade down with, and © the spot you're trading down for is not so far down that you'll still get a shot at the guy. That's a lot that needs to come together, particularly when you consider that not a lot of teams want to trade up to begin with, and you're probably further limiting who you can trade down with by the number of spots you're willing to drop.

So if we pick Huff (and I wouldn't be upset at that move, I would just prefer a lineman), will you be watching Bunkley's career, or Justice's? If they turn out to be All-Pros, will you think we missed out on them? The point being, you're going to miss out on somebody, no matter what.

...and I'm sure folks here will help me to understand better: People talk about Justice being a hot prospect at LT, maybe not quite as good as Ferguson, but excellent nonetheless. But just not at the #8 position. People talk about Bunkley being at least as good, if not better, than Ngata. But Ngata's okay at the #8 position, but Bunkley isn't. Why? I understand that we could probably get these players if we moved down a few spots in the draft, but that requires (a) another team that is willing to trade spots with us, and (b) nobody else picking the player before he gets to us at the lower spot. What if nobody else wants to trade up with us? If the guy grades well and fills a big hole, what's so bad about taking him a few spots higher than he might otherwise go?

So is our strategy to obtain hordes of backups at every position and hope that someone steps up to become a true starter?

It was all his idea.

BB.com has Peerless listed as "first string" opposite Lee Evans.

Yikes, is that their new logo? Cool screen, though.