Boatdrinks

No, it doesn't mean one should be able to make this sort of behavior a habit. From the little I know about the case, charges being droppedor whatever seems fine. If the situation or actions were different I'm not sure. If the owner of the building wants him charged, that seems fine. A tenant in that building? I'd say no, that shouldn't matter. It's not their property that was damaged.

Nothing special, I agree. But if you're going to make a complete ass of yourself and break a bunch of stuff ( not your own) in the process , you'd better be able to write a check. If you cannot pay for the property you damaged, you deserve whatever the legal system can throw at you. I don't care where he gets his $$ from , football or whatever.

Who cares if someone of lesser economic status wouldn't have been so " fortunate"? Its the way the world works.

Son of a Bum has a great lineup there. Could be a championship caliber D for sure.

The flash .... or maybe Aqua man . Yeah definitely Aqua Man

Sadly , this is looking more realistic Edit : I should have double checked CLE pick. I think they take Darnold. Once they signed Hyde, this seemed more apparent.

Maybe. The Cowboys have a QB.

It's not nebulous, and you had / still have no idea why you oppose it. The game features more passing today than in the past. The competition committee / coaches et al don't want cheap fumbles changing games. To eliminate the parts of the rule that needed to be changed for obvious reasons that we all saw is a good thing. It wasn't going to come without some interpretation to define just when a ball can be fumbled or not. Otherwise they will just be wasting a lot of time on fumble calls instead of " is that a catch because " calls. As for the second part, I think all this what is a catch stuff started with Bert Emanuel in a playoff game about 20 years ago

I already did, it comes back to the fumbling issue. The league wanted to simplify the catch definition, and get rid of the silly stuff about surviving the ground, slight movement of the ball, and replay overturning catches based on questionable evidence. The "ability to perform such an act " subheading after the third step/ extension gives the officials the ability to look at a play/ replay and decide if a ball was caught then fumbled, or incomplete when these actions don't occur. There was concern amongst coaches /GMs etc about changing elements of the catch rule leading to cheap turnovers. This was put in to establish that "moment of posession" when the ball is caught and could subsequently be lost. Not all plays fit in a narrow set of criteria, there has to be something to cover all situations.

A mentally lazy answer. Ok

The first down line, wherever that is at the time. Players often extend the ball to get a first down, and that is now covered. Clearly it wasn't . They created a problem by trying to do away with cheap fumbles. However you didn't answer my question. Why do you think it WAS included ?

Probably the closest is the wonderlic. I'm not sure that could even predict that magical quality. Plenty of guys have the physical talent, " arm talent" all those terms we throw around. The thing that truly makes a QB great, that " processor" the internal clock. What is sometimes referred t as the " it " factor. It's really unidentifiable until you see it in real life, at NFL speed in games. It's how a Brady slips through the cracks. You just can't tell. Crazy as it's the most important trait, and cannot be developed. Many more don't have it than do. Rob Johnson, for example. Had everything else, but the processor was a second slow. That's fatal in the NFL.

Using one draft pick at 12 would qualify as " all the eggs"? Now I've heard everything. Part of the reason the Bills haven't had a consistent QB in a long time is NOT taking enough chances at the position in the draft. If they get shut out of the " big 3" they absolutely should use 12 on a QB. Why not? The potential payoff is greater than any other position. If the team sucks this year and they end up with a higher draft slot in 2019 then take a QB there too.

WR, LB , OT

The Bills don't have a proven starting QB. Simple as that.

We'll see. Obviously the 6 pick isn't as valuable as 3. The Bills may be desperate if the right player happens to be there. It was really a no risk move for the Colts to 6. If they don't like another deal they probably get their top choice anyway.

The trade won't be cheaper. It will be hundreds of points over trade chart value , the Jets deal ensured that.

Nope. Damn, if only Sashi Whateverthef@@khisnameis was still the GM in CLE.

What would you think if the Bills paid major scoots to move up to the #2 spot. Then selected Allen ( Darnold off board at 1). McDermott and Beane said " we think he's going to lead this franchise to great things" . How would you feel about this?

As if the Bills have full control over the draft . " Let other teams.." draft players. Do they need to ask the Bills permission or something? The most similar thing about the two drafts is the position of the Bills first pick. It was 13 in 2004 and it's 12 this year. Probably not high enough to get one of those coveted prospects unless a team is willing to give up their spot. If you were a Giants fan, would you want them to trade out of the #2 draft spot and watch the Bills take a QB? As fans we look to assign blame, but whose failure is the draft order? I'm curious how many teams with top five draft picks have traded down out of the top ten, and how far. We may be expecting Beane to do something that almost never happens.

Exactly . I don't want to see Bills players arrested or anything. I mostly care if he can catch a football or not. Last season wasn't very promising, and this is a tumultuous start to a critical offseason.

I believe the topic was to convince the OP why Jackson / Rudolph should be the Bills choice at 12 if no trade up occurs.

Do they? I'm all for trading up to get a QB and think that the Bills will. However, I'd guess that most SB winning teams or even just great/ very good teams did not trade up to draft their QB.

Interesting. I'm not sure why chatter ( there's always plenty on both sides of these players) would change one's expectation one way or the other. If you tried, you could probably find equal amounts of tweets etc both positive and negative. Most NFL players were passed on by more than one team. It doesn't mean a thing. They can either play or they can't. No , it doesn't. But he could have influences from that direction and a high pick still gets a sizeable bonus. Some guys may be more easily swayed into early retirement . We're seeing more of this in the NFL now than in the past.

I have brought it up. Then someone chimes in that I'm looking for a reason not to like Rosen etc. what I think means squat. It could be at least an issue to some team about to make a big investment, though.