Magox

Ok, so an average of 8 receptions a game at a little less than 10 YPC with over 370 yards rushing at 13 yard per Rush attempt during that time span not good numbers?

Yeah, they probably did. But does that really matter?

I think that goes without saying. The point I was making is that vs. top level college competition, he excelled. Also, I personally value players that have been very productive in college, specially in the skill positions. Then when you combine those incredible stats, with his dynamism and speed, you get a play making player with a history of high production. I see him more in the mold of a DeSean jackson. I'd be very happy if he had similar stats to him.

That is an interesting point you bring up. So I looked up his stats against top competition. Texas, Oklahoma, Ok state and Texas Tech. Good teams right? 35 receptions for 360 yards and 2 TDs and 364 yards Rushing on 26 carries with 2 TD's. The year before he had 11 receptions for 187 yards vs LSU So at least we know that against the very best, he was a gamer.

Well, there is one little tiny difference between the two. Roscoe Parrish's stats: He had 19 , 24 and 43 receptions at UM For a total of 1355 total yard receiving through out his career with 12 TD's. He rushed for a career total of 186 yards with 1 TD Tavon Austin: had 114 receptions for 1289 yards with 12 TD's 72 Rushes for 643 yards HIS SENIOR YEAR! His Junior year he had 101 receptions for 1186 yards with 8 TD's The guy had over 1000 yards Rushing and 3000 yards receiving and 35 TD's for his career. And that isn't even counting his Special teams TD's. The only way you can reasonably make the comparison you are trying to make is purely on size and quickness. Production counts!

You know, when I saw your name from the main stadiumwall thread, I thought to myself "He must be here because of something related to religion" And yup, I was right!

Read more: http://thehill.com/b...r#ixzz2RV4Xp9FH Read more: http://thehill.com/h...e#ixzz2RV4zyA5g There is little doubt in my mind that there will be tons of opportunities to improve this bill for those lawmakers who have a genuine interest in achieving what the majority of Americans want, which is Immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship and secure borders. So when you say "Here's your bill" It implies, that this is the bill that will be voted on. Which is absolutely not the case. So it's not the bill, it's exactly what Marco Rubio says it is, which is a "starting point". Read more: http://thehill.com/h...t#ixzz2RV7dcxYi Two important points, one that Raul labrador who is taking the lead on the immigration reform for house republicans will make the bill more "conservative". two, Luis Gutierrez who has been the top advocate from democrats for immigration reform, who has lots of pull, is fully acknowledging that the Senate Bill, which will be even more to the right than the one you just posted, will be even more to the left than what will come out of the house. In other words, the final bill will be to the right of anything that we have seen. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/senate-immigration-bill-markup-may-9-90637.html#ixzz2RVA8sE3C

I think the most telling part of what was said was this: Looks like they are targeting a Qb to me.

I agree

That would be an unbelievably horrible PR move by the Democrats.

Not to mention that he is a dynamic playmaker.

I'd be happy with Austin

That's fine, but it's still not a reason to oppose immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship and border security. So the idea should be to make it as good of a bill as possible and go into this with a positive frame of mind. If Democrats look to weaken the border security portion of the bill, then that's on them. And you can in good conscience say that you supported the opportunity to pass an effective immigration bill, and that it was the Democrats who torpedoed the bill by going against what the American public wanted, which is to secure borders as well. btw, don't think that the immigration activists aren't paying attention, they will know who was working in good faith and who wasn't. If they see that Democrats take the cynical approach they will also hold them accountable as well. They would rather have 2/3 of what they want than nothing. They also understand that in order for a bill to pass, it has to meet "conservative" demands of border security. You think this is their first rodeo? They know the challenges of immigration reform. While you may believe that the president will try to use this as a political weapon moving forward, they don't care about that. They want results, which is true immigration reform. Also, as I stated earlier, the president DESPERATELY wants this to pass. His legacy is at stake, and this is his best shot of having something meaningfully positive for his legacy. Remember, he already won his election, the motivation to use this as a political sledge hammer doesn't interest him nearly as much as his legacy.

Well that's the plan. And there will be plenty of debate that will be geared towards border security along with pathway to citizenship. Make no bones about it, border security will be discussed and if the bill passes, which I predict it will, then there will be plenty of safeguards, triggers and measures that will help ensure that the border is more adequately protected and enforced than the status quo.

I think the Jets are trying to goad us into selecting Nassib with the #8 pick. If the Bills like Nassib and Barkley almost equally, and they have the option to trade back, then they shouldn't worry about the Jets, and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't believe that most liberals will jump ship. While I agree that Obama loves bogeymen, he also loves himself, EVEN more so than bogeymen. The failed gun push was a huge blow to Obama. I honestly don't believe you guys have any idea how much this damaged Obama's second term agenda. They absolutely thought they were gonna win, and they didn't. Obama wants to have a legacy, and he knows that Immigration is a huge part of his second term. He had three goals for the second term: 1) Gun control legislation 2) Immigration Reform 3) Budget Deficit Deal Unless the house flips over to Democrats in 2014 (Which is HIGHLY unlikely), there is no deal to be made on Gun control. So that leaves The budget Deficit deal (Grand Bargain), and Immigration reform. Raise your hands if you believe a grand bargain will happen? That's right, it won't. So that leaves immigration reform. He wants this badly, and they will not look to torpedo this deal. They want it to happen, even if that means making the bill more "conservative" than they had hoped for. Also, this is more for BMan Remember the Immigration Bonanza for democrats article. Here is an article from Sean Trende, who I know for a fact that you share his views much more so than Emily Super lefty Schulteis http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/24/an_immigration_bonanza_for_democrats.html It pretty much debunks what she wrote, and he goes into detail.

There is valid concern for the border security part of the bill. However, the way it is being crafted, there will be additional border security that will cost Billions of dollars, and that there will be safeguards to help make that happen. There is no doubt in my mind, by the time that this bill becomes a finished product, it will be even MORE conservative then what is being proposed today. Everyone realizes that this has to get through the house, and in order for it to get through the house, it will HAVE to become more "conservative", which in this case means, more border security. It is unrealistic for people to believe that there will be a bill that doesn't include a path to citizenship. Let's face reality here, Conservatives lost over 70% of the latino vote, they were a deciding factor in these elections and they will continue to be. They won. And not only do they win, and not only did latinos play a key role in the elections, but poll after poll shows that Americans, including Independents want a pathway to citizenship with secure borders. The bill has to have both, if it doesn't, then that doesn't reflect reality. If you want just to secure the borders, that would be a wish list amongst conservative right wingers. This country is made up of those from the right, from the left and the center, and when you combine everyone, they want both to get accomplished. The more constructive approach to make this happen is to try to improve the bill and help ensure border security. The reactionist approach is to just staunchly say no, and say "Border Security Bill first". Again, that doesn't reflect reality or what the American people wish and what they just voted for.

It's not fast moving. The bill is not even suppose to be voted on for months down the road. There will be tons of debate, Rubio has stated this ad nauseum, and I take him at his word. He knows that this is not a popular position amongst a portion of the right wing base, and make no mistake, he does have presidential ambitions. So knowing full well that this could be his demise during the primaries, he is doing everything he possibly can to assuage many of these fears. He is going all around Conservative Radio outlets, right into the lions den of opposition to explain the proposed framework of the bill. He is adamant that this will be a lengthy and open process. He also understands that if he doesn't come through with this process that he will be held accountable. I believe him. And in regards to those who believe that this will be an economic burden to our economy. Well, you like Paul Ryan don't you? Speaking to the conservatives of course. You guys think he has his **** together right? http://www.realclear...rican_idea.html And in regards to this: So it's not the will of the people to offer a pathway to citizenship while enforcing the borders? You dispute that? The ACA was not the will of the people. So this statement that you just made doesn't logically apply to our conversation.

Despite all the hyperbolized demagoguing from the Morning Joe crew and other liberal lawmakers and "journalists" this is why, the 90% number they constantly cite, was virtually un-indicative towards the Gun Debate, and why the bill died in the senate,

I do not who Peter kirsanaw is, but I can logically deduce that he is making an intellectually dishonest argument. Basically what he is trying to achieve is give the impression that this is a huge bill that surely no one will understand (844 page bill) and that they are rushing through the process and jam this bill down the throat of the American Public. That is what he was trying relay to whoever took the time to read that article. So, here is what we do know. This bill will not be jammed down our throats like the health care bill. When the ACA became a finished product, they gave everyone 3 days to read the bill before they voted on it. This is not a finished product. Secondly, the way Rubio is maneuvering this debate is that this is going to be an open and transparent process. Kirsanaw gives the impression that this deal will be crafted behind closed doors and then voted on. What the Gang of 8 did was put a framework in place, and with that framework, Rubio has stated that this will be debated on the floor for a lengthy period of time, allowing for changes to be made. Rubio is building a consensus, he and many others are open to the process to strengthen and improve the plan. They have made it abundantly clear that there will FIRST be border protection. And that each individual governor on the border will have to OK their approval before citizenship begins. Sure, if you have doubts about how effectively it will be enforced, well, that's a valid concern, but certainly is not a reason to automatically disqualify the entire proposal. Let's be real here, Most Americans want Immigration reform, they also want border security. This bill, as has been initially proposed, will do both, first border then a pathway to citizenship. The American public have spoke, and this was an important issue during the elections. So it is the will of the people that want to see something effective get done on this issue. So you can either be part of the resistance or part of the solution. The solution that people want is a pathway to citizenship and border enforcement. Any proposal that doesn't include both, is not acceptable to what most voters want, and those politicians that stand in the way of the will of the people, in a national election, will eventually get voted out or never voted in.

I have no ties to Syracuse, don't give a damn about the football team, and I personally am hoping for Nassib because I think he's the best QB prospect in this year's draft. Of course, I'm speaking anecdotally but I just have a hard time believing that the Syracuse connection will impact sales. Simply put, I don't but it.

Pretty much how I feel. Btw, would anyone happen to know whose Chris' past predictions included?

Here is another draft "expert" Josh Norris, Rotoworld's top analyst who is not part of the "consensus" and that is clearly another "outlier" who believes that Nassib will be the first Qb taken in this year's draft. Hold on, it's all beginning to make sense now. I think 1billsfan is on to something. Rotoworld is owned by..... Wait for it...... NBC. NBC is THE epitome of the mainstream media. First it was the conservatives who were being unfairly targeted by the mainstream media, but now the mainstream media have set their sights elsewhere. No longer are they setting their goals so low to target only politics, but now sports as well, and Buffalo is now their main target. Yes, Buffalo. Buffalo = Conservatives. Now the mainstream media will do everything in their power, which is to get in the minds of Sports Illustrated, NFL Films, NFL GM's, ESPN employees and others to somehow give the illusion that Nassib should be selected by the Bills, so that they can trick the Bills into selecting Nassib, all in order to tear them down. Don't mess with the mainstream media, or they'll come after your favorite football team too.

Well I guess this means that you don't understand what the term outlier means. outlier: 3 : a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample So we have Russ Lande and Cosell who both have him as the top QB. We have guys like Gruden who believes the same. We also know that there are various publications that rate him in the top two and top three. We also know that there various speculative reports that have various GM's rating him as the top QB. Which pretty much throws the outlier argument out the window.

No rational thinking person agrees with you.