OCinBuffalo

Well, kinda, the thing is that the consequence of implementing vouchers without my(or whoever's) accountability plan is that a lesser % of kids(but a large number->400,000?) get left adrift. Those kids will almost definitely become an exponential drain on society. You may be right, and perhaps random assignment might work, but it is much more likely that those kids end up exactly where they are today->until they steal a car and end up inside. We all know where it goes from there - more and more tax dollars we have to pay while they end up: 1. Dead 2. In jail for life 3. Having kids that will perpetuate this cycle 4. Committing crimes that affect other people drastically - may even contribute the kids of the victims to this cycle. Bottom line: We have to stop allowing children to be the currency by which these people, and the so-called progressives that are all too quick to reward their bad behavior, trade in. The fact that anyone can point to this vicious cycle and use the word "progress" boggles my mind.

No chance. I would love to see it, but no chance. McNabb loves that guy and so do the fans around here. My guess is the Eagles will sign him to medium $ and get him a good signing bonus sooner rather than later. I suppose there always is a chance, however small, but it was so obvious last year that as soon as Stallworth came in during the pre-season, the Eagles passing game improved 100%. The difference in the Eagles offense between the second and third pre-season games(after Stallworth had practiced a week) was gigantic. I would be shocked if they let him go, happy as hell, but shocked.

And I wouldn't bet against you. The simple fact is that this whole thing is a game. LF-B agent is Rosenhaus. I'm certain that this is a strategy he came up with and, now that it clearly hasn't worked, it's time for plan B. The good news is that we may get Fletcher signed for the rest of his career - at a relatively cheap price. IF this was Marv's intention all along then he is a lot smarter than all of us think. However, I don't agree that it's a good idea, in general, to get rid of LF all together. We have no idea who can fit where, who can play MLB, etc. I prefer that we do what we did with the QB situation: Let the guys we have/sign, plus whatever draft pick(s) we get, compete in training camp. The practice field is where these decisions should be made, not the conference room.

1. Recipes 2. Pearls of Wisdom 3. Crazy arguments about baseball j/k Happy Birthday Crayonz!

This is Milton Friedman 101. I tend to agree, but here's the thing: this entire theory is based on parents giving a schit what happens to their kids. I think we can all agree that there is a significant percentage of parents(crack addicts, alcoholics, Anna Nicole, and other people who can't seem to think about anything but themselves), about 20-30% that simply can't/don't care what happens. It is then left to the rest of us "villagers" to deal with the consequences of this selfish behavior->pay higher taxes for juvey, prisons, welfare, medicaid, social security, extra police, social workers, psychiatrists, etc. Of course these are all symptoms. The disease is the selfish behavior of the parents coupled with not teaching their kids the importance of education. If the parents don't care, why should the kids? This means that the teachers are the only positive influence in the kid's life. It's hard(in some cases impossible) to do that and get through a curriculum as well. My mom does this in her alternative middle school every day. She has to use unorthodox methods, but it seems to work about half the time. The bottom line is she is teaching the kids the proper behavior of adults(the kids soon figure out for themselves that their parent aren't adults); so the kids decide that they have to be adults - starting now. Like I said, this seems to be working about 50% of the time. Unfortunately that leaves 50% that doesn't work. I am not simply gonna define the problem without providing a solution: tie everything that these parents receive in terms of government aid to their kid's classroom performance and health of the child. The classroom performance is judged by the teacher setting reachable goals for that individual kid - not based on a standard for the entire class or some test that everyone will cry "racism" over anyway. The health of the child is based on monthly evaluation with a nutritionist and at least a nurse practitioner(which is pretty much what is happening now). Stop giving the parents on government aid cash outright. Give them points(chips, credits, whatever) that they can trade for social services/food. The points get spent on the kids first, parents second. Make them earn the right to get cash based on performance. This way if a parent wants to ever see any money to buy anything for themselves, they better make darn sure little Johnny is doing well in school. This will enable the Milton Friedman plan you have outlined, HA, to work because now the parents are compelled to care what happens to their kids. If that doesn't work, take the kid away, because there is nothing on this earth that will get that parent to care - and the kid is better off without them. As far as the rest of us who aren't so selfish, and since we are paying into the system rather than taking out, we get tax breaks based on the same model. This way every kid has to see the nurse(PA) and every kid has to see the nutritionist so that we are not singling out poor kids(bad for self-esteem->one of my best friends was on the "free lunch" program and he tells me still feels embarrassed to this day) . Also every kid rich/middle/poor has a individualized plan/set of goals to reach->every parent has a real good reason to be at parent teacher conferences. Those things will turn into very important meetings that I guarantee will be attended both mentally and physically. Bottom Line: Each and every kid gets the same level of service->it's dependent upon parents to use/reinforce that service, or the parents get kicked in the wallet. IT does not attempt to set some sweeping standard for all kids because this is ridiculous anyway. This will also help identify loser teachers in a flash because you will now have the eyes of every parent on each teacher their kid has. If the teacher is simply lowering the standard to "slide by" the parents will put a stop to that since they know that next year the kid will be behind, and conversely so will they $-wise. The principal will resolve most issues and serve as a mediator. It is simple accountability and it works(I know because this is the kind of thing I do every day). No crazy 300 page laws, no endless evaluation process therefore no more sending oodles of money to DC just so they can Administer(take their 30% cut) it and send it back. Edit: I forgot teachers get their base salary today plus a "completion of goal" bonus per kid, also parents get to serve(just like jury duty) on an oversight committee of teachers/principal to resolve issues.

Ignorant of what? WWII history? The appeasement policy of Lloyd George? The utter failure of that policy to produce peace? The fact that Hitler himself is on record stating that he could not believe England/France/etc. were stupid enough to negotiate with him? Hmm. Kinda like the intercepts we have gotten where Osama and his crew are laughing it up at how silly we are for not attacking them in Pakistan? On point the of Reagan's "diplomacy" - you are the ignorant one, well, intellectually dishonest is better. Reagan flat out told the Soviets to f off and WALKED OUT - after they had offered a half-measure regarding their nukes. WALKING OUT is not "diplomacy". It is walking out. In essence he made a ballsy move. All the press and and definitely all the limp dick liberals(there were some that did not support this) told us that the world was going to end. Reagan was insane - he was leading us to war, he was senile, etc. In fact - he got Gorby to blink. And having done that, at the next meeting THAT THE SOVIETS HAD TO BEG FOR because they wanted to look like they were the "rational" party, Gorby could not retract what he had already given, and therefore Reagan got him to give him the full measures he wanted, not the half. And all those limp dicks were proven COMPLETELY WRONG. Not that they will ever admit it, mind you. How convenient of you to leave out these salient details so that you can say that "technically" Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. In fact, HIS FIRST MOVE WAS NOT TO NEGOTIATE. It told you before and I'm telling you again, do not try to BS me, or other posters because I will catch you every time. You clearly don't have the skills. The simple facts are that you don't know history(or you won't be honest about it), you don't know about negotiation, and you don't know about economics. So why should we listen to you about anything? I have no interest in debating with someone who hasn't done the proper preparation. Do us all a favor - do some reading! And again, rather than debating points, you continue to call me names. What, are you too scared to attempt to directly contradict me? I doubt you can but let's see if you can do anything besides call people names.

Whoa! Don't you understand that by raising taxes the government has more money to spend? And don't you understand that the government spending money is much better than private investment? Oh, wait, that's now waste...or...wait what is it again? /buttons.scarasm = off If we have less taxes the government has less money. If the government has less money, the less it can waste. We should only allow the feds the money they need to do things than cannot be done effectively by the states/local governments. THAT was Alexander Hamilton's thinking. Period. If you don't agree why don't you come over to my place. I will be happy to give you a tour of of the 1st and 2nd "Federal Banks"(or whatever silliness was posted) where his writings are on display. They are only a few blocks from me here in Center City. Moreover, why in the hell is Molson2002 using Alexander Hamilton as an example of current liberal thinking. That guy was the inventor of the dreaded "corporate America" - (Of which I proudly say I am a member, and so is everyone, unless they work for the government or get(our) money from the government). Please understand that I don't agree fully with Hamilton. We need things like the EPA to make sure states don't get into a bidding war over who will allow the most pollution. We need things like the DOD because we all need to use the same rifles/ammunition, and we can't have the state of Iowa building destroyers to protect it's grain shipments. We need things like the Department of Energy so that one state doesn't hog all the electricity or worse, turn itself into North Korea. But don't forget that the deregulation of energy in 1995 caused a huge boom in investment in energy companies, increased competition, AND CONTRIBUTED TO MR. CLINTON'S ECONOMY more than he ever did. Also, I am a .com veteran and I can tell you first hand that we simply could not hire enough people fast enough - regardless of taxes - which is why a lot of them failed. Too much work and not enough qualified people to do it. Regardless, we did the work/thinking that made the boom happen - not some politician. /buttons.scarasm = on Oh wait, I forgot: Al Gore signed on to a piece of paper that we(techies) designed and put in front of him. Wow, I guess signing your name(Al Gore) and inventing a mobile architecture from scratch(Me) are about equal. You know I would never have come up with this software without Al signing his name. In fact, I am sure there is a Democrat somewhere who will be glad to take credit for all my work(because of tax dollars I was educated, and more silliness). Good thing we got tax dollars to do what we were going to do anyway And truthfully, those dollars barely scratch the surface of the amount of PRIVATE investment in Technology.

Great point. I saw the same thing in Spikes that you saw. He did come on later in the season. I think the speculation about him not being as good this year is groundless. Let's see what happens in training camp/pre-season, but I don't think we'll end up surprised when he gets back to original form.

Motion seconded, with an amendment that we wait until after the draft before we start complaining about things that haven't happened yet.

Which is why this notion that "diplomacy" will somehow work is ridiculous on its face. Somebody ask Lloyd George how diplomacy worked out with him and Hitler.

Thanks genius. I love it when we are spoken down to by the phony "intellectuals" on this board. WE KNOW it's about oil. What you never hear is WHY it's about oil. It's not the oil itself - we only get about 15-20% of our oil from the Middle East. I don't have time to get you the supporting data, but trust me, that's all we get from them. It's about the OIL MARKET. Yes that's right I said MARKET. This market is a leading economic indicator that drives just about every country in the world's economic forecasts. If you have to ask why that is important, well never mind - I'll make it easy for you: banks set their loan rates on multiple indicators. Each is given various weights. The OIL MARKET is one of these indicators and it receives a heavy weight - this means it matters a lot. If the OIL MARKET is projected to raise prices, that means that companies in general will have to spend more money on doing business. This means that some may fail/be less able to pay back loans. This means more RISK for the bank. SO, what does the bank do? IT RAISES ITS RATES. It's just like hedging a bet. The more potential bad bets you make the more likely you are to hedge them. Have you ever tried to work with an investment banker when rates go up? Well I have. It's not a pretty picture and it therefore stops/impedes me from doing what I want to do. This slows my company's progress down. This means I wouldn't hire people as fast as I want. On a grand scale this would happen to lots of guys/girls just like me - which means the country slows down and it also means that the so-called "little guy" or "working family"(as if I don't work my ass off every day) doesn't get a raise, a job, extra benefits, etc. Again, on a grand scale, unemployment goes up, inflation rises - basically we have the 1970's under Carter all over again. Telling a farmer in Iowa that he has to sell his family's land because the bank rates are too high for him to cover his mortgage is ALSO ABOUT OIL. Now, if you are attempting to take the moral high ground here by saying "It's all about the oil, man, and Bush is an oil guy", etc., please know that while you take it you are doing so to the detriment of the lowest level workers in this country. "The Rich" can pay $3-4 dollars a gallon for gas. Can the guy who works at Wal-Mart? Telling a nurse aid in New Jersey who drives a 1/2 to work every day that she now has to pay $4 a gallon is ALSO ABOUT OIL. Maybe you should sign up to tell the farmer and the nurse aid the good news: that their lives are gonna drastically change for the worse but it's OK since you get to claim the, now meaningless, moral high ground. And in reply to "This is not a GLOBAL problem": you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand. Some banks are now global. All banks, domestic and global must compete in the same markets. Global situations affect global banks, but since they are in the same market, they affect domestic/local banks as well due to competition. Q.E.D. The OIL MARKET affects us all, every day, all the time - IT HAS EVERY THING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES. Molson2002 = Jackass. Bottom Line: This "all about oil argument" is an emotional boondoggle that is designed to fool: 1. those with the intellectual capacity of a six year old 2. those who are willing to be fooled because it serves their purposes 3. those who cannot see beyond some simplistic ideological constructs because doing so would call those constructs into question(i.e. the brainwashed) 4. Scientologists - hey this kind of bait and switch is right up their alley!

Wow! Blah, blah, blah is a great way to prove that you have something of substance to offer. The basic "gest" of my post has nothing to do with saying one party is less/more patriotic than the other. Rather, it shows that one party - the Dems, and one poster - you, are apparently more willing to see the country make bad choices, or do poorly if it means that you get to have power. I have proven on countless occasions here and elsewhere that I am not stupid. If you knew more about me, I highly doubt that you would use that word and me in the same book, never mind the same sentence. To come to the conclusion that I am stupid merely means that you did not read my post. Or, perhaps you read it, but did not comprehend it. Either way, you did not address my post - preferring to use the same Ad Hominem arguments that have served your party well over the last few years. So it's no surprise to me that you would attack me rather than the clearly stated ideas in the post. I wrote it objectively, pointing out where both parties have made/will make mistakes and also pointing out the fundamental dangers to your party if they proceed with the thinking you did(despite your denials) put forward in your original post. Perhaps you are incapable of objective thought. That too would not surprise me. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Like I said, if you(and your party) are in fact "stupid" enough to not see what I am saying and you don't deliver any kind of meaningful results, then you will deserve what you will get: out of power in all three branches again. I submit that you, rather than accepting responsibility for that "stupidity", will then proceed to blame everyone under the sun but yourself. Perhaps you will have the moral courage to prove me wrong, but I doubt it. Crap. Utter crap. Your words were/are clear. You were not arguing what you say here. You were saying that the acquisition of power, in and of itself is a perfectly justifiable end to achieve whether the country has to do poorly(or more likely spun as doing poorly) or not to achieve it. So here's the thing: I am not questioning the Patriotism of Dems on the whole. No sir, I am simply questioning yours. That you would put your selfish goals above the good of the country tells me and the rest here volumes about you. If you think you can try to talk your way out of something you behave yourself into you are truly lost, and quite "stupid" as well. Moreover, if you think that you can BS me then you are really "stupid" Wild tangent. Hmm. Nope, I checked my post and everything relates to my premise. No tangents here, just supportive arguments/logical conclusions. I highly doubt that you will perceive losing power back to the Republicans as "meaningless crap". In fact, I venture to guess that this would have significant meaning for you; but of course, your party losing power would be all of us "stupid" people's fault. Of course this is what you will say(as is always said by intellectual phonies): 1. My ideas are better than everyones. 2. But then my ideas don't work. 3. Cry. 4. Recover and spin: It's not my ideas that didn't work, it's that they weren't implemented correctly/no one is smart enough to understand them. (This seems to work great for Scientologists why not you?) So of course our "stupidity", not yours, will be the reason that you lose power - according to you. Good luck with that plan. What did you get that out of LBJ's political game plan? Sorry pal, this is 2007. There is entirely too much information out there for the "stupid" American people to obtain unfiltered - just ask Dan Rather. And by propagating this thinking(again, despite your denials) you are now playing into the Republican's hands. I would guess that even Howard Dean would call that "STUPID".

Thanks Kelley for: 1. Explaining this so well. 2. Having the patience to explain it so well despite consistent heckling from DeLuca. Unlike him, I can read and comprehend. Overall, this doesn't sound so bad. In fact, it sounds as if it's part of a multiple year plan. Has anyone considered that "cash to cap" this year allows for us to be extremely flexible in 2008? Some might say "big deal" but here's why it is a big deal: 1. We have no idea how good our drafted players from last year are. We know they don't suck. But we don't know how good they are. If they show significant progress this year, that tell us to sign FA/draft for position in 2008. 2. We don't know where the holes are definitively. Sure there are a few positions that may seem obvious but not many. Due to #1 we really have no idea where our biggest concerns are for the team as a whole. I.E. Will Ellison develop into a pro-bowler or merely a steady contributor. If its the former, then maybe he can eventually play MLB. If its the latter, and Crowell can't do the job as well as we like, then in 2008 we will have the $ and space to go sign a top FA because it will be clear that we need to do that, at that position, right f'in now. 3. This last season was a rebuilding year. Yes, but here's what else that means: the core(rotten IMO) of this team was ripped out and replaced. That process will continue this off-season(good). With this new core, we don't know how much holdovers like NC, LF-B, TKO etc. are worth to us. I.E. Anyone who says that loosing Nate/keeping Nate is a definitive recipe for failure/success is simply basing this on a slew of assumptions - not fact. The real fact is we don't know how well this team will work together. I.E. we all hope that the team responds to our values in Western and Central New York: hard work, unselfishness, team concepts, handling your business properly while not at work, etc. But what if they don't? Or worse, what if sudden success next year takes their collective egos for a spin? At that point we will be saying: Thank God we didn't spend guaranteed money on those idiots. Thank God Marv was smart enough not to give away huge paydays with no incentive to perform during the season(a.k.a. Washington Redskins) And most important, Thank God Marv has the flexibility to get new people in here. Or how about this? And this is also an important element: Thank God Marv didn't build in divisions amongst the players between the "haves and the have nots"(a.k.a. Dallas Cowboys). What, if any, team concept did Dallas display last year? I know, they went to the play-offs. NOT hard to do in a conference where teams make it in with 8-8 records, and little Manning at QB, AND, you played an easy(compared to ours) schedule in 2006. So, it's clear that we are in need of flexibility above all things for this year. After this year, when we know more about who can do what, I think that will be the time to drop big bucks on one or two clear, immediate need guys. Let's see how the draft goes as well. I think that by next year at this time, things will make a whole lot more sense.

How is keeping/getting a party in power more important than the immediate results needed/proper running of the country? What you are basically saying is that the running of the country properly is less important to Democrats than the quest for power? Whoa! Keep going with that attitude and the backlash created will ensure that you that you get neither. This is perhaps the silliest post I have read in while. But I have to say it's no surprise. Democrats have exposed themselves on multiple occasions as putting power before patriotism/good ideas in the last six years. It appears that the Republicans have been either too stupid, too corrupt, or too wimpy to crush them on this. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for losing power/playing into the hands of the Democrats. Now the question will be who can muster the moral courage to make a stand. Either them Dems do what they said: put a relatively quick end to the war - or they will be exposed for being phony/ineffective. (I think ending the war is a ridiculous idea, btw.) If we are still fighting two years from now, then why were they elected in the first place? Certainly it wasn't the economy - it was the war. They will have failed to produce on what this so-called "mandate" was all about.(complete crap - people are just pissed we haven't won - they are not fundamentally opposed to war in general) Add to that this phony power first, country second attitude and that is a recipe for another clean sweep by Republicans in 2008. Good job molson_golden2002 , you have set the table, now let's see if the Republicans are smart enough to sit down and eat( I doubt it btw, they will probably find a way to f it up). Like I said what a silly post. What a dumbass. This comes from a person who is part of the "we are smarter than you are so let us make most of the choices for you, because we 'represent' you" party. Sorry pal, my 12 year old cousin is smarter than you are. I'd rather let him run the country than you.

Didn't you just post this yesterday? Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth -FDR

I generally agree but hey - the facts also are that the draft picks who played are YOUNG! We have no idea where they stand with regard to being "adequate". However, no one can say that they didn't do a hell of a job, and beyond everyone's expectations(including the consistently negative posters - whether they will admit that is a separate issue). And here's the thing - what if the rooks/2nd year players IMPROVE? Where will that leave the "Marv is dumb/old" crowd? More buckets of crow to eat - not that they will actually eat them - like I said earlier: Marv's draft and the clear improvement in the team, especially in the 2nd half of the season, has left more than a few folks here with unfinished crow to eat. I suggest that they eat the crow they have in front of them. You are right to say that people have a right to post what they want. But I also have a right to keep the links to all the: 1. retarded 2. definitively wrong 3. unfounded, conjecture-based 4. attacking Marv/Ralph/DJ/Players posts in a database/app I built. More to come....

Great counter to a stupid(IMO) premise in the title of this thread. THE REDSKINS WERE 5-11 LAST YEAR! What are we gonna have to do to get that through to people? There is no reason to Chicken Little over one press conference. Especially when we have results to base our opinions on: Last years draft, and FA decisions were 90% good which is much better than anyone had the right to expect. So by the logic of this thread we are going to take a step back because of a press conference? Not hardly. In fact no friggin' way. Sure there will be lots of crying when we don't draft/sign peoples' favorite players - like there was last year. But ultimately Marv and Co. made a lot of people here, and elsewhere, eat a hell of a lot of crow - some of you still have 3-4 buckets of crow left to eat. WGR has about a truckload to munch on. For those folks, I suppose they should finish the crow they have before they start telling us how wrong/old Marv is again.

WGR is being silly. Due to some here posting how ridiculous they have been over that last few months, I decided to listen to them today on the internet. They set Marv up BIGTIME. Before the press conference: - Not sure who the guy was - Schop(sp) I think - says "I know that Marv doesn't want to give away his game plan but we need to hear more than we are going to try and sign the guys we have", etc. After the press conference: "We need to hear more, etc. But Marv is not tipping his hand." And then one guy says, "Well, I guess I don't care about what he says as long as there are results, etc." Mike(again my guess) says: "Yeah but there is a PR aspect to it - people won't go to games", etc. Wow, what geniuses. You know that Marv won't tip his hand (IMO because he want to get some RFAs and doesn't want to bid against himself), yet you call him out for not tipping his hand. Hey, great journalism - where did u go to school Mike? With that prowess on display did u go to Columbia? I'm amazed! He can predict the future! And then, to make matters worse: He insults us all by saying that somehow what Levy says in a Presser is more important than the results he obtains - i.e. signings, draft picks - as though we are all idiots and incapable of understanding what a FA signing/draft pick "means". Moreover, if an average Joe(read: no one on this board) happens to pop on the radio and listens to these guys he might think all hell is breaking loose with the Bills->not gonna buy many tickets unless he hears something positive. Schop says he is interested in making sure that people go to the games. Mike: How are u helping make sure they go when you keep saying the Bills suck! Do I have to draw u a picture? I can see why people have been pissed at these guys - couple of hacks IMHO. The Philly guys are at least somewhat insightful and have much more to offer than the blatantly obvious - well, unless they are talking about the Flyers in which case all reason goes out the window. It is extremely fun to hear them cry about the Sabres

I think DiGiorgio can do the job. He is fast, smart and can hit hard. The scout film I have seen on him(it's out there you can see it too), yes D2 - but still impressive to say the least. He did a great job on special teams this year - from watching the games on timekills.org. The guy hustles and seems to have a great attitude. What specifically is wrong with him getting a shot at MLB? The fact that he's from a small program? Um, so is London Fletcher and Zack Thomas. What I'm looking for is substantive arguments here - not "he sucks", or one stat - like his 40 time. Why we do we have to go get someone no matter what? I guess what I'm asking is this: is there a 100% guarantee that DiGiorgio cannot be the guy? How about 80%? Wherever that line is drawn, does it mean that we have to arbitrarily draft/sign a MLB because he simply cannot do the job? I'm not saying that we drop all plans and have blind faith in the guy. I am saying that if F-B goes, it's not like we don't have two options in Crowell and DiGiorgio because I think Spikes is fine and Ellison can do the job. Based on the needs we definitely have(in order): OL, DL, CB - I would put LB fourth. Who says we can't get a journeyman LB in FA, for depth, and leave LB draft picks to the fourth round or later?

The Buffalo Bills will set new standards this off-season. For what? I dunno.

What is Holcombian evolution? Spore.

Umm... I was talking about my brother. As far as McCargo goes - I agree with you - let's wait and see. Reading comprehension is important:)

The problem is he will never actually want to admit what he is feeling if it means that he might not get to play, never mind start. We have all(my sister as well) lied to our parents, especially Mom, and coaches about our injury status at one time or another. So I can't say. I sure as hell know that if he wasn't 100% he wouldn't tell me, or anybody for that matter, for fear that I might spill the beans Well, he might tell his dopey girlfriend because no one would listen to her anyway. My guess is that he would go if he felt 60% right because that's pretty much what I did. As far as it affecting play: the one game I saw him play after the initial injury he looked slower - not tentative - but it looked like it was simply slowing him down(he's a midfielder in lacrosse). He usually dominates in face-offs and it was clear that he wasn't getting the same drive on his clamps - I think he only won 70% which is not normal. So yeah - IMO it was affecting him. Now, with the bolts, he seems to be better. Could be mental too, I guess.

Yep - I thought about that later on. The only thing I would say to you, and to the others, is that please remember I put a #%$@!!! in the title of my topic. I'm not happy about the prospect of drafting a corner at #1 or #2 for that matter. This situation sucks. The point I am trying to make is that this may happen to us - and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. In other words, Marv could easily use this rationale, IMO it's a schit sandwich, but we would all have to take a big bite because it does make sense. Here's to finding a way to keep Thomas or getting lucky with the Bills finding quality CBs in the later rounds. I want Okoye or Willis in the first round - we have to stop the run. But I would even be happy with a OL pick, well, not really. As I have said before OL take 2-3 years to develop. I would much rather see us address that with a UFA cap casualty or something like that. To me it's too risky to take OL in the first round(I guess I am ok with the second) - and not just because of Mike Williams.

Link Unsung Thomas would be key loss for Bills' secondary By Connor J. Byrne on February 14, 2007 12:04 AM "By losing both Thomas and Clements, which seems probable, the Bills would be down two of their top three CBs by early March. Sans the duo, Buffalo, preliminarily, would have average cover man Terrence McGee as its replacement for Clements and unproven second-year man Ashton Youboty in McGee's old spot. In order for their defense to achieve success next season, the Bills would be best served keeping McGee in the second starting role and moving Youboty into Thomas' soon-to-be vacated spot. Thus, finding Clements' replacement could either take place through free agency or the draft." I am sure that many here would cry oceans of tears if Marv was to stick to his supposed "strategy" of drafting a CB high(as has been documented by posters here ad nauseam). But, based on Connor's argument here - he might not be wrong to draft a CB high - especially if Thomas moves on. I don't know if Jabari Greer can step up to either the #2 CB or, if Youboty ramps up, the nickel back spot - and not have the defensive backfield lose effectiveness.