Joe Miner

I was the only one planning on a 16 x 20 canvass above my mantel of a dead Osama?

Is that surprising? Look at all the Union contracts and deals that were signed. No one that can actually read would have ever done that.

So before 2000, people trusted the American Gov't?

Take a vacation day, so you have the freedom to roam around the office and do whatever you want. Take a 2 hour lunch. Bother other people. You know, completely mislead her into thinking work is fun.

And how do you see a statement saying that the removal of Saddam in 2003/2004 will be more significant than the death of Bin Laden in 2011 as partisan? Because clearly you're reading something into that statement that isn't there. But I would expect that from an idiot.

So now that I've dumbed it down to where you can begin to understand what I was saying, do you still want to argue and call people partisan, or would you care to retract what you said?

Edit for clarification: In my previous post, greater doesn't mean better. more significant, larger effect/impact is what I was trying to imply. Now, if you want to continue to argue the partisan point: Good to see you're an idiot. How will taking out Bin Laden change the world? Taking out Ghadaffi (or however it's spelled) will have a more significant impact on the world than taking out Bin Laden.

Did you try it with hot sauce?

Kinda my feelings as well. had this happened 8-9 years ago, it would have meant a hell of a lot more. I don't really care about the speech one way or another, as any president would have done something similar. Had this happened before either of the two wars, or the Patriot Act, this could have possibly helped shape this country for the better. While I'm glad he's dead, and I'm proud that we were able make the right call and to effectively act on good intelligence, I do not feel any different today than I did last week. The world's not safer, AQ isn't gone, we're not done in the Middle East because of this. To me, taking out Saddam will have had a greater effect in this world than taking out Bin Laden will have. Good day for America? Bittersweet to me at best.

I thought he was pretty terrible to somewhat average on the few times I saw him play this year. A poor man's Jamarcus Russel. But I'm not a trained NFL QB evaluating/developing professional.

Just because he won't be the 10 year franchise guy, doesn't mean you can't get 5 solid years out of him. At this point you're gonna either have to hope an Aaron Rodgers type falls to you in the first, you groom a second/third round guy, or you pick up a free agent. The franchise guys are all gonna go top 10, and maybe top 5. Do we really want the Bills to be drafting there? And just because people here would give up an entire draft for a player, I'll pretty much guarantee the Bills won't. So again, at this point you're gonna have to give the reigns to Fitz for probably at least the next 3 seasons and maybe 4 in order to draft and develop the next QB. Because at this point, if the QB they pick up is in the draft, he'll need a couple of years to learn. Fitz may not be great, but he's gonna be better than most any rookie they could pick up for the first season, Luck included. The last thing we want to do is draft another 1st round QB, and then put him in primetime too quickly. Look how well that worked out for us last time. Unless Levi Brown miraculously develops into a stud.

Ziemba and either a TE, OLB or S

I think most people are upset that after all the draft resources we've spent on DB's the last few years, it's still a position of need and we once again have to pass up other needs to fill a spot we've failed to fill many times over.

:lol: I have no idea. Bottom line is I wouldn't be opposed to a trade if I felt they got a decent value for the pick. I think there's quite a few good options at 34 and 1-2 would likely still be there by the Raiders 2nd round pick. And since I'm not sold on a QB in this draft, I don't mind the Bills moving down and getting more players to fill some holes.

I was under the impression that you were supposed to devalue a pick from the next year by 1 round. So the value of next years third would be the same as a fourth this year. I'd just as soon have their 3rd and 4th this year. That would give us a mid second, 2 thirds, and 3 fourths this year. I like that much better. I think you can definitely pick up a solid OLB, ILB, ROT, and TE with that, and still have a couple picks to add depth with. I'd rather have the pick this year. That way if we don't like our options come pick time we can re-trade it for something next year. Also gives us the option of getting really creative and packaging some/all of our fourth round picks to get back into the third round again this year.

Just go on strike until work gives you a free ride. It's your right.

Just my opinion

It's gotta be better than the drivel that passes for politics around here right?

To expand that thought a bit, do you happen to have any info on the Bills feelings on any of the 2nd tier QB's? Or even if a late round QB is a possibility if one isn't taken at #3?

This is a well thought out statement... if your IQ is 60.

I vote that pBills is an idiot. Early polling shows pBills is an idiot in a landslide.

This is along the same lines of the cliche about not being able to recognize the sucker in a business deal.

No. Only an idiot would suggest that.