Fan in Chicago

NO matter how good Spiller is, I do not want the Bills to spend a Rd 1-3 pick on him or any other RB. We have spent two first rounders over the past few years on RB and this is the year we should not repeat that. Jackson is very good and even if we trade Lynch, can get another RB to fill in the role of a second RB. Upgrading our OL will have a far greater positive impact on our run game than drafting a RB high.

While this is a good idea, I prefer to keep him low-key and undercover as much as possible. I worry that making him more visible might raise questions within OBD and cause us to lose that source. IMHO ofcourse.

And neither have you. But what he has done, more than you is that he has played the game at an elite level for a long time. He is one of the best WR to have ever played this game, so he knows the game a whole lot better than most on this board. Where has he admitted he hasn't watched many games ? I, for one, am not a Trent fan, but cannot claim to know more about QB play than Andre no matter how many games I watch. It is one thing to see what we can on TV but quite another to profess the entire blame falls on Trent's shoulders.

Or could be a decoy.

Assuming Tebow can succeed only as a 'system' QB, it pegs Tebow's success to the presence of Gailey doesn't it ? If Gailey is gone in a few years, we will be left with a QB we invested a lot in with little to show for it. If we are going to invest a high pick in a QB, it should be for one who can succeed in multiple systems.

Asian Indian. Not that it has anything to do with the World Cup.

I am a fan of Schobel's on-field production. It will be nice if the staff and he come to some agreement as it will avoid creating yet another hole.

Yea, you should be sorry that you were traveling when the entire board is clamoring for information.

Will Alex Brown now be shopped around by the Bears ? I think (not sure) a $5 MM payment is coming due and with the money given to Peppers, they may want to stay with Ogunleye and Peppers

Close I think. Their personnel seem to be a mess. There are way too many needs (OL, WR, RB, DE) and dont have the first two picks this year. They are not deep in any position to make a meaningful trade. If they sink insane money for a Peppers, they will be woefully short of money to shore up the other aspects of the team. Their pursuit of Peppers and the cost that is likely to bear will really hurt them. One side note is that if they indeed get Peppers, Mike Brown may become expendable (read: trade bait)

Thats not saying much. But I agree that if Coles can swallow his pride and is prepared to be a #3 with the Bills, it may be alright. I think we still need a solid #2 WR.

Not simple at all. If we get one in FA who is towards the end of his career, we may still draft one. Too many variables here.

Resurrecting this thread to share an article I just saw and a blog entry: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ference-update/ http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ Both pretty much think this Bloom box is lot of hype with little substance.

Again, subjective opinion. I did not have the benefit of having the Sunday ticket during that time period hence did not get a chance to watch his career as closely as I have Evans'. Having said that, it is fair to say that both players did fairly well on crappy teams (as C. B says). Moulds took a bit longer to 'bloom' than Evans. If Evans gets a good QB throwing to him who is turn has good protection, I think Evans will consistently put up probowl numbers. As for the cost, a team cannot perfectly optimize its salary allocation. With TO and Reed gone, we really need Evans. If that is one critical position secured, so much the better.

I was curious so I had to look at the actual stats. See these links to Moulds and Evans first six years in the league: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoulEr00.htm http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/EvanLe00.htm Here is what I come up with (Moulds 1996-2001 and Evans 2004-2009): Moulds Evans Games 94 96 Rec 342 340 Yards 5,165 5,356 Y/R 14.6 15.7 Y/G 55.3 55.8 TDs 28 39 I would say the yards and Y/G are almost exactly identical but Evans has far more TDs. So say what you want about subjective stuff (straight line versus tough catches etc) but the stats show they are largely similar save for the TDs category. I personally like Evans (as I liked Moulds after year 3) and really think the bashing he takes is unfounded. Guy is sure handed, pretty classy and consistent performer. Guys who are asking for his head are just barking up the wrong tree. These stupid threads sound like someone just going through our roster sorted by salary and proceeding to bash each player one by one. Poz, Schobel, McGee, Whitner and now Evans.....

Unbelievably great game.

Yea I only work till noon tomorrow so trust me I will be glued to the set at 2 pm (CST). Wish this is broadcast in HD, DTV gives me CNBC in only SD (idiots) And, Slovakia ???

If a US-Canada play for the gold, can you imagine the hysteria in Canada ? Go US & Canada !!!

I work half day Fridays !! Yee-ha ! Is 2 pm too early to start drinking ?

Congratulations !!! The fact that you acknowledged you had a problem, figured out a solution and stuck to it is very very commendable. It is a lifetime of a fight but well worth it.

Can't wait for this game. Will be cheering for Team Canada, it being by second favorite team. Missed the US-Sui game due to the stupid scheduling, so disappointing. Atleast glad we won.

In which case, my question is why do we need the box ? The PV will produce electricity which can be directly used in the homes. And Nervous Guy, I didn't understand the Mr. Peabody comment (he isn't associated with energy so I know squat about the reference )

In the articles or my explanations ? Care to elaborate ?

My responses themselves are an elaboration. I can understand that if a device is very efficient (i.e. it uses less input energy to produce the same output heat), then the carbon emissions compared to a boiler are going to be lower. But the article said 'close to zero emissions'. Even if you halve the emissions from a natural gas fired boiler, it will be nowhere close to zero. The study you quoted claims 60% lower emissions - a vastly different claim than the 'close to zero' in the article I was responding to. In any case, natural gas heaters made post 1992 are more than 80% efficient. Even those prior to 1992 were 65% efficient. How can anything get twice this efficiency ? As for the solar energy part - I am confused about what you are trying to say. The article I read claims the device can be fed natural gas, biogas or can be infused with solar energy to produce electricity. That is what I was responding to. What did I say that appears to be a 'jump' ? Also, how does the article about fuel cells relate to my argument against this device being able to somehow run on solar. To quote the material from your link, "A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy." Where does solar come in the picture ?

This game will rock. Pity the US is playing an afternoon game with me having no access to a TV at work.