jri111

I've been saying this for a while that it's much more likely then people think. I'm not saying that it will happen or that it's likely, but it is possible. I would also disagree about the Cowboys as others have. They have barber primed for the starting role, even if jones is traded. Also don't discount the falcons. Originally I thought the same thing about them. With Dunn and Norwood they have a VERY good 1-2 punch. However a few things have changed this. First, Dunn, though still productive, is getting up there in age. Second, and the most significant, as someone alluded to eariler, they have a new coach and a new offensive system. Petrino has absolutely no allegence to the players on the roster now. He wasn't there for all the years Dunn has ran hard for them, and he didn't just use a 2nd round pick on norwood a few years ago (1 or 2, i forget?). Also he does want to run a more power based offense and Peterson would fit that role well. Both Dunn and Norwood are smaller and quicker and are not the prototypical power backs. I'd be worried if Peterson was still on the Board at 8. That said they do have a lot of other needs too, epecially on defense and Petrno might be able to get his louisville buddy Bush later, so they too could pass on him. The fact is, if Cleveland passes on Peterson, he has a decent chance to fall to us. and you're right, WHO is going to trade up to get him?! that "someone" everyone likes to allude to needs to be a real team. and as you and others have pointed out already, there just aren't that many teams in desparate need of a RB to trade away muliple picks to jump up and get him....

I'm guessing that's sarcasim? I'm really hopeing that's saracism...!!

exactly, and if clayton is so good on his reporting neither Dallas nor the jets are going to give up a first rounder either. Dallas has barber and Jones and the Jets have Thomas Jones and Leon Washington. Both teams might, and i emphasize might because it's a big one, MIGHT be interested in an upgrade, but to give up a first, c'mon?! Most likely thier names are just out there to get his price up. But neither can be taken seriously. Green Bay has said they are not interested, so that leaves Buffalo and Tenesseee. As you said, Tennessee has white and it makes no sense for them to give away their first pick for a back. So why would clayton even consider that the price tag? AJ Smith might be holding out for that, but then he's going to be holding out until turner becomes an unresricted free agent next offseason!

I'm not saying I don't like turner... I'd give up a second for him. Just not a first....ESPECIALLY the 12th pick! If Tennessee offers their second and we counter with ours. And then they up the ante to their first, then we should just say "oh well" and move on... I like Irons, Hunt and Jackson in the later rounds, so it wouldn't be a disaster if we didn't give the house for Turner...

Here it is word for word from Clayton's Blog: Turnin' on The Burner: The interest in Chargers restricted free agent Michael "The Burner" Turner is starting to sizzle. He had a good visit with the Titans, who are clearly interested in trading for him. Turner had flight problems getting to Buffalo for a visit, so Bills owner Ralph Wilson dispatched his private jet to get him into town (Turner visited Buffalo on Thursday). Two other teams -- the Cowboys and Jets -- are monitoring the talks. It will take at least a first-round choice -- either this year or next season -- to get Turner, who was a former fifth-round pick but clearly has first-round talent. Expect trade talks to heat up over the next couple of days. link for those w/ insider: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...me=clayton_john You know what's funny John Clayton is the ONLY person that thinks its going to cost a first rounder to get turner. If Tennessee is not willing to give up a first ("The Titans remain interested in a trade, but indications are they're not considering giving up a first-round pick. Chargers GM A.J. Smith has said he's "flexible" on compensation" from http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...3/1027/RSS0201) and the Bills have a higher second then Tennessee it would be ludicrise to consider giving up a first and out bidding yourself. Turner might have 1st round talent, but no running back has been traded for a first rounder in years, so why now?! Especially for a player that has never started in the NFL!

Shifting topics, because I don't believe there's any possible way you can interpret his comments as being "anti-buffalo" either, I have a question to pose... Assuming, hypothetically, we trade our second pick this year for turner (and lets say a pick next year for him, but whatever it is, it's not important for this question), would you, if we still have the 12th overall pick and two thirds, be inclined to take another RB somewhere in the first 4 rounds? Someone like tony hunt in round 4 if he's still there (since he had a bad 40 time there's a good chance he could really drop) or Kenny irons in the third if he's still available? I would love to add more depth there. I have no problem with Turner/Thomas/Williams/Jackson, but more depth and youth would be nice in the right situation. Obviously if we get Turner we have bigger needs in other positions, but i guess my question is, would getting turner definitiley close the door on a mid- to later round running back?

I'm of the same opinion.... but I wouldn't be opposed to giving up the 2nd this year if that's what it came down to to get him... at least we got him to buffalo, it will be interesting to see what comes of it

you're right, but i don't think it would be Willis. That's why I think they would want to be able to trade down somewhere in the mid-teens to get a guy like Poz or Timmons. But they don't want to just give up briggs for one of those guys stright up. Briggs is proven and they're not. That, along with the money at the 6th pick is why it fell through... They either want a pick and a player or two picks where they could get Brigg's replacement and have something to show for giving up such a good player.

This is from Bills daily salary cap page: NFL Projected 2007 Salary Cap Figure: approx. $112 Million Bills Cap Money Allocated For 2007: approx. $91 Million: - The Bills are now under the cap by approx. $23 Million. as of 3/27 Bills Actual Money Allocated For 2007: approx. $100 Million: - The Bills are now under the cash to the cap money by approx. $12 Million. as of 3/27 http://www.billsdaily.com/frontoffice/salarycap.shtml So Accroding to them we have $12 Million in the cash-to-cap to work with still. That's not a shabby number. Moving Takeo and Holcomb really helpped getting us some room. Although we need to reserved, i think like $10 million for draft picks, obviously if we trade for either Turner or Briggs we won't have as many draft picks to pay. Granted draft picks, even high round ones still wouldn't match the salary of Briggs and Turner, point being however, I think it could be done if that was the direction Marv and Co. want to go. Not saying that it is, but that it probably could be done... With that said here's an interesting senario that would work out pretty nicely. For turner, the highest I would go is this year's second and a conditional pick next year (between 4th and 2nd depending on peformance - 2nd would be very hard to reach). Briggs is interesting. Talks broke down between Washington and the Bears because of two reasons. First the Bears wanted another player (OLB) from the Skins to take Brigg's place. Second, the don't want the 6th pick and the large Signing bonus that comes along with it (This was evident in the Washington Post today, as they said the original trade between the teams could still happen if the Bears can find someone to trade down from the 6th with...i don't have a link, i read it in print, but i'm sure you can find it online if you want to). Washington is handicapped in many ways. First, as I just stated, Chicago doesn't want the 6th pick, it's too rich for them. Second, the Skins don't have any other picks to offer of value. I know they don't have a second or third. I don't think they have a fourth either actually. So they can't offer much to Chicago in return. Chicago, rightfully so, doesn't want to just give briggs up. As of right now they have a very good starting weak side LB. IF they only swap first rounders then they'll be sitting with the 6th pick where it's way to early to take any other OLB on the board (Willis is a non-issue with Urlacher in Chicago). If they go with another position with that pick, they'd still be without an outside 'backer. What they really want is a pick and a player, or another pick where they can get a player to to fill the hole and still able to get something extra in return. Buffalo has picks to offer. They also have players. Essentailly we have two third rounders to play with and two players in Ellison and Wire (I wouldn't trade Ellison, he's young with potential and needed for depth, but he's in this for the sake of argument). The Bills also have the 12th pick, as opposed to the 6th which means ALOT less guranteed money. It's also a pick that you may be able to trade down more easily from because teams dont have to give up as much and there's more of a chance that some good players could slip to that posltion (Willis, Branch, Carkieer - sp?, etc...). So Buffalo could offer a swap of first and one of the thrids. Or a swap of frist and Ellison or Wire. I bet Ellison would definitiley get the deal done, but as I said, I wouldn't do it. Maybe they'd considered Wire though. I don't know, he would at least provide depth. Maybe swap of firsts, wire and a 6th or 7th? Maybe that 's too much, i don't know. But the point being, The Bills have much more ammo then the Skins and I'm sure they could think of some fair trade. So in my hypothetical sitation then I would trade our 2nd and a conditional pick in next year's draft for Turner and swap firsts with the Bears and offer one of our thrid's this year for Briggs. That would leave us with the 31st pick, Briggs, Turner, and a 3rd round pick. Take the best LB available with the 31st and best CB/DT available with the 3rd. Something like this... Briggs 1st - Puz/Timmons/Beason Turner 3rd -Daymeon Hughes Getting two starting LB's a starting RB and a CB to compete with Youboyte and Thomas at the end of the first day in the draft wouldn't be too shabby in my opinion. Will it happen - No. The Bills don't seem interested in Briggs and even if they were the economics would still be tight, even if it probably could be done. It what I would do though, and I'd be VERY happy with it!

And this is what I like to call hypocrisy. What makes your opinion any more cherished and valid then? Why are you right on this situation and everyone else that doesn't agree with you is wrong? You can't rip someone's opinion by saying that they believe that their opinion "over-rule all" and then go on to state your opinion about something in a condescending way, that's illogical and hypocritical. You have a right to your opinion, that's fine, but by replying to someone else's by merely calling it invalid is irrational. ...and as I said, it's not about having different opinions as these guys, it's about their uneducated and ignorant opinions and participating in "head-line" reporting from a hieracrical stoop such as ESPN

This is what I like to call "selective reading." I never said that my problem with the national media was from lack of attention. I said I understood it. I expect it. Would I like more? sure, but I understand the economics behind it. I also said and I quote "I don't have thin skin, and I accept criticism of the Bills. they deserved it, they haven't been in the playoffs for almost 8 years now. They have to prove something on the field before they can be talked about positively. But I expect it to be educated criticism. I don't think that's much to ask for from a Network wholly dedicated to sports." So if you read that for what it is, I ACCEPT criticism of the Bills, what I don't accept is lack-luster reporting or opinions from ignorant people like Jeremy Green who just run their mouths when they should be providing analytic and educated reponses. Of course if the Bills get better they'll have more coverage, that's a given. The problem is the quality of the analysis, not the quality of the Bills though!

Dont get me started on the news media. they make ESPN and the Sports media look like ulter boys in comparison!! another conversation for another message board though!!

HAHA, ok you know my first name and where i'm from. I'll give! I expect chrismas presents now though!

You're right about the Gandy thing, he may have seen something different and he may be factoring cost into his analysis. As for your other comments you're 100% wrong. In general I would say die-hard fans know their team much better then these "national reporters" most of the time. The fans simply scrutinize and analize their team 24/7 while these guys may spend 15 minutes looking at any particualr team's roster at any given time. My beef comes when guys like Jeremey Green (that's his name right?), literally tore the bills a new a$$ hole because he thought they were crazy for getting rid of all these players. I understand that they don't have infinite time and resources to reasearch every team in full, but if you're going to make bold comments then you better be able to back them up. My biggest problem with ESPN is their analysis. How much attention did McGahee get in Buffalo? Hardly any. He goes to Baltimore and all of a sudden he's the second coming. The reason is simple: money. ESPN makes its money from advertising, just like any other television channel. Therefore, they have made it a business decision to catar to the large market teams. I'm not talking about kissing their butts, but giving them much more attention and providing much more analysis. I mean come on, you can hardly turn on sportscenter without hearing about The Eagles, Patriots, Skins or Cowboys. What then happens is less attention to the small market teams like Buffalo. This is to be expected and it makes perfect financial sense. I never had a problem with this, before, even when their coverage of the Bills was skim. It might not have been much, but at least when they talked about the Bills before, they knew what they were saying. Now, though, it just seems like the scan the headlines and don't even bother doing the research. They make these statements like 'the bills have had the worst offseason in football' or 'levy is off his rocker,' and provide not rationalization for their analysis. They determine that instead of wasting their time to figure out why the bills did X or traded palyer y, they'd spend their time scrutinizing every minute detail of the larger market teams. In essense, ESPN, and others, have said "so what if we alienate the small markets, they won't make much of a difference in the ratings anyways." So they go out and make these unfounded statements. Every time they talk about McGahee and how he's going to revolutionize the Baltimore offesense, how many more fans in Baltimore are going to be inclined to tune in? Had they said that the McGahee trade was bad for Baltimore all those "big city" viewers won't watch. It's just natural fan behavior. I do it and you do it too. I don't have thin skin, and I accept critizism of the Bills. they deserved it, they haven't been in the playoffs for almost 8 years now. They have to prove something on the field before they can be talked about positivily. But I expect it to be educated critisims. I don't think that's much to ask for from a Network wholly dedicated to sports. Concluding though, you're aboslutely right that these analysis and reporters aren't dumb. they're good at what they do or they wouldn't be doing it. But just because they are in the positions that they're in, doesn't mean that know more about the Bills or their needs anymore then you or I do. We have one team to Critique over and over and over again. They cover (at least) 32 teams so their knowledge is obviously going to be less. They are professional journalist though and making uneducated and unreasearched comments - regardless of the other factors (ratings, big-market, small-market, etc...) - is unprofessional. They have standards in their job and claim to be "experts" and I don't think it's unfair to hold them to those standards. You're expected to be held to certain standards in your jobs, are you not? They don't have to know all of the ins- and outs- of a team as we do, but they should know enough to make educated comments. If Michael Smith has a comment to make about McGahee in sportscenter that night, then he should be the time and effort into the sitaution. He should be a good jouranlist. He can have any opinion he wants, he's certainly entited to it and gets paid for it, but his responsbilities and duties as an analysist should mean that he does so with some knowledge of what he's talking about.

are you going to stalk me now?

Seriously, hence the "more or less" comment. Gandy vs. Dockery, is that even an argument?! In truth I'm surpirsed he answered my question at all, maybe the length of it caught his eye. Like I said, I wish it was one of those "know-it-all-Willis-lovers" though, i would love to see one of their responses!

John (Arlington, VA): What is it this year with the national media's bias to large market teams. I realized it's existed for a while, but it seems even more prevelent this year. The national meida keeps shredding the Bills for their offseason moves, yet a closer analysis would reveal that EVERY move they've made has made sense for one reason or another. They just see that Nate Clements, London Fletcher, Takeo Spikes, and Willis McGahee (i.e. named players) and immediatly call the Bills crazy. Mcgahee was a malicant who didn't gain 1000 yards last season and hated Buffalo, Fletcher is an undersized linebacker who is on the wrong side of 30 and the Bills weren't willing to pay $5 million/year for, Takeo has played in 15 games in the last two seasons, and its ludicrise to make Nate Clements the highest payed defensive palyer in NFL history, especially when you play a cover-2 defense where CBs aren't as important. Where did the good reporting go? Chris Neubauer: (4:21 PM ET ) I'm not anti-Bills. In fact, I like the moves where they have gotten rid of Fletcher-Baker, Spikes and McGahee. I wish they would have re-signed Mike Gandy. Didn't like their signing of Derrick Dockery. Now that J.P. Losman has figured himself out and appears to be the QB of the future, I think the Bills are in good shape to get back to the playoffs in the next two years. They just need to find a starting running back. If they can land Adrian Peterson, that would be awesome. ____________ I just wish it was one of the ESPN guys that talks smack agisnt the Bills instead of Christ Neubauer, who seems to know what's he's talking about more or less... oh well! at least i got on there!

I agree with you on almost everything (and it's nice to see more analysis and reason on this borad), except for Peterson. I really don't know what it is about Bills fans on this board, but I feel like they are the only ones that question this guys talent! People here seem to fall in either one of three categories on him. The first group of people are those who who question his talents/future sucess because of his running style and injuries (both legitimate concerns btw). The second group of people are those who, any time the see Peterson mentioned are quick to reply "HE WON'T BE THERE AT 12!!!" or "EVEN IF HE FALLS SOMEONE WILL TRADE UP TO GET HIM!!" The thrid group of people recognize his potential to be one of the best backs in the NFL and think the Bills would be fools to pass up on him. This, I believe, is definitiely the minority view for some reason. First off, lets just dismiss group 2 right now. They never provide any analysis, nor do they recoginze that things don't happen as planned (this is especially true in the NFL draft!). I've stated many times now that those that just claim that someone will trade up to get him if he starts to fall, fail to realize that there aren't many teams out there that needs RB's. Now don't get me wrong, there are a number of teams that could use more (almost all really), but who's going to be willing to trade up, lose picks, just to take a guy that is not a #1 need? I don't really feel like going into a full out analysis on this, but the point is, he COULD be there. Is it likely, no. Is is possible, YES. OK, on to your concerns, which are valid. The injuries are a concern, but when you really look at them in context, it's more smoke and mirrors then anyting concrete. The collarbone is a freak injury. It's not a recurring thing and can happen to ANY player in the wrong-unlikely situation. The ankle sprain causes some concern, but he missed minimal game time becuase of it. I think the shoulder may be the biggest concern just because it could be a recurring thing. It's something that you definitily have to look into, but it's NOTHING compared to taking a guy who almost had his knee torn off a few months prior. The shoulder is a medical staff assessment. Obviously they're the only ones that could really gauge it and if they'd be OK with it, then I have faith in their assessement. All-in-all, I think the injuries aren't that major of a concern. He's a guy that ran hard in college and instead of just trying to run around everyone, as most college backs do, he also ran through people. Anytime a player runs hard like this injuries and tweaks are going to happen, it's a part of the game. You have to look at the injuries and how they occured and see if it is a recurring thing or not. In my opinion its not. As far as running style goes, I just don't see how that matters. All great backs are not created from the same mold. Emmitt Smith was a bowling ball. Thurman Thomas and Marshall Faulk were all purpose kind of guys, Eric Dickerson was stronger but quick. They all have different styles, but in the end, it's just pure atheltism that makes a running back great, not his style. You know a few years ago although Larry Johnson gained over 2000 yards his senior season at Penn State, a lot of people were questioning him becuase he ran too "upright" too. He turned out OK you could say! In the end, I think Bills fans discount what this guy could trulely be... I don't know if that's because the potential of him falling to us came out of nowhere, or becuase they're just afraid to take a first round runningback. I dont know. Maybe its because people don't want to set themselves up for a fall from high expectations. Either they don't want to get thier hopes up that Peterson may be there when we pick or because they don't want us to take him and have him not live up to our expectations. Most likely my little rant is moot though because the odds are Peterson wont be there anyways. However, just because its a slim possibility, doesn't discount the man's potential ability, nor should it discount our excitiment if the unthinkable does happen. It would be a gift if Peterson fell to us and an a disaster beyond words if we passed on him (obvioulsy if we get turner AND peterson fell to us it creates an interesting situation, where trading down and holding a kings ransom would be better, but that's another story.....). There's an old saying that "you don't look a gift horse in the mouth," and the bills would be wise to follow it. I'd like to say again though, good post, good anlaysis. I too like turner, and would be happy to see the bills get him (for a reaosnable price). Aside from everything I just said, LB is still priority one and i agree that this organization seems to fill their needs completely rather than just plug in one guy. I definitiley see LB's in the first 4 rounds.

if that's the case, i also think it's too steep for him. Why not make next year a higher conditional pick based on performance...it he performs great then we'd be OK with giving up a high pick, if not then we give them something lower.... something like this years and next years 3rd, with next year's 3rd being conditional; if Turner ranks in the top 10 RB's SD get a 2nd rounder, and if he's a top 5 back then they get our first. IF AJ is so hell bent on getting so much in return based on how good he is, he shouldn't have to worry much about this... we shall see if any of this is true though...

just throwing this out there and want to guage people's thoughts... would you trade this year's second round pick and next year's 4th round pick for Turner. Next year's 4th would be conditional and can be as high as a 1st. If Turner were to gain 1000 yards rushing next season it would be a 3rd round pick, 1500 yards a 2nd round pick, and 2000 yards a first. So most likely it would be this year's 2nd with next year's 3rd. Obviously it's just rough and you could fudge the numbers a little bit or go with Turner's NFL rank among RB's in yards or something like that.... but what do you think? would you be happy if a deal went down something like this?

I don't know if I like giving up our 1 for briggs and another pick. I'd rather give up our 1 and maybe a thrid and get Briggs and their number 1. That way we would still have Briggs and three day one picks. Would it be great if that happened and Puz or Timmons or Beason were still there at 31?! Briggs-Crowell-Puz (Timmons). (realistically though, Puz won't last that long. he's climbing up boards if anything and a TON of teams need outside linbackers, just off the top of my head.. st. Louis, Carolina, Bengals, Giants, Cheifs, Pats, Bears?, Philly, pittsburgh, etc...) Then you can address RB and CB in rounds 2 and 3...aww that would be nice!!

OK lets do a quick recap: 1. you said that you have doubts that Puz can play in the cover 2 defense 2. I pointed out the fact that Penn State plays a zone-intenstive defense which is pretty much the college equivilent of the cover 2. I think this is a pretty good indication of whether he's a good fit for the cover 2 or not. 3. you reply back saying, and i quite: "So you're saying that Big 10 offenses composed of Big 10 players are the equivalent of NFL offenses and NFL players in terms of speed, size, and complexity and that the minimum skill set that it takes to dominate said Big 10 offenses as a OLB in a College Cover-2 Scheme directly correlates to the same skill set necessary to dominate NFL offenses and NFL players as a player in a NFL Cover-2 Defense?" Essentially I inferred from this 3 things: a. First that you don't think that you can compare Puz in a college cover two defesne because he played against college teams which are composed of college level talent. b. you think that because these two don't "directly correlate" that him being productive in a college cover-2 can't be used as an indication of whether he'll be good in the NFL. c. Lastly if Puz in a cover 2 like defense in the big-10 is not a indication of whether or not he'll be good in an NFL cover two, soley becuase the systems is a little different and the players aren't as good, then you are inferring that judging a player, ANY player by what they did in college (because it was against lesser competition then the NFL) should not be a determining factor. You did not say this directly but that's what your faulty logic implies. So on to your Questions, Concerns and Comments... number 1... I said "So are you saying that you can't judge any player on their college performance becuase the competition they play against does not "directly correlates," to the type of talent in the NFL?" You replied: "Did I say that? Please show me in my post where I said that. I merely questioned how you judge the Poz as being suited for a NFL Cover-2 Defense based upon his experience playing in a similar defense in college." My response to you is pretty much letter c above. And your "questioning" how I judge Puz as being suited for the NFL cover-2 defense based on his experience playing in the similar defense in college is the illogic that made me respond so ademently. How you can just dismiss the similarties is just mind-blowing. I'm not saying that he's a sure thing or just because he played in a similar defense in college that it would mean that he's going to be a stud in the NFL, but if should "alieviate" any of your concerns that he wouldn't be a good fit in the cover two. Your real concern would then be his talent level, not whether he'd fit into a defense that he's practicially already played in. number 2.... I said "Or because the offenseive and defensive systems are not identical? DON'T BE A F*CKIN ASS AND DO SOME GOD FORESAKEN RESEARCH!!" Your siad "Who's being the ass? And how was my question indicative of someone who has not done any "research"?" my response: maybe research was the wrong word, logic and common sense would be more approriate, because you have none of it in your post. So i apoligize for saying research. as for the rest i don't have the time to go point-by-point... but let me just conclude by saying this. No one knows whether he's going to be good in the NFL or not. In fact now one knows if any player is going to be the next peyton manning or the next ryan leaf. HOWEVER, there are things you can look for to see if a player is going to be a good fit for your team... And the fact that Puz has played in a zone defense in college should give you a good indication that he would fit into that system in the NFL. No rather he'll be "great" in that system, we'll have to wait and see. But it is completely illogical to dismiss the fact that he played in a similar defense because it wasn't the exact same and against lesser talent.

So are you saying that you can't judge any player on their college performance becuase the competition they play against does not "directly correlates," to the type of talent in the NFL? Or because the offenseive and defensive systems are not identical? DON'T BE A F*CKIN ASS AND DO SOME GOD FORESAKEN RESEARCH!! you want to know if Puz can play the cover-2, well i think it's a pretty good indication when he plays in a zone-intensive defense in college and won the Butkus (2005) and Bednarik (2005 and 2006) awards playing in a defense that is pretty darn similar. Of course the talen is not the same or the offesens are not identical, but what college ones are? By your standards you should judge every player by their intangibles (i.e. 40 times, injuries, etc..) and not even consider on field performance... smart, real smart

Here's more proof that Puz is so much better then you give him credit... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05312/602421.stm "I truly believe," Jack Ham was saying the other day, "he's the best linebacker ever to play at Penn State." Concerned about his speed: "I don't know how fast [Posluszny] is in the 40, but I'll bet you'd be amazed if you timed him for 10 yards," Ham said. "He has that burst to the football." -Ham also although Willis was in the 4.3's in this 40 times he was SLOWER then Puz in all of the cone drills, you know, drills that have linebackers running side to side, back and forth, stuff they actually DO on gameday... When they start placing tracks in the middle of the football field, then i'll start caring about a LB's 40 time. Note: this is not a knock agasint Willis, I think he'll be an excellent linebacker in the NFL. I just think people are discounting Puz entirely too much. A lot of people will be upset come draft day if they don't realize that taking him at 12 is a REAL possibility...

ummm... yeah, i'm pretty sure that penn state plays pretty much the college equivilent to a cover-2 defense... no, check that, i'm POSTIVE they do!