TPS

Yep, I'd say he should have been on the list over J. White; in fact, I'd even say C. White had a bigger impact. Def a great draft.

No disagreement, but it made me wonder why he was lumped in with the others. I don't remember anything that stood out about him. I actually thought he was a good pick after the draft, but he didn't do much as an RB. Still time for him to pan out though.

It's a stretch to call Johnny White a "key contributor" last year.

Don't disagree that a big part has been people dropping out, but some of it is the demographic change.

If you are referring to the labor force participation rate, then you need to be careful about interpreting a decline as a negative. The rate is expected to steadily decline over the next 15-20 years as the babyboom generation retires. There will be more people leaving the workforce than new entrants.

That article hits at why I don't like taking WR in R1. OT in R1, then get your WR later. I'm leaning OT in R1, then either WR/OLB in R2.

Exactly. While Easley hasn't played a snap, he has been around the system for two years. The odds are greater that he will contribute more than any rookie. Gotta have another body at LT who will most likely see action during the year.

I like it!

Don't see it as a full time shift, but an option to use to counter a team that is focused on stopping the pass. Something akin to using the wildcat during a game.

Saw the Pats picked up two veteran fullbacks a couple weeks ago. Is Belichick going to develop a power option as a counter to teams like the Bills moving to a "Giants-type" defense? They could do some interesting things with a power backfield combined with their two versatile TEs. Should be some good Chess matches this season.

With ZERO depth at LT, the odds are whoever is picked will play. Can they find another Hairston-type in R3-5? With such a critical position, I'd say it better be dealt with early, and am leaning to R1 pick.

My responses have focused on the evidence about tax cuts and revenues because the supporters always claim the reverse of what the evidence shows. I agree with your point AND I agree with Darin: government spending should be capped to some average % of GDP--I say average, because you need to have some flexibility during downturns.

Better re-read it then--it was a combination of lower revenues and higher spending. In 2006, personal tax revenues were 1.8% less than the 2001 level. But you are right about the spending, which is why Bartlett, the former Reagan Supply-sider, is highly critical of the Bush-Cheney record.

They had to flip a coin between the Fins and Panthers because they had the same SoS. Good the Fins won, so that we pick ahead of them in R2-3.

Good idea.

I think Buddy is adamant about not trading up and losing picks, but he entertains offers of trading down and gaining picks. I believe he mentioned they got a few calls to trade down last year, but their man was Dareus. If there is no one at 10 that they really like AND they get a decent offer, he will trade down.

I hope someone at OBD shows Buddy the thread, I'm sure he'll get a kick out of it...

I added that same thought about McKillop in the Moats thread today, in case you missed it. One analyst said he would be starting next Willis eventually. Hope he recovers.

FJ said that Buddy told him he would be taken care of before the (pre?)season starts, but the priority now is to sign people who are NOT on contract. The deal will get done.

From what I saw, I really thought he showed flashes of being a very good slot CB. We'll see. Though, your comment about scheme etc. suggests bad play is not always a CB's fault--Florence sure took a lot of criticism about his play too. Re, the positions of need. I have similar thoughts about WR. Take away Parrish, and it's the same WR crew that scored a lot of points when healthy. While I think they could get by at CB and WR, I won't be disappointed by a R1 pick up at either position, though I lean CB over WR. OT is currently the weakest spot on the team. I hope they re-sign Bell, so at least they have options and experience. I think they can find LBs in later rounds who fit their scheme--since most teams are now looking for 3-4 LBs. I also posted about Moats and McKillop as a couple of talented backups to 2/3 LB positions--however they do have ?s TE is riddle wrapped in an enigma. Yes, they can use more talent and competition, but how important is the position in Gailey's O? That said, I'm sure he'd like the option of a stud receiving TE with speed who can line up in a spread formation. At any rate, I think this draft should put them to a good place across the roster.

What he said.

I know he only did KR during the last part of the season, but that post was from early September just after they announced the 53-man roster. They tried him as PR in pre-season, not KR, so that's what I had to go on. As for his ability--for a R7 pick from a small school, of course he's raw. However, they had enough confidence in him toward the end that they benched McKelvin. He's too short to be on the outside, so he will only be a slot CB, but he is talented. He will be an asset in Wanny's system which will use more zone. Then again, I'm not Buddy Nix...

I was talking about Eddins in the first response and Moats in the second. Btw, maybe he deserves his own thread, but Scott McKillop, Wanny's former MLB at Pitt (who was picked up post season), looks like he could challenge Shep if he comes back healthy...compares to one "Zach Thomas"...hmmm. Here's his read from cbsports:

Well, I don't want to brag--ok, maybe I do--, but.. My link