MattM

According to this draft value chart (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html), our 2nd and third round picks should move us up to about 25 or 26 and our 2nd and 4th would move us up to around the 34 or 35 pick.....

I'd be highly disappointed, as O-line is no longer a glaring weakness on this team, other than the C spot, which we can fill in Rds 3-4 this year. If we don't take a WR (Thomas being the only one worthy of the 11 spot it seems), DE (Harvey, anyone?) or a CB (I don't like this myself, but can see the logic vaguely), I personally think it will be a mistake. Also interesting that he doesn't have Sweed going in the first, even though he has Jackson and Kelly going in that round...

10 TDs is 10TDs--he's not going anywhere.

Earnest Wilford signed with Miami and Reggie Williams had 10 TDs last year, so they will be keeping him. Matt Jones might be odd man out and we could get him for a 2nd day pick is what I suspect if we wanted to make sure we got him. Personally, he's been a bust so far, so I'm not sure why he'd do better in B'lo, but I wouldn't be adverse to picking him up on the cheap if he's cut, but I don't see giving up more than a 7 or maybe a 6 for him on draft day and I certainly wouldn't stop from drafting a WR based on picking him up......

I agree--if Kelly is there past 25 or so, I think you start looking to move up. I'm hoping we can do something with someone like GB late in the round that would only involve giving up our 2 and JP (the Pack may not be too sold on Aaron Rogers, and they did like JP way back when he was drafted IIRC)......

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing us take Harvey at 11 and then moving back into the later parts of the first round if one of Sweed, Kelly or Thomas is still there and we fear they won't last until we pick in Rd 2. Comp. would probably be potentially our number 1 next year and a pick/player (GB might be interested in Losman, for ex. as the player) or our 2 and 3 this year. In a perfect world the comp. would only be our 2nd and JP, but the only team I could see doing this at the end of Rd 1 would be GB. This way we'd get a talented WR a year earlier than next year and have the added benefit of being able to sign our 1st rounders to 6 year deals versus the 4 year max that rounds 2-7 picks are allowed (I do think that's part of the reason we've moved up in the past).

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/ Hopefully this won't lead to them swooping in and taking our guy in Rds 1 or 2......

Yeah, they've scared the wits out of the guy with intimidation so that he won't talk, that's what I predict they know.....

Isn't your title misleading--there's nothing in here about a source saying he has nothing. There's conjecture that Walsh no longer is as eager to step forward, but that's nowhere near the same as implying that he has nothing. As noted above, he may certainly be feeling pressure not just from Kraft but the League itself that he will get put through the holy ringer for coming forward. How soon they all forget that the NFL's first reaction to Walsh's story was to send an ex-FBI guy to start snooping around Walsh, not the Pats*. That really tells you all you need to know about the parties and their motivations here.....

I like the comment further down from the blog on how little naming rights at RWS might be worth, considering its uses and location, but then again why let the facts get in the way of a good screed.....

Interesting point--I was about to hop on Bob as well, but there may be some truth to what you say, although part of me thinks that Kraft may want to be able to let loose his inner Steinbrenner and buy another Lombardi after this year's disappointment. In terms of the other guys, I have absolutely no doubt that Snyder and Jones would love to go uncapped, no matter what that does to the League.

Much as I dislike them, I expected the Pats to be in there somewhere. Very weird (and goes against a shallow tradition of having the SB loser on one of the games as well, if I recall correctly). Not quite sure what's up with that. I agree that these games kind of stink for opening weekend--nothing I'm too jazzed about myself there......

I'm not surprised at all by this article. It just lays out the truth that people here knew (or should have known) for years. Unfortunately, I find it highly likely that at some point the NFL will go uncapped or the cap will rise so high that many teams won't be able to spend up to it. If you think about it, the only folks against that are the small market owners--the big market owners want that, as do the players. The MLB-ization of the NFL will be sad and will ultimately, I think, destroy the NFL. Look at what it's done for MLB over the last 20 years. Remember when there was a Monday night baseball game on ABC and NBC had a Sat. afternoon game? Considering baseball's ratings, that seems laughable now to have a prime time baseball game on a major network that wasn't a playoff game. I'd wager it would finish with about the same ratings as a rerun of "The Gilmore Girls" and MLB has no one to blame but themselves considering how popular a sport it was in the late 1970s. Now, unless you're a Yankees or Red Sox fan, who cares, and their ratings show that. Popularity of a sport isn't guaranteed and without competitive balance in the NFL it risks the same fate. The League's crown jewels are those TV contracts and with low ratings, they won't be worth anywhere near what they are now with folks all over the country psyched up about their teams. Coincidentally, I was arguing about this on a Pats fan board this morning--he was of course of the mindset of "F" the small market teams. What I thought really funny was his insistence that Bob Kraft was really a compromiser who has helped out the small market teams--I have no idea where he got that idea and asked him several times for links to back this up, but got nothing each time. While this may be sacrilege to some here, if an uncapped league (or a meaninglessly capped league) happens I must admit that part of me wouldn't mind seeing the Bills sold to a Toronto multi-billionaire willing to spend money on the team and, if he's smart, make a nod at least to Buffalo by (a) building his new stadium 30-45 minutes south of Toronto (i.e, close enough for B'lo fans to get to the games, too), (b) play 1-2 home games a year in Buffalo and © calling the team something like the "Niagara Frontier Bills" in order to capture the idea that the team is a regional one. It may be the only way that the Bills could be competitive--question is, is it worth the price of "losing" the team in some sense. Like many of you who've grown up with the Bills in WNY, a move would tear me up in some ways, but I think that Toronto is a heckuva lot better than LA, where I'd previously figured they'd end up after Ralph's passing. I must also admit that this is all easier for me to say, as I live in NYC now and fly up for the occasional game, and could do so just as easily to Toronto. Still, as a native Rochesterian, it would also pain me more than folks in Buffalo in some sense, as that distance, while doable for people from B'lo may be a lot tougher for folks coming from Roch. Some tough issues here--I fear the NFL will kill the golden egg laying goose, as I trust the current head honchos on Park Avenue about as far as I can thrown them on issues like this. It's no secret that Goodell was the choice of the large market owners and I suspect that he'll follow his bosses' dictates on this issue.....

So far as you know, that is. Anyone else ever been close to a story that's been in the news and realize how little journalists usually get RIGHT? Downright scary at times.....

Just dumb it all down for Generation Y (or Z or whatever late teens and 20 somethings call themselves these days), he says in his best Grandpa Simpson impersonation.....

The Colts, who used the 9ers pick they got last year to pick Tony Ugoh.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I ever get my act together enough to get into heaven and God's voice isn't that of John Facenda, I'll be deeply disappointed.....

I think Kevin Curtis got something like a 48 or 49 as well a few years back.

No takers, huh? Just a simple question, looking for some simple responses. No need to write a treatise, but I am curious about which direction folks would go on this....

By bias, do you mean because we're Bills fans (i.e., in the same division)? What I'm trying to do is gauge the attitude to such a scenario of fans of teams other than the Pats--any fan of a team other than NE may (or may not) have some bias to the Pats, but considering the nature of my inquiry I'm not sure how I remove that from the equation here......

I'm trying to conduct a poll of sorts (informal though it is). What would your reaction be if (a) Walsh comes forward and has a copy of the Rams SB walkthrough and (b) the Pats claim for whatever reason that Walsh was acting alone and they had nothing to do with it and © the Commissioner does not punish the Pats or punishes them leniently. Would this make you angry or would you abide by the Commissioner's decision? Thoughts?

Were Poz and Peters no-shows? (or at least not seen by CB?)

Wasn't Burress' rookie year somewhat of a bust? 22 catches for 273 yards and 0 TDs, and he was a Top 10 pick, if I recall correctly. How is that a good rookie year by any stretch?

I thought I'd read that Ralph has little or no debt on the team, so if that's the case (and I'm sure he's not alone), then there must be some teams that are close to half their value in debt. While the NFL is hugely popular, you never know what a downturn could cause in terms of economic havoc even for them. Perhaps this is part of why Goodell is fighting so hard to sweep Spygate under the rug--that kind of news ain't good for business......

The lifelong Pats* fan part might actually explain why he never came forward on his own in the fall--imagine how you'd feel as a Bills fan and you got your dream job working for them, only to find out they were a bunch of cheaters, willing to do anything (legal or not ) to win.....