starrymessenger

Hogan has a chance to develop into a good pro QB IMO. But I dont think he will still be on the board after the third round. If he goes about where he is graded he will be a good value pick.

Good stuff TW. Still going through it. Will revisit the site fo sho.

TY Hilton ran a 4.34 forty if memory serves. And then there are all the good burners that teams like Pitt and Zona always seemed to find in mid to later rounds. Buddy, or whoever was advising him, just didnt know wideouts.

They both suck. Especially when you consider the number of physically comparable (small and fast) good WRs who came into the league at or around the same time. Buddy didnt know wideouts.

With Goff and Wentz gone at the very top of the draft probably chances are Lynch now goes before the mid-first. Who knows, maybe Cleveland at #8. If RG3 doesn't pan out as the starter he can be a placeholder for Lynch. Browns are rebuilding anyway and wont be competitive for some years yet. No need to rush things. Neither Goff or Wentz are cant miss candidates and a lot has been spent to move up for them. Maybe Browns feel there isnt all that much to separate these three players at this point in time. Of course if that is the Brown's thinking it is likely not a good strategy and bound to fail.

Well some folks do maintain that he is not a first round QB, including some of this board's usually well informed posters. Maybe they mean that he will go in the first but (they feel) he should not. He is almost certainly going to a very QB needy team (needier even than the Bills) so he wont likely get even two years to learn. He will have to show significant improvement in year one and probably will be expected to see the field in some capacity year two. JMO but I would take him well before Jones. Lynch's ceiling is athletic QB. I think there is greater risk that Jones will be an athlete first and a QB second. As for the option of taking an impactful player instead at 19, there is certainly benefit in that but we know that the draft is always something of a crapshoot so for any Shaq Lawson that the Bills may take, there are also always boom or bust candidates there besides the QBs that require teams to assume considerable risk.

The poster says that about Lynch's ceiling because credible commentators like Daniel Jeremiah and others say exactly that. The reasons: He has a monster cannon for an arm, he's as enormous a physical specimen as candidates for the position can be, and he is very athletic. Some of what are considered the base physical requirements for the pro QB position have checks next to them and I think he's better on that scorecard than EJ ever was. He is extremely raw and the scheme he ran in college tells us little about his ability to adapt to the pro game. The concerns surrounding his ability to process information quickly enuf (for whatever reason) are certainly justified, but I thinkit makes more sense to treat this as an unknown (for now) rather that a "he can't do it". Given the scheme and the surrounding talent (not to mention some spot on analysis before the draft by people in the know and who have been proven right) there was IMO a lot more damaging evidence at hand when the Bills drafted EJ. Ideally Paxton Lynch sits for two years before potentially seeing the field on a regular basis, either as a starter or main backup. Whether he is a first round QB or not depends upon what century you are living in. In the 21st century he is certainly a first rounder. IMO there is a 50% chance that he is there at 19 (Jets may move up). If so the Bills will have an interesting decision to make - pick, pass or trade down. In any event, he'll be off the board by 32.

No big deal IMO. Years ago and just a coach getting on the 11th overall pick's case. Happens all the time. They can make room for this if they really want to - and they probably should.

IMO there is a 50% chance that Lynch is still on the board at # 19. If so trading down is not a bad option. Taking him is not a bad option either IMO. If he's there I would roll the dice and take the QB.

He doesnt have to run 40 yards to get to the QB. He's strong, has a number of moves, very quick off the snap with excellent short area quickness and closing speed.

If his physical checks out the Bills should try hard to land Zach Brown. Good raw skill set for RR D, assuming he can learn it. Would be an outstanding late FA pickup at a position of dire need. Not keen on burning a first on a LB in this year's draft. Speed rusher (Spence) to complement Hughes would make more sense IMO.

Well at least I'm doing my best. So ok its a master key to every trunk of that model made by the manufacturer. Does that mean that the master key should not exist or that it necessarily cannot be safely custodied if it does exist?If the controversy has to do with the nature of the information that could be subject to discovery, I don't see why it should be given greater protection simply because it is personal if there are reasonable grounds for thinking that it might be materially connected to terrorist or criminal activity. Warrants are not, and should not be that easy to get. In a case like the one in San Bernardino, its not too difficult to see why the JD wants to undo the encryption. And its probably not too hard either to imagine a fact situation where Apple might be exposed to civil and criminal sanctions for having aided or abetted terrorism if they willfully refused to cooperate with the authorities and an event occurred that clearly could have otherwise been prevented.

I really don't understand why this is controversial. Happy to acknowledge that my understand is perhaps deficient in this matter. But frankly it very much looks to me that Apple is simply motivated by a desire to protect a valuable product suite and brand. To me this seems to be mostly about money, specifically corporate profit. Apple should have a programme to deincrypte its security software and it should be available whenever a judge is properly of the view that the issuance of a warrant is justified based on applicable law. Warrants are not always available and there is a minimum threshold standard that needs to be met. If the tests are not sufficiently refined to safeguard rights to privacy they can be modified by legislation. But the key to the car trunk example is it seems to me fundamentally valid. That Apple is being asked to do something is irrelevant since they are the one's who have engineered the fact that the information is otherwise inaccessible. If there is info on the phones in question that if not produced resulted in the deaths of innocent persons I would not hesitate to expose the Apple CEO to onerous criminal sanctions.

I believe that Spence has cleaned up his act. If he's there at 19 I would take him. Then again I would have taken Gregory in the second. So much for what I know.

Yes. There is no lack of small arms. Small arms is not what they need if they are to defend themselves.Of course the West has not entirely backed off against Russian aggression in Ukraine. There are sanctions, loans, training and if by "we" the West is Intended, there is the recently negotiated agreement between the EU and Ukraine providing for the freer movement of people and goods. That in particular is important. And of course the US has also given them Victoria Nuland lol.

And you should read my post. We are not arming the Ukrainians, not even with only defensive weapons. I don't know where you get the idea that we are. The Brits gave them 20 or so small broken down army surplus armoured cars. Thats it. Maybe you should do more research. The Turks are supporting Turcic fighters indiginous to Syria. The Saudis are financing non Jihadist fighters and, unofficially, Jihadist fighters in Syria. All Sunnis. One of the consequences of untimely inaction is that the stakes are raised. A more assertive and timely foreign policy can help avert dangerous escalation. Our surface to air missiles shot down lots of Russian planes and helicopters in Afganistan. An important result was that this contributed significantly to the implosion of the Soviet Union. Not a bad thing. I said the Syrian conflict was a civil war. It is. I also said that it was a regional conflict aligned along religious lines. It is. I think we can add to that by saying its also a global geopolitical conflict, one that Russia is winning.

Yes, we are supplying Ukraine - with meals, blankets and night goggles lol! And the non-Jihadist moderates in Syria are being financed and equipped, albeit probably inadequately, by other Sunni powers of the region - Turkey and Saudi Arabia. When we actually did supply the Afgan rebels in their bunfight with the Russians, they had surface to air missiles that helped counter Russian airpower. The moderates in Syria dont have that, as you may have noticed by the results.Of course the war in Syria is a civil war, to the extent that we give any credence to great power drawn political divisions (which have endured since the early 20th century, however imperfectly). And of course the struggle has a supranational aspect i.e. Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc...).

Outside of the Black Sea its their only warm weather port so of course the Russians already had a limited presence there. They had no war planes though and that is what has turned the tide. And of course Obama showed weakness because he feared a confrontation with the Russians. Thats what he does after all. And some proxy war indeed, where he fails to supply his putative allies, as in Ukraine.

The Russians moved into the vacuum created when Obama refused to enforce his red line and accepted their "compromise". He could have and should have acted independently of them. Only thereafter did they move to support Assad with the air power now being used out of Latakia (and a new base currently being developed). Its that air power that is turning the tide in Assad's favour.

This is what happens when a nasty streetfighting urchin who grew up stomping rats in the grey low rise apartment his family shared with three others takes on a dope dealing mollycoddled prep schooled Harvard law professor.

You're right about it being a mess but unfortunately it is also a theater of tremendous strategic importance. Its where the world's supply of the cheapest oil is. Its also the location from which millions of refugees are flooding into Western Europe and destabilizing our important allies there. The world is too small a place for the preeminent world power not to have strategic interests there, as well as elsewhere - pretty much in every important geography actually. All we had to do was to impose a no fly zone in Syria and follow through on our red line and that would have sufficed to bring Assad down. Instead the intrepid Obama outsourced the problem to the Ruskies, who probably couldn't believe their luck. Now things have pretty much turned 180 degrees against us in a perfect storm of mixed incompetence and weakness.

Why wouldn't we just take out Assad instead. Its what should have happened a long time ago. He and Putin are the ones responsible for the suffering of the Syrian people. Since when are Russia and Iran our allies? They are not. They are our ideological and geopolitical enemies. Of course we wont take out Assad, but thats only because our foreign policy is gutless. I understand that we are all afraid of Russia, but giving them a free hand is more likely to cause everybody to piss blood than standing up would. Actually its probably too late in thelife of the current administration to do anything and thats maybe a good thing. The greatest threat to world peace is probably Obama belatedly finding a spine.

Didn't Rex say he wanted to build a lunatic asylum?

If Pres Obama has proven anything in foreign policy it is that his is the JV team.

Would not be surprised. NT and ILB in FA. DE in the draft. All needs and makes most sense dollarwise.