AKC

Yawn. So we've established you know absolutely nothing about the draft. Check. Then you attack solid methodology for the exact topic I studied. Check. Proof of the diminished mental capacity in the WRamius household And unlike the absurd lie you throw out here "a dozen guys"- the fact is the only shill you brought in with a math background looked at it said "Of course your math is good as far as what you were studying, but you could learn more by" blah blah blah. You and whatever cast of psuedo intellectuals you like to rub groins with should actually begin considering what other people are saying on this board versus the pompous d-baggery you instead insist on collectively foisting on the rest of us- I think BillsVet may have said it best in the same string- So a guy goes and studies the top 2 rounds of the last seven drafts for SB teams, declares his findings, and it's disputed? Arguing with Raimus is like yelling at what Raimus rhymes with...you'll never get anywhere. It's like trying to tell a blind man what Niagara Falls looks like.

WRamius' problem is that many of us pointed out over and over that only a bad football team would take a WR in this draft early, and as a result he came up with gems like: Apr 24th, 2008 Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st Apr. 24, 2008 You're too hung up on the concept of "draft value." By trading down and picking up an extra 3rd, we should still be able to get the WR of choice (Sweed i hope) Apr 23 The Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around. Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" Apr 22 Whats really amusing is how you insist that no WRs in this draft will be good. If we draft a WR at #11, we are NOT doomed to go 4-12, and it isnt the end of the world. It will be an upgrade to the offense. WRamius found it "amusing" that someone might posit that "no WRs in the draft" will be top talent, and now that every team in the NFL confirmed that, he doesn't appear quite as "amused". Instead, he's back to his regular d-baggery games. Guess some things will never change around here ;-)

You can lie and misrepresent to whatever extent your pompous douchebaggery requires, but it won't change the truth. My pre-draft posts highlighted mathematically how the best teams use high picks more often in their Defensive Interior than do the Bills. You can stay hung up on how good a manager you believe Rick Smith of Houston is and ignore what mistakes he might make in the draft, but it won't change the fact that the good teams know something you'll clearly never understand- the NFL today is won with talent inside on the Defensive Line, and we are not competitive with the best teams in that area. The evidence is laid out for the objective to consider. Stick to the d-baggery you are so enamored with, and leave the football for those of us who want to expand our understanding.

Your lack of comprehension might be admirable in the circles you run in, but it's boring in a football forum. You have somehow adopted the idiot's argument that all NFL team management is infallible. You continue whistling that out your backside, but anyone who has studied the top of the draft and wants to learn from it will recognize that the best teams put higher value on DTs and TEs than the Bills do, and the worst franchises take lots of WRs. See the part about taking lots of WRs high? You know, the way you insisted the Bills should approach the WR poor 2008 Draft- You are tenacious in your desire to learn absolutely nothing about football. And you've earned a bright shiny A for achievement in the field!

Sound more like you and OC Philly have been doing things in the woodshed that just became recognized by the state of California this week. And that activity hasn't helped either one of you understand math weighting. I've been waiting for that list of all the WRs who you insisted would be taken in the 1st round of the Draft this year- if you don't mind, go ahead and post that up here for everyone to see ;-)

Damn, I didn't think the Loyal Order of the Bonehead would have already found the time to present Lynch their Bert Lahr Award for his actions since knocking a pedestrian to the ground and fleeing the scene.

Of course you'd have to also ignore the multiple reports of his "hip flasking", plus the bars he's already reportedly been asked to leave because of his flippant attitude over the practice. This guy is sounding- and providing credible evidence of it by his actions- more like a poor gamble on the part of our management.

And until Allen Iverson has a seat on the league board, the judgment of players actions will be made by based on their rules, not yours or mine. And the kid's judgement simply allowing himself to be filmed in this situation shows he doesn't have a grasp on the type of judgement the sharp and disciplined kids entering the league exercise. BTW, I've smoked more weed than his buddies, but the fact is I work for myself. If my "boss" had rules against it, I'd have to decide whether I wanted to play by the bosses rules if I wanted to feel secure in my job. The kid is a dumbass for being in that video. A total dumbass. Doesn't make him a bad kid, doesn't necessarily exclude him from having an NFL career, but it does clearly show that he's a dimwit. In the climate of the NFL today, not being very smart can go a long way in making life miserable for you. See "Marshawn Lynch". There could be more to learn from Wonderlic results than most fans assume.

The incredibly misguided judgement to be hanging with a group of stoners WHILE A CAMERA IS ON- and even having one of the boneheads stick a bud in front of the lens- suggests that our draft pick is at the very least a COMPLETE knucklehead. Don't think this clip won't get a showing at the league offices, putting invited extra scrutiny on a guy who by virtue of his draft slot was already unlikely to go on to stick an NFL roster. Bye bye Stevie, we hardly knew ya!

If I'm a common citizen living in the Buffalo area and an automobile registered to me hits someone in the wee hours at Delaware and Chippewa before fleeing the scene, the law needs nothing else to show up at my home or place of work to conduct their investigation and seek my story. It's only at that point at which 5th amendment rights become pertinent.

His mother may have diminished influence on him these days- or maybe I got hoodwinked by her seeming genuineness. I never felt one way or another about his character, but hers seemed pretty bulletproof a year ago.

There are two different levels of judgment that Lynch should be held accountable for: A) His short term judgment- following the incident, where there seems to be no question that he is in the vehicle that leaves the scene. B) His long term judgment- in the hours after fleeing, and when there was no doubt under any excuse regarding details of the incident that the police wanted to talk with him about the situation and more importantly that someone had been hurt by his actions. While it might not be unreasonable- if you assume the occupants didn't think anyone was injured- to take the position to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" on A), there's simply no excuse for his failure to man up in the hours following the event. If that was any one of us John Q Public types, the Buffalo PD would have been dragging us out of our home, with or without our cooperation. And short of the girl having thrown herself against his car in some poorly devised suicide attempt, Lynch's actions in these days following the incident are absolutely inexcusable. I thought I got a read on this guy from his mother's statements after he was drafted, but the guy who right now is following some seriously dishonorable advice is not the person I was pitched by his mother.

The only way to miss the fact that the play of our Defensive interior will be the single most important factor in our overall team success or failure is to ignore the fact that defensive interiors over the past decade have become the signle most important area on almost every succesful football team in the NFL, and an overlooked area on the league bottom-dwellers like the Bills. We're still razor-thin at DT and the hopes that Stroud will somehow shake off the four years it's been since he had a great year inside require an awful lot of optimism. McCargo hasn't even broken into the starting rotation as of yet, and whether it's because of his lack of discipline on the field or a rotational strategy, the book on him isn't a wise one to bet much on. He's got the wheels, but he hasn't shown yet he's got the head to play team football along the line. I like Kyle Williams in the second wave, but we still lack what the good Tampa-2 Ds have had- one interior guy who demands a double on passing downs. It'll be great if Stroud returns to his form of the 2003 season, but that's also not a very good bet. We're entering the 2008 campaign with the DT equivalent of having brought Keenan McCardell to add to our WR roster and the fan excitement about the pickup is nice, but that same excitement seems awfully misguided given the facts of age and the past years. We remain, unlike the best teams, thin at DT. What do the 2008 Bills look like if Stroud only starts 8 games? I'll guess an awful lot like that 2007 Buffalo defense that every opposing running back salivated to get to on the schedule.

The 1999 Rams were #1 against the run and the #4 overall defense in the NFL. The offensive fantasists will claim the "effect" their offensive numbers had on their defensive effectiveness, but they will never acknolwedge that the '99 Rams played very good defense. The stat that dispells the false notion that the team was a heavily offense over defense team is the fact that the Rams were the #4 least scored upon defense in the league that year, while their offense was putting up fast scores. They faced more offensive plays from their opponents than any of the three defenses in front of them.

You got that right! I'm lucky enough to live in the United States, where the health insurance I picked out and pay for myself allows me to get into an imaging center the same day any doctor prescribes a test for me. Nothing even close to that happens in any of the government Health Care systems referenced in the link you offered. Bottom line for me is that I don't want the government to run anything important- they've destroyed our public education system and I don't want the fastest and most innovative Health Care delivery system in the history to be their next victim. You might like the idea of people at the Post Office administering your health care- I have thousands of times more faith in Federal Express and UPS ;-)

I drove back hame late last night through Castaic, and I can guarantee you that that whether it falls to the rule or exception side, there's a whole lot of exactly what I'm talking about going on there. I think the Cal rule on getting the kids under the plan only applies to companies with 200 or more employees- so yeah, if you're working for somebody big enough to have an ERISA exempted SFHP, the chances are you're in pretty good shape. But at the same time, there's a lot of people working for smaller employers- or themselves- who are using the public nut for their "coverage".

It doesn’t seem to me that it would be much of a surprise that the money spent on health care in nations who make it illegal for private citizens to purchase their own insurance is lower than money spent on health care in the country with the very best health care delivery system in the world and the freedom to buy what you want. For goodness sakes- we have the choice to buy a product that doesn’t require we wait 9 months for an MRI- of course many of us do that! And we spend a lot more to do it. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to turn down a plate of chinchilla when there’s a restaurant serving fresh Chilean seabass right down the street. I’m happy to entertain this conversation- and I know you agree we should take it to another forum. If you open something up I’d be happy to join an open-minded discussion about the differences between “us and them”- information is better than magic and I surely have much to learn about health care around the world. I am currently a believer that it’s the people with a boat in the driveway and DirecTV on all 3 LCDs in their house who still refuse to buy health insurance that play a big part in driving our costs up, with them ending up in the emergency room getting “free government healthcare” when the kid gets the flu- but I have not looked into research supporting that. On the Costa Rica thing- I bring that up because most discussions on health care lapse into some idiocy about all the “great healthcare systems” that include the buckets of free Bacitracin offered by banana republics as part of their study “ideal models”. I recognize you aren’t doing that here. Let me know where we’re going and I’ll get over there.

I've got a friend- she's a surfer and has never had any "interest" in buying her own healthcare. She spent a while in Costa Rica where they have "Universal Coverage". She's back in the states being treated in our Los Angeles County system because she isn't "covered", and the injuries she's being treated for were sustained while under the "universal coverage" of the Costa Rica health care system. She suffers permanent disabilities from their failed and wretched treatment of a relatively simple leg fracture. I've been to Costa too- and with any chance to avoid being caught dead through their unbelievably horrible system I can promise you I would never allow them to do even the most basic procedure on me. The "Universal Coverage" hoax that gets talked about in America requires that you ignore the best health care delivery system in the world- the one here in the United States- the destination for almost everyone with the means to seek the finest care. And the reason our delivery system is second to none, and continues to be the most innovative in the world, is because we haven't destroyed it with the "Universal Coverage" model that is killing people worldwide every day. There is nowhere in the world that more "uncovered" people receive more top quality care than in the United States. If you don't mind I'd like to hold onto the reality of the best healthcare in the world versus being duped into the false portrayals of the system killing the Canadian economy and killing off Cubans who require only basic services to be brought back to health.

What would ever make you think a grandfatherly group like the Pats* LB corps have been using HGH?

Are you talking about the actual 14,521 fans who suffered through the lean years wearing their colors nationally while the "real" Boston* fans were buying only Sox/Bruins/Celts jerseys and tickets, or the scumbags like Hollywood Donahoe who found himself a fan of their team somewhere around 2002?

I'm miffed by the lack of attention the offensive signal's tape emergence has spawned. Maybe I missed something along the way here- but early on didn't Goodell's "breadth of the violations" speech indicate that the league's position- based on his interview(s) of Rosie Ruiz, excuse me Bill Belichick*- was that the signal theft was limited to the defensive side of the ball?

NBC Sports calls new charges more serious than Spygate, warranting new penalties and fines.

Or (G)god forbid if the media and almost every casual fan of the game's obsession with QB is looney, and the QB is actually the 7th or 14th or maybe only 18th most important player on most NFL teams, do you have another scenario about what position the real fight for the success of the 2008 Bills might be built upon?

I'll bet I've seen him eat 150 pounds of fried chicken at a place called Angelo's in Houston. Earl's a great guy- and his freaking thighs are frightening. I spent about a year of my younger life (while Earl's career was coming to an end) declining his invitations to play handball. At the same time he accepted some of my invites to go drinking ;-)

;-)