OCinBuffalo

Ah, a nice, mellow, late night thread. Not that it matters, but Chippewa and Allentown are all for the draft we had yesterday. I did not run into one person who was against anything we did yesterday, and I did run into a lot of shots in support of it. Aside from that, a lot of guys were disappointed that Mike Pollack was gone = f'ing Colts. The majority are for TE in the third round. Asian reporter Tricia Takenowa, oops, I mean, Your Irish/Polish downtown reporter, OCiP

I was gonna say Mike Pollack but I checked the board first. Darn, I wanted that guy for our 3rd. I still say take the best Center available. We gotta get somebody to challenge Fowler, not that it's going to be that hard.

Thought it would be fun to bump this back and see how we all did. Looks like I did pretty well....

Trade up with KC in the second?

Love that Bills fight song being sung in the background.

CB now?

Yeah that would be great if they out-smarted themselves.

The Bungles got screwed on that deal.

DRC for pats*?

Come on J.e.t.s just draft a TE!

See I am ok with whatever as long as it makes sense, I'm just not ready to condemn a pick just because he is a skill player. IF they take a CB or WR, or DE or OL, then I am happy. If they take a QB, RB, LB then I won't be, because none of those picks make sense.

The other problem was there was no definitive partner to trade down with. The #8 pick was too expensive for the the teams that might have wanted to trade up, so they didn't, which made the whole issue moot. And then Whitner proceeded to win D player of the month, provided leadership last year, and is poised to take a shot a the Pro-Bowl this year, but because some posters here can't admit they were wrong, we are still talking about him being a reach, or not a good pick.

Hey look, I couldn't agree with that, both this post and the one above, exactly as stated, more. I look at it this way: it's gotta start with the head coach and the position coach of whatever guy you are looking at. If the guy they want is available and they have done their homework on him they should take him, and to hell with whatever anybody else thinks, they aren't the ones who are going to be fired if the coach/gm pick the wrong guys. You can't be have all the responsibility but none of the authority. If it's your job then you do what you want, and live with the results. Like Marv said: "If you listen to the fans, you'll be sitting next them". Is there any reasonable Bills fan left who still wants to call Donte Whitner a reach? I bet after this season, there won't be any one able to reasonably call McCargo a reach either.

It's easy really, any guy who plays on the O or D line is not a reach and is an excellent pick. Any guy who doesn't is a reach and we could have traded down for him. See it's simple.

The only problem is he's projected to go 17 at the earliest from all the mocks I have seen, and I don't know why it's ok to reach back 6 picks in the top half of the draft. Does the fact that he plays on the line make that ok? Does that same reasoning apply if we were to take a CB?

Didn't you get the memo? The only thing that ever makes sense in every draft, no matter where we pick and regardless of the talent level of other positions, is to draft big line guys, regardless if they are a 10 draft pick reach or are projected to go in the next round. Philip Merling, here we come!

KC rarely makes much sense, and his attempts at statistical analysis are laughable, but I think he's on to something here, although he made it clear as mud. The simple fact is our secondary played well in spurts, mostly due to injury at other positions. In fact they were doing a decent job even at the Pats home game. The problem there was that, as I was watching it form the end zone and timing each play, they were expected to cover guys for 5-7 seconds, or else they'd make the play. Every time that they were able to stick with their guys for 5-7 seconds we stopped em. Mostly they ran crossing patterns which took 5 seconds to develop and once they did, bam, completion. But that's the problem, they should only have to realistically cover people for 5 seconds max, not 7. There simply was no pass rush to speak of. We get a decent pass rush going, and the more I think about it, the more I think we might just be surprised with how well McGee, Greer and Youboty can play. But who knows? If a guy like McKelvin is there at 11, he's the best available, and I have no problem taking him. If nothing else than to get his return game and give McGee a rest/less chance of injury.

See that's the thing that makes this analogy go: just like football, you pay your rookies as rookies and your journeymen as journeymen, but, your stars get the chance to make the big money. Officers have their own way of making bank when they get out, and I know this from seeing it personally. These contractor jobs are the equivalent of the enlisted guys hitting the big time, and all I am pointing out is that I doubt it's an accident that they are doing things this way. I know a couple of them as well and I have yet to hear any complaints, especially when I see the one guy's new boat. Funny that you don't hear much from the wives, either. Again, not saying right or wrong, just making an observation.

This is gonna sound nuts but the more I think about it, the more this contractor thing resembles FA in football. Stay with me for a second, let's assume there is a guy named Bob. Bob went to Ranger school, he's worked with some Delta, basically one of the guys in Blackhawk Down. Needless to say, Bob is one of the elite, but Bob is still essentially getting paid his rookie contract scale(enlisted pay). Bob takes a look around and realizes that he's in Iraq and there are other guys a few years older than him who are making 100k for doing the same kind of work he is, and just like any other elite player, says "I'm better than that guy and I should be getting paid as much if not more than him". So Bob gets out and signs his new FA contract with a contractor, after all he can get just as dead as a contractor as in the Rangers, kinda like a Football player can get hurt any time, so he might as well grab all the cash he can while he can. I guess I can't blame Bob. And, if you think about it, as far as effectiveness goes, just like FA vs. the draft, you'd rather have a proven guy like Bob out there than hoping to replace him with a new recruit, that hopefully you can develop and train and maybe he gets to Bob's level in a few years. I'm just saying, this scenario works out infinitely better for Bob, and gives the military a way to retain Bob, rather than losing him to some other career. Besides, they'd rather pay Bob a lot more, because they know what they are getting, just like a proven elite FA, rather than having to constantly pay for all the schooling that Bob's replacement needs = same as recycling draft picks, and Bob is a "right now" solution. I haven't thought enough about this to decide whether this is a good idea or not, but it seems clear that this is the dynamic.

No but I like messing with leftist women It's funny because I don't remember being angry when I wrote that, it just kinda came out. I don't think I even edited it that much, and I was doing something else while I was writing it(SQL tracing, blah). However, reading it over it's factually correct and that's all that really matters. Great, here's the problems with what you wrote: 1. Bush's veto power existed BEFORE the election in 2006. It's not some new thing, and the Democrats knew full well that it existed before they made their promises 2. I don't care, and I don't think anybody else does, that they have challenges that have to be overcome. When you sign up for a gig, you sign up, and if there were any potential project killers or things you can't or don't want to handle, it's easy: you don't sign up in the first place. They are the ones who promised that not only WOULD they overcome these challenges, that they COULD overcome them. Are you suggesting that anything you wrote above wasn't known by the Democrats BEFORE they made their promises? All I see here is the lowest form of opportunistic power grabs, and absolutely no results to show for it. They either knew they weren't gonna actually do anything, or they were lying to themselves, but they grabbed the power anyway. We end up worse off than we were, or at the very best no better off than we were. No Molson I'm just annoyed and tired. I'm exhausted actually. I don't think I can take any more phony "indignation" or phony "righteousness" from people like you. I have a huge tolerance for different points of view, I have to because it's necessary at my job. But you and your type have exhausted my tolerance for your brand of BS. Most of what you say and believe is an absolute lie, and is all about scoring political points rather than actually putting forward solutions that are actually going to work. I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt with the Clinton thing and the recount mess. However, right around 3 months after 9/11, with the whole "what did he know, when did he know it" BS, I began to catch on. Rather than taking the opportunity to be part of the solution, or offer anything that can be called a solution on issue after issue, all you have done is try to score political points. Well, we can't eat political points, nor can we use them as fuel for our cars, and political points don't protect us from anything. And guess what? I am not alone in these views by a long shot: or haven't you checked Congress' approval ratings lately? You are lying to yourself, no surprise there, if you actually think that the Democrats are going to make significant gains in Congress this year. And the most ironic part of all? When you get your ass kicked this year(remember when I said things were getting better in Iraq and you called me "delusional", you wanna go round 2 on who's better at seeing things clearly?) or things basically stay the same Congress wise, and especially if McCain gets elected, how much do you want bet you will be blaming everyone else but the Democrats in Congress for that?

I think it's an absolute sin that Hamdan makes 150k more than Edwards this year. I know he'll get to make up for it later, but I'm just sayin'....

Are you kidding? First of all the blame-game for Democrats begins and ends with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and of course Bush. They will never, ever, ever, allow themselves to blame themselves, primarily because it is bad for their collective "self-esteem" and we all know that harming someone's self-esteem is worse than killing them. Honestly, from 1980-today, every time the Democrats lose they blame everybody else but themselves. Case in point: where is the blame for Nader and Michael Moore, who took 95,000 votes away from them in Florida, thereby electing Bush? No, somehow that act of masturbation is not their fault, it's somebody else's? it's Karl Rove's? AUFKM? And what's the worst thing: the worst thing is that they don't seem to realize that it's their bad ideas or bad behavior, like raising the capital gains tax in the middle of a recession(Jimmy Carter and Obama if he wins) or Clinton's bj losing it for Gore, that are the primary reasons they are 2-5 in Presidential elections since 1980, but they continue to blame everybody else, making them look even more ridiculous. I don't think the religious right works the way the ridiculous left works in this regard. The main difference is that the religious right wants to win, while the ridiculous left would rather lose 49 states - see Mondale vs. Reagan - than give up on their stupidity. The other key factor is that the right is willing to excoriate those who cause them to lose, while the left does nothing but rationalize = in 1992 when the Republicans took over congress, Dan Rather dismissed it as simply "the American people acting like children". Of course it wasn't the blatant failure of Clinton to do anything he promised, no, of course not. Ask yourself this: in 2006 we gave the Democrats congress and their shot to "make things so much better". What did we get? A recession, no change in gas prices, no change in the Iraq war, and a convoluted prescription drug policy that makes Medicare even more of a mess. Each one a broken promise and now their approval rating is 20 points LOWER than Bush's ever has been. But I am sure it's going to be someone else's fault again.....

I get that part, I guess what I am saying is: how does an ABC journalist saying Pieser said one thing, rate higher than this journalist saying he said another? And, what in the world allows this lady to decide which journalist is more "credible", especially when her own bias is blatantly on display? The rules are supposed to be used to require that both sides of the story are told, not simply deleting one side and replacing it with the other. Right? I even think that this is what crayonz is trying to say, and worse, I even agree with it. Disturbing.

Sure he's the kiss of death. I will never forget when he went on O'Rielly and when asked: "How high should the tax rate be?" He said "50,60,70%, whatever it will take to put all the social programs we need in place",etc. Why would anybody be surprised that this guy is the kiss of death when he tells Americans that he and his ilk are for raising their taxes to "50%, or whatever". At least he is actually "being honest"??? He's not the kiss of death because he's fat, a blatant liar(not so sure anymore, I am starting to think that he really is so affected that he actually thinks he's telling the truth/what he says actually makes sense, kinda like Molson Retard), unable to speak clearly, or dumb. He is the kiss of death because he goes onto talk shows and flat out says exactly what the far-left people think, without any high and mighty words like "change" and "solutions", and when all the allegory and rhetoric is removed, all we are left with is: 50% taxes. And that's right about the time when we tend to say F U, fatboy! And of course we all love it when he follows that up with his "we should be more like Western Europe" speech. If I was McCain's people, I would be goading him into speaking for "Democrats" every day of the week, even though it's not fair to the rational Democrats out there. Why? Because nobody exposes the far-left for what they actually believe better, and therefore, nobody represents the kiss of death on the cheek of the far-left better, even as the rational majority of us, on both sides, and independents like me, are kicking their other cheeks out the door.

Funny how Molson Retard has ducked both of these posts. I wonder why? In any event, this thread makes me happy in that so many here have stated clearly that the jig is up for these trumped up stories, and nobody is willing to take these "conclusions" as "news"(supposed to be based on facts, and then examined from multiple perspectives, not just one) anymore. Well, except for Molson...but I don't think we have to worry about the Molson Retard crew getting any power or actually being placed in charge of anything now. Not with the people of Penn. rewarding Hillary for B word slapping MoveOn.org = beating Obama by 10 points, all in the same week.