Offside Number 76

Nope. My point is, you'll have equal luck finding that "hidden" QB stud in the 5th as you will that "hidden" LB or DL or whatever stud. Equal there, right? But in free agency or trade, you will have an easier time finding that "hidden" stud at ANY other position than QB. No one wants to trade away a QB, even a Levi. So use some mid-to-late pick, again, depending on what's out there. If you find your QB, fine; if not, you weren't going to find him in FA or in a trade anyway. And as far as what you would have done otherwise with that pick, THAT, you CAN do through FA or trade. Teams guard QBs jealously (in comparison to other positions; I fully realize that some get released or sent to PS), no matter what round they were picked in. Teams do not do the same of mid-round linebacker picks.

A "#2 QB," veteran or not, isn't what we're looking for. We're looking for the guy who is going to start in two or three years. It is tougher to find a QB in free agency or through a trade than it is to find a player at any other position, so it's not a "waste" to take a QB with a mid-round pick, see how he develops, and pursue the other positional needs via free agency or trades. I'm not sure how much either Mallett or Newton are blue-chip prospects, but those are the two guys I had in mind when I mentioned the third round, if they fall that far. I don't think they will; I think other teams will be dumb enough to blow first-round picks on these guys, whom I don't believe have first-round talent. If Colin Kaepernick is available in the 5th, I'd take him and find that average-to-below ILB that you're going to draft 5th through FA or a trade instead.

There is no reason not to take a QB in this draft. In fact, the Bills really should take a quarterback in this draft. They just shouldn't do it in rounds 1 or 2, or maybe even 3 (depending on who is available at what positions, including QB, by then).

Neither QB is worthy of #3 overall, and if this team drafts a CB or WR in the first or second round, I will be physically ill. If Nix feels that Quinn is better than Bowers or something like that, I'll trust his judgment.

Frankly, the whole episode with the sheriff reminds me of Jon Stewart's warning to Begala and Carlson.

I didn't see it--I certainly believe you--did he call out anyone else (specifically, from the other side) by name? If not, I'm pretty disappointed in him.

Yep. Acknowledged. Read up. You still owe me a quote where the sheriff blamed the Right.

Nah. Too many peaceniks who think that it's clever to dump a truckload of manure in the middle of Pennsylvania Ave before a WTO meeting (I witnessed this) or to scale the Washington Monument with a PETA banner (this, too) or to chain themselves to things. And you may have been joking about guns, but there's some truth to that. Not too many liberals carry handguns.

It is creepy, isn't it? I mean, she absolutely presaged the attack. I don't agree with your second point, though; I just don't get that out of the video. I thought her larger point was that extremists on both sides--she did use that phrase--should calm the f down. But not quite as disruptive as shooting a congresswoman, blowing up a federal building, or killing a doctor who performs abortions. I think Exiled is right, when the rightwing nutjobs get crazy, it's more severe than when the leftwing nutjobs get crazy. Lately. In the earlier part of the last century, it was quite the opposite.

Thank you. So UConn wasn't making this part up.

All I'm looking for is the source; if it's a young female who said so, then I'd like to see it. I want my sheriffs to sheriff, too. Part of that job is telling people to cool it. At the beginning of all of this, frankly, I had assumed the guy was a Republican, since he's (a) a sheriff, and (b) in Arizona. Didn't matter to me what political party he belonged to. He's doing his job by telling people that words have consequences. And what's scary, is, his words are nearly the same as those of Ms. Giffords herself in this video: It's about 2:25 in. And the counterpoint to her statement (about 2:30 in) is valid, too. no kidding.

I cannot, nor have I EVER said that he was. UConn stated that the suspect is a liberal. I asked for information on that. All I have read about the guy's political views are (1) that he is NOT a tea partier and (2) that he may have belonged to a white supremacy group, which group denied that he was a member. Asking someone to back up their point is not the same as having the opposite viewpoint.

Here's the quote I've seen: “There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol,” he said during his televised remarks. “People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.” Look, I think anyone who spends his or her time being inflamed by Limbaugh is a complete idiot, but I think the same of anyone who spends his or her time being inflamed by Olbermann. (The only difference between the two is that Olbermann makes a better sportscaster.) I can't see anything in the quote above that points to any party at all. And the guy is right on: all of this vitriol does have consequences. Not just the violent consequences that we may or may not have seen yesterday, but also the consequence of stifling intelligent debate. Gotta say, I'm digging into PPP for the first time, and all I see are people entrenched on one side or the other. Anyway, it still appears that UConn was just making it up. EDIT: Also, maybe the Tea Party is stirring up bigotry in Arizona. I don't know. If it is, it should stop.

Haha. As for ongoing riots, there have been verbal riots going on for more than a decade. Needs to stop. That was his point. Anyway, all I really asked for was (1) a quote where the sheriff blamed the Right for inciting the attack and (2) something showing that the suspect is a liberal. Seeing nothing, I'm going to have to assume that UConn just made it all up. As for my own politics, I'm pretty middle of the road. That's why all the vitriol pisses me off; it prevents real dialogue. I would have been disappointed to learn that this sheriff had blamed conservative groups, but it doesn't look like he did.

But he didn't blame the Right, at least not in any article that I've read, and that's what I'm inquiring about. Is there any evidence of that at all? (If so, I won't be happy about it.) All I see is that he called for reason. I don't care what his political affiliation is, calling for reason seems like a good idea here. Officers of the law tend to do that, you know? I don't think the guy is a "far left liberal," either, although I do know that he disagreed strongly with Arizona's immigration policy. (You don't have to be too much of a liberal, or even a liberal at all, to see the economic impact on his department that he was complaining about.)

I'm not sure if I'm a hard-core leftist (some people tend to label anyone who recognized the damage Bush was doing to this country as a "hard-core leftist"), but I didn't like aspects of the Patriot Act and I don't like this proposal, either.

I have seen nothing where the sheriff blamed any political party--just that he mentioned vitriolic speech and its consequences. Is there a quote where he blamed the political right? I also have seen nothing describing the suspect as a liberal--again, please point to this. Thanks.

My apologies; I didn't read your last sentence very carefully.

No. McCargo.

The only reason they can't re-sign him now is if the deal is going to call for more than a 30% raise. Otherwise, they could do it--the current CBA still is in effect. So look for him to be making more than $910K next year.

Tell you what: I really hope I'm wrong, because it would be incredibly kickass to see a guy do this in the NFL (even better if he were in Buffalo), but I just don't see it happening at the pro level. Maybe an occasional appearance on the other side of the ball, like Deion Sanders. Again, though, I hope I turn out to be wrong.

McIntyre is a really good blocking back. I don't think the Bills should waste a pick on a RB this year. As for Marecic, if you're drafting him to backup at ILB and play special teams, that's one thing, but I don't expect him to be a "triple threat." He's not going to learn an NFL defense and an NFL offense and NFL special teams coverage, and learn them all well, even if he's a Stanford grad.

I got these two mixed up. Can't imagine why.

Nothing involving Haynesworth is low risk.

I did mention this concept, on the first page of this thread, but got shouted down a bit. Anyway, I just don't think the current crop (without Lee) is going to do it next year, after seeing the last three games, and I don't want the team to spend a draft pick on a WR.