4merper4mer

The new regime is still a question mark. They took over for the worst GM in the history of professional sports. With that said, Vegas didn't even exist a year ago and they won a division. Given that Vegas started from scratch and is competitive now and factoring in the Sabres need to overcome Murray, it is realistic to assume that the Sabres can be competitive by 2028.

pffff. No neck ink? They should have given out Tim Murray voodoo dolls.

I thought it couldn't get worse. Then it got worse.

Then why in this thread did you give a one word answer: No to the question of whether even if the most genius of visionaries could lessen the critical nature of the QB? Then why are teams willing to trade cadres of picks but only to move up for a QB?

On a related topic and with an equally simplistic approach I think the most controversial Sesame Street character is Mr. Snuffleupogous because nobody is sure if he is real. It isn't even close really. Sure Ernie and Bert have that thing going on, not that there is anything wrong with that, and Oscar is just a flat out prick most of the time. But they are real. Snuffy? Who knows?

Whaley is number one for people between the ages of 9 and 14. Other than recency, TT and Gilmore don't even move the needle. In 10 years neither of them will be a fan favorite nor will they be hated.

My bad. I thought second.

Ryan Mallet called and said not so fast.

6 and 12 was a big difference if you're the Colts. They only really moved down two spots, not three, because they know the Jets are going QB. 3 to 12 is 8 spots because the Bils would go QB there.

If it is an ignorant opinion then why does everyone scream from the mountaintops that getting a QB above all else is the only thing that matters? It is called imbalance. In baseball, starting pitching is the most important position, but that is mitigated by needing 5 different guys. Literally anyone on the team with any style at any position can be the most important guy. You don't pass up a top CF prospect because you have to go SS at all costs. Is there another position in any sport that gets 25% of the attention a QB gets before his career even starts? Is there another position where fans advocate trading everything to get one of the "top 4 of this year"? Sure there are Lebrons and McDavids that come along, but they are individuals, not positions. There are arguments about whether Josh Allen can hit the ocean from a boat, yet people scream that we neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed to get him. Roquan Smith has very few question marks. Would anyone on the planet advocate trading 14 picks to move up to 2 and get him? Imbalance Another thread asks the question if someone can come up with a roster or scheming strategy that makes QB need less important. You answered that with one word: "NO". So in one thread you emphatically state that among the hundreds of great minds in football not one can come up with an idea that lessens the importance of QB, and in this thread you call it ignorant to say there is an imbalance? How does that reconcile? Edit: It isn't even a separate thread. It is thus one.

I totally agree but there is one major obstacle: NFL marketing. It is so much easier for them if QBs are the focus. Rules supporting this make it hard to unseat....visionary or not. NFL Football, at present, is an imbalanced sport. You can win in multiple ways in the MLB and NHL. You need three superstars in the NBA but they don't have to be a specific position or style, so there is some variety. Until this methodology hits the NFL in the wallet, no visionary will stop it IMO.

Bortles is a success?

Translation re Housley comments on Nylander: Good kid. Not NHL caliber but tries hard. Deserves to play a meaningless NHL game like a 37 year old career AAA baseball player. Thanks again Tim.

Vander Doodle will not last until 22. Smith probably won't last until 12.

To be fair, they never hired Tim Murray. That is something the Sabres will sadly never claim.

You're the one that thinks IP is immoral as well right? Or at least that is what your Econ teacher said? Sorry if I have the wrong dude. It has been a while.

So has Mueller and he has thrived in this system while he bolsters it. As did lap dog Comey. All you have to do is look at Mueller to know if he would EVER look for truth anywhere and/or go after Clinton. NOPE

We will see. That is for sure. The only doubt I have at all is if they love Davis Webb. In other words, I don't have much doubt. Also when the OP titled this thread "dwarfing" I thought it was a Mayfield thread.

Including twice with the Browns. He has probably spoken at some level, at one point or another, with every non AFC East team.

You've written up so much good stuff on these QBs. You have emphasized the importance of QB. Now you're saying a team and their new GM fresh off being fired are going to think they can get from being the 2nd worst team in the league, all the way to being champs in the time a 37 year old better than average but non team carrying QB has left and be ok with picking their next leader at 32 while their cross town rivals have the guy they could have taken starring in their lineup for a decade? I'm leaning "nope" on that theory.

Laluelaleletletta is too long to fit on a jersey.

I don't know for sure but it did seem that McDermott was calling the shots. Why would Whaley trade all of what he did on Watkins and not extend unless he had another voice in the room?

Agree on points 2 and 3 but pick 23 for the middling Cooks? No way. The Rams are the Redskins on steroids with these big $ signings and draft pick giveaways. The only thing I think the new regime has screwed up since getting here was opting against Watkins 5th year. It would have increased his value, and he would still be a Ram with the Pats unable to move Cooks.

Regardless of what this means or doesn't about the Pats, the Rams are absolute morons. At 23 they could have just picked a receiver equal to or better than Cooks and had him cheap for 5 years. This is such a bad trade for them.

I don't get it.