JohnC

Are you aware that you are the one freaking out? You would have flunked the test for maintaining one's composure under pressure. I asked a simple question about which state was involved.

What state are you describing here? What does asking someone of their sexuality or about their mothers prove?

Remnants of the Neanderthal faction still in existence. If a person hasn't learned to adapt to the modern world and know what is appropriate or not at this point then they will never.

He's good and crazy. Too volatile and too much crazy street in him.

In a setting which is small and the work product revolves around creativity Rex would represent the better style. If the business was a prison for LA gang members who were there for life the Marrone method of management would work well. His preference for rote discipline and an oppressive inflexibility is an environment he would be comfortable in. The problem with a coach like Marrone, who did a very good job in Buffalo, is that there is a shelf life to him and his rigidity. Marrone is an acolyte of Bill Parcells. That era of stern leadership where the coach screws with people to draw out their best doesn't work with this era of players who individually are working on their own personal brand. Another issue with Marrone is how would he work in an organizational structure where he doesn't have the full authority. Conflicts are inevitable in all organizations. But when they are lingering and become personal challenges then they become poisonous. In Jacksonville it is a good situation because he is working under an old time hard arse Irishman who would kick him in the nuts and throw him out of the door if he acted out as he has a tendency to do.

This was a stinky idea.

The OL with a healthy Cordy playing on the right or left side is better than without him. I'll even go so far to say that Cordy playing either guard position makes the line better. Without a doubt there are many factors that have to be considered related to health and contract. But losing him creates another hole while keeping him bolsters a line that needs bolstering. Unless he is used as a chip to acquire a qb I would prefer to keep him. He's not a flashy or prominent player but he is a good player. If he is subtracted from the unit the line will be diminished.

Promo, I told you that when Hurley left the program it was still in a good situation. One man's departure is another person's opportunity. Nate Oats has done a terrific job. The team plays a fast paced game yet they play a very unselfish brand of ball. They are an entertaining team to watch. I would love to see them win a game or two in the tournament. This is a team that in the short run can play with almost everyone. Congratulation. Canisius had a shot at winning their league tournament to get into the dance but they choked by getting away from how they normally play. I'm also rooting for Bonnie to make the tournament. Would love to see all the local programs revitalized. This year they were all good and entertaining.

I don't know if anyone else posted this link. Maybe Corner26 did on another thread. Tony Pauline was on Howard Simon's Show on WGR. He had a very positive take on Lamar and his take on the qbs were interesting. He is not a fan of Rudlolph. He was cautious with his remarks but his view on Hurst was ominous. It's a 13 minute segment. http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/03-07-tony-pauline-draftanalystcom-howard-and-jeremy

I don't think that Nelson is going to leave primarily because with Buffalo he is going to get playing time. He is far from being elite but his upside is being a solid third pairing defenseman. The one player who I thought was going to be good was Bogo. He simply can't stay healthy. I have felt for a long time that he plays too much of a brutish game instead of a more finesse and fast skating defenseman. Physically he has all the tools. But the problem is just because you are built like a guerilla that doesn't mean that you should play like one.

If you look at the comments that Housley made about our young defensemen he is essentially saying that there is a good core of a young and good skating players. If you add in Risto, McCabe to the group that includes Guhle, Nelson and Antipin then you are building a good unit. With the exception of the physical Risto the identity is speed and puck movement. It's a good starting off point. This team needs more up and down forwards and finishers.

I will say the same thing to you that I said to Hokie. You are taking my comment out of context. The discussion was over Watkins and the giving up of two first round picks for him in a draft that included other good receivers. In the Buffalo situation Watkins performance was diminished because of the caliber of qbs he was playing with. If you disagree with that assessment then we have a disagreement that won't be reconciled. Did the Bills get the full value with their trade up for him? I say no. And one of the primary reasons (besides injuries) was the qb he was playing with. If you want to include Gordon and Hopkins in the discussion as it relates to the Watkins discussion I will make the same point that I wouldn't give up two first round picks for either player. I wouldn't do it as draft prospects or even as accomplished pros. You might but I wouldn't. Both players are very good players who garnered impressive stats. How did it impact on their respective teams?

Kirby, With all due respect you missed the point regarding the Watkins discussion. The discussion has turned into a dog chasing it's tail. With respect to the receivers you mentioned I would not give up two first round picks for either one of them. That's not how you build up and balance out a roster. However I would give up two first round picks for a qb.

Again, how many first round picks were used for Gordon and Hopkins? In addition, if talented receivers perform well with mediocre qbing it stands to reason that they will perform even better with good qbing. Or another way of looking at it is maximizing the talent with a better qb. That's the point!

I don't want to quibble because it is a waste of time. You are isolating a statement that was made in a wider context. The discussion related to Watkins and the price paid for him. My position is if the Bills would have had a credible qb then the Watkins deal would have made more sense. The Hopkins situation is clearly different from the Watkins situation. If Houston would have given up two first round picks for Hopkins that would not have been a good deal.

No, it is very relevant to the discussion that I was involved with over Watkins i.e. the cost for the player under the circumstances. Your response failed to note the cost of the player. That is the relevant point.

How many first round picks were used on Hopkins?

How many first round picks were used on Hopkins?

My guess is if Beane couldn't get one of his top rated qbs prospects he would take Rudolph over Jackson because he is more of a prototypical qb. I would prefer the more dynamic Jackson over the more conventional Rudolph. My priority is to come away with an eventual franchise qb. I'm not fretting which one it is. There Is a good case to be made for a number of them. Which indicates that even alternative qbs can be good selections.

It doesn't matter how great a receiver is when his talents can't be fulfilled because of the caliber of qb/s he is playing with. The lesson of the story is obvious. When you don't have an adequate qb it reverberates throughout the offense. The sequence in building a roster is important. The priority should have been to get a qb first. After that position was secured then it would make more sense to expensively invest in a top shelf receiver. The reverse happened under Whaley. Whaley is out of a job for not understanding what his priority should have been. The former GM thought he could prop up a limited qb. He was stupendously wrong. The take away is obvious: Get a freaking qb!!!!!

I don't see a quick fix. What players on this roster have value in a deal? The only one I can think of is Reinhart. O'Reilly and Okposa aren't very marketable. They are expensive and slow for this fast paced league. I'm not saying they aren't good but I am saying that they are not very marketable and wouldn't bring back much in return. Risto has value but do you really want to get rid of him? Giving up a first round pick for Lehner, a player that Ottawa was going to shed, was a bad deal. Anyone who objectively watched the Sabres for more than the first half of the season recognizes that this team simply doesn't have enough talent. There were plenty of times that this team wasn't disciplined on the defensive end. But when you get right down to the heart of the matter there is a dearth of talent. If Nylander doesn't come around by next year that will be a major blow. Will Mittlestadt come out and how soon will he be ready? The previous GM had a lot of bluster and made a lot of moves. They didn't add up to much. There are two steps to respectability: get rid of talent and then add talent.

I'm confident that Tyrod will be let go. That is the right thing to do for him and the franchise. I don't believe that Lamar is close to being a starter. That is going to take time. But with his unique skills he can be inserted into a game as a role player with specially designed plays.

If the Bills have a conviction on any of the top tier qbs and act on it I will not be critical. If Lamar is the qb targeted by the organization then I will support a proactive action to secure their favored qb. This is the year to get it done. My preference is to take a risk going up the draft rather than being passive and losing out.

Watkins was a top five player in his draft year and most draft years. That's how talented he was. That's an easy judgment to make. The issue is in a draft that had other highly rated receivers (acknowledged not as highly rated) was it worth it to give up next year's first round pick for him? I say no because we didn't have a qb that could maximize this receiver's bountiful talents. It's comparable to making a major investment in an elite back without having a credible OL to allow the back's talent to be actualized. Whaley took the approach that with an elite receiver you will elevate the play of the qb. The is a backward way of looking at the situation. The right approach would have been to have a qb in place who was capable of maximizing the talents of the receiver that the team at a pricey cost invested in.

. The people who say that Lamar is like Tyrod are the same people who say that Mayfield is like Manzield. Stupidity at a double digit exponential level. My fear with a strategy to stay pat and select Lamar is that he might be one of the players who by the time the draft process is concluded could be a riser and not only be available for a team drafting ahead of us but might be a surprise pick by a team jumping ahead of us.