oldmanfan

Yes, in rounds 1and 2.

Well, umm, yeah. To me it shows the importance of continuity for their organization. They know exactly how they want to play and thus know exactly the kinds of players they need.

OJ got traded because he was fooling around with a mob boss' girlfriend.

Josh could be great. Could be. He has all the physical tools, but great QBs become great due to what's upstairs. How well do they read defenses, how quick can they make decisions - the right decisions. That is the challenge for all young QBs. My guess is that Josh will get there; if working hard at it is a trait that will improve him then it's a guarantee- the kid works his butt off from what we can see. He may may not get all the way there this season, but given the additions to the offense and how work ethic I expect we'll see significant progress. Fans just need to chill and not place unrealistic expectations on a second year QB.

Maybe he didn't get the offers he expected

As a general rule I trust McD's thoughts on defensive players over random columnists and wannabes.

I think Beane wants to see how guys perform first. Some will be extended and some shuttled out to continue upgrading next year.

You have to imagine Johnson's interview for O line coach: Daboll: What would you do as our O line coach Johnson: Replace everyone except maybe Dawkins, because they stink. Daboll: I was thinking the exact same thing. Beane: Ditto. Consider it done.

If one is available and the best guy on the board, sure.

The OP says they have to build the offense. Last year they got a QB, this year they got two WRs, a TE, a veteran former All Pro RB, two WRs (one of whom gives the short passing game the OP howls about), and 6 O linemen. But to the OP that's not good enough, because in his infinite wisdom they needed to get better players. So let's say they do go offense in the draft, say a WR, TE, and a T. We all know he'll just say those weren't good picks. Such a troll.

Trade down, and get both your punter and kicker day 1 and 2. The problem though is they have to come into the league knowing everything ever known about their positions because players never learn anything after being drafted. Just like Tasker's Ghost's quarterbacks.

Acoustic neuromas are generally benign, and not cancerous.

These tumors are close to the vestibulocochlear and facial nerves. The first affects hearing and balance and the second supplies muscles in the face and carries taste sensations. So depending on the size and involvement you could affect these functions. No fun obviously but it's not a malignant tumor.

You're not confused. The OP is confused.

She has an acoustic neuroma which should not be life threatening. Still scary to have surgery involving the brain, of course.

I read it. There's one statement that exposes the author for what he is, an anti- Bills and especially anti-Allen troll. The statement refers to how few if any QBs that come into the league not being able to read defenses survive. To which I can respond with one word: Bull. No rookie QB hits the ground running being able to read NFL defenses. In fact, the ability to learn that is what will separate those who make it over those who don't. It takes time to learn, and the insinuation that Allen is doomed because he did not hit the league with that talent is absurd on its face.

Interesting point

Speaks to the concept of a team sport. Beenna lot of discussion about us old farts comparing generations. Hard to do with a single player in a team sport. But for an individual one? If Snead or Nelson or Hogan played with the clubs and balls of today they might make Tiger look like just another guy on tour.

I would challenge you here. When you say Sanders had stuff no one else could match, what parts? Sayers was his equal in terms of elusiveness. OJ was at minimum his equal in terms of speed, hitting a hole and taking off. Dorset was also a guy not mentioned a lot here but he had acceleration like few others. Power? Campbell, Czonka maybe, hell even Lynch were great. Now, you put them all together there are very, very few guys that had it all. You have Sanders 1 and Brown 2 and I have them flip flopped. Maybe for this simple reason: if I had 3rd and 3 and I could pick one guy to make the yards or die a terrible death, has to be Brown. I saw Sanders take too many losses. Rarely did Brown get stopped behind the line. Fun stuff to discuss.

It is fun to try though. The error I think you make is in assuming the older guys would not improve over the absolute excellence they had in their day if they played now. A guy like Jimmy Brown would have access to modern training regimens, medical technologies, and so in. So it is perfectly reasonable that they would also be improved. And thinking of a Jim Brown being even better than he was then is scary. Brown would dominate I feel. As I pointed out above he's the one guy I've ever watched that could run past you, around you or over you. Having access to modern training, access to turf instead of grass fields? Whoa. By the way us older guys aren't shaking a stick at the younguns. We just want to be sure you appreciate history.

I get where you're coming from. Your post suggested Shaw didn't know football, but since you were in the BBMB you know he does. I think people need to dial it back a bit and have fun with this.

Ahem. There are a number of us, Shaw being perhaps the prime example, who spent years discussing the Bills on the BBMB before the team closed it down. I can assure you that Shea's knowledge of football in general, and of the Bills in particular, is the match of anyone and for the Bills is encyclopedic in nature. I think Sanders was a top 5 guy. But Brown was better in my, and Shaw's, opinion because we are both old enough to have seen each play, along with every other guy mentioned herein. We don't base it on a short video here and there. We base it on actually watching games at the time. There are greats who had power, who had elusiveness, who had speed. Brown is the one guy I've seen who was at the top of the list in all of such memorables. He could run away from you, around you or through you. He would dominate today just as he did in the 60's. No one has the true answer here. It's fun to discuss. Let me suggest you lighten up Francis. In general yes. The greats, not really. The Big O would dominate the NBA today, just as Brown would dominate the NFL today. Because each would avail themselves of developments in nutrition, training, etc. that the more modern athlete has.

OJ is in my top three. Him, Brown, Sanders. OJ is the best RB I ever saw live. His ability to cut and accelerate were unmatched. He had stacked defenses and also had an incredible O line. Perhaps you've heard of the Electric Company. It is fun to have these debates. You could probably put 20 guys on a potential list. And make a solid case as some have here for different guys. Unlike many here I'm old enough to have actually watched them all. And to me Brown was the best. Not by miles, by a bit. OJ had speed and cutting. Brown did too but also power. That edges him out over the others. The only guy I can think of that might remind me of Brown was Bo, and maybe Campbell.

I sat in the Rockpile when he was a rookie. Sat at the homes games in 73. I saw him, and he was phenomenal. And I'd still put Brown ahead by a bit. Because I watched him too. You had to see Brown with your own eyes to understand.

Yes, opinion based. If you took Brown and put him in the league today he would lead the league in rushing. You're one of the mods, right? You should know this is a board where opinions are shared, right? Always fun to debate. I would have Brown, but you could make a case for at least a dozen more guys.