2009 NFL Draft

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/25/2009 @ 08:52:56 AM
I'm predicting the Packers trade their #9 pick to the Pats. "Always trade down" that's the Pack's motto under TT.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/25/2009 @ 10:40:43 AM
Well, multiple 2nd round picks are probably better in the long run than one first round pick. I might be right about that, who knows.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 04/25/2009 @ 11:33:04 AM
You think he'll stop at 2nd round picks? Heck no, he'll trade those down for more 4th and 5th round picks or something.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/25/2009 @ 03:33:51 PM
So far the most exciting thing to happen during the draft coverage is finding out there's Throwback Pepsi and Mountain Dew, will have to go buy some and check it out.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/25/2009 @ 03:34:44 PM
Seahawks hats = uggo		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 04/25/2009 @ 04:07:54 PM
So... Crabtree going to GBP? Will know in a few.....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/25/2009 @ 04:09:28 PM
Looks like Raji instead		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 04/25/2009 @ 05:57:06 PM
Did the Packers just give up a ton of picks for a guy who has a major flaw?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/26/2009 @ 06:36:36 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:52:56 AM I'm predicting the Packers trade their #9 pick to the Pats. "Always trade down" that's the Pack's motto under TT. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:33:04 PM You think he'll stop at 2nd round picks? Heck no, he'll trade those down for more 4th and 5th round picks or something. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:57:06 PM Did the Packers just give up a ton of picks for a guy who has a major flaw? Can Thompson do anything right in your eyes?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/26/2009 @ 07:00:48 AM
John Clayton from ESPN: Packers general manager Ted Thompson loves to trade back, but on Saturday, he traded up from the second round into the first to take linebacker Clay Matthews. Packers fans should rejoice. The additions of B.J. Raji and Matthews will make the transition to a 3-4 defense smoother.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/26/2009 @ 09:19:04 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:36:36 AM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:52:56 AM I'm predicting the Packers trade their #9 pick to the Pats. "Always trade down" that's the Pack's motto under TT. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:33:04 AM You think he'll stop at 2nd round picks? Heck no, he'll trade those down for more 4th and 5th round picks or something. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:57:06 PM Did the Packers just give up a ton of picks for a guy who has a major flaw? Can Thompson do anything right in your eyes? To be fair this isn't a situation where if one thing is wrong the opposite must be right. They gave up an awful lot to go get a guy who may have been available in round two and wasn't that close to the highest ranked linebacker available.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 04/26/2009 @ 09:37:55 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:36:36 AM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:52:56 AM I'm predicting the Packers trade their #9 pick to the Pats. "Always trade down" that's the Pack's motto under TT. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:33:04 AM You think he'll stop at 2nd round picks? Heck no, he'll trade those down for more 4th and 5th round picks or something. Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:57:06 PM Did the Packers just give up a ton of picks for a guy who has a major flaw? Can Thompson do anything right in your eyes? I'm gonna have to go with no. He rarely brings in free agents and when he does they aren't that good. (exception of course being Woodson) He cherishes getting as much as possible from the draft, but out of all those picks, how many have worked out? That's a really low percentage, whatever it is. Oh yea, and he also traded away the team last year. Let's see what they get for that 3rd round draft pick. I'm sure my rant is completely inaccurate, but that's how I feel.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 04/26/2009 @ 11:12:42 AM
Woot for Travis Beckum! WI guys are dropping like flies.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/26/2009 @ 12:02:41 PM
Mel Kiper said that the Packers had the best day on Day 1 of the draft. Anyway, what is this "major flaw" that Sarah mentioned?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 04/26/2009 @ 12:26:07 PM
He always puts his hands down after the snap. I don't know, just being harsh because I can be.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/26/2009 @ 03:49:10 PM
I declare this draft blog a bust.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 04/26/2009 @ 09:51:49 PM
According to Scouts Inc via ESPN Insider Matthews was the 3rd best overall OLB, the best available at the time, and was overall ranked 21st. So it seems like a pretty solid pick, and it's a definite need pick. Thompson I believe has admitted that even according to their draft value charts they gave up a bit more than they got back, but they have a pretty young team with decent depth at most positions I think and they more need just a couple better starters and not the total rebuilding mode that more mid round picks gets you. That FB pick looks like a bit of a reach, but besides that I think they did pretty well. The OT they got in the 5th, Jamon Meredith, had a high 3rd round grade.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/27/2009 @ 08:28:33 AM
Packers get an A. Mel Kiper says the Packers had the best draft!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 04/27/2009 @ 12:35:30 PM
Let's see if it can make a decent season, eh?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day. 04/27/2009 @ 09:56:37 PM
Packers had a great draft, although its always too early to tell before a guy makes a play. We had a live blog going with a couple of other sites and Greg Bedard, NFL beat writer for the Milwaukee Journal. About 1500 folks came through and left over 2000 comments, it's pretty cool if you are looking for something to read. As far as the draft is concerned. We filled quite a few holes on paper. Raji is solid, and also the largest man on the team now. Matthews is a good player. He was a walk on and worked his butt off to become a starter on a talent filled defense at USC. There are two questions on Matthews, one is how do you go from 161 to 225 in a couple of seasons? You have to give him the benefit of the doubt though. His Dad played ball for 20 years and so did his uncle. He has never been injured, nor was his father. His dad was also known as a hard worker. The second question was a story revolving a racist group he made on Facebook. It looks like it was nothing, apparently USC was known and often poked fun of as the cracker team, it was in response to that. The trading up was worth it. The guys we got on day two even excite me more. The FB Quinn is a Henderson prototype, although he needs to work on catching the ball. He was the highest ranked fullback in the draft. We could have used him on the goal line last year when we couldn't get a yard. Meredith, is second round talent, Lang can play every position on the line, and actually our 7th round LB will be a great special teamer. In the post draft, we signed Greg Jennings 2.0. He broke all of Jennings school records this season. He is my wildcard this year. If you really are craving info, check out the live blog replay. It was something else.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
PackOne messed with this at 04/27/2009 9:57:50 pm

	jthompto 04/28/2009 @ 07:12:55 AM
I agree, much to early to tell who were the winners and losers of this draft. Draft grades are mostly based on filling team needs and getting good value out of your picks. I think the Packers got such a high grade because they did exactly that. Plus whenever you have two first rounders, your grade will be high because the majority of first rounders are expected to be immediate impact players. Minnesota got a low grade, but honestly didn't really have that much position need, with the excpetion of right tackle, which they filled in the 2nd round. So they were able to take a gamble on Harvin. Let's hope it pays off. .		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 09:58:06 AM
Regarding the Vikings, I heard a few people say last year that the Vikings were a good QB away from being a super Bowl contender. While they didn't exactly get the super bowl contending QB, Harvin could be the Randy Moss type receiver that makes any qb look good. Maybe that will be the difference they need. Although, now I have two reasons to hate Harvin: he plays for the vikings and he was a Gator. That's a pretty killer combination. As for the Packers, I think they helped themselves out quite a bit. With the 3-4 defense they are switching too, they cannot have too many linebackers. They didn't get any of the "sexy" picks like a RB, QB, or WR, but they definitely bulked up some areas where they need players. And the big thing is that with 2 first rounders they have 2 players who will most likely get a lot of playing time right away. In other words, they are going to get immediate production. Obviously, we won't know the true value until they start playing, but getting immediate production is a really big plus coming out of a draft. More on the Packers draft, it was their defense that caused them to be 5-11 or whatever they were last year, not their offense.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 5 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/28/2009 10:29:53 am

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 04/28/2009 @ 11:26:17 AM
Draft grades are tricky, because you never know what they're really a commentary on. Some people factor in things like "you traded away your #1 this year" and factor in you "drafting" that player and some look at just this draft as a stand alone thing and "penalize" you because you didn't have a 1st rounder. Some look at it as a "did the players fill a need" and others look at is as a "if they filled a need then they were probably a reach of some sort." Other people look at it as a total talent aggregate sort of thing, so two first round picks is almost a sure high grade. That said I wouldn't say the Vikings got a "low" grade. I've seen C+ to B+ but even when they've gotten the C+ they're in the top 8-10. (Like I said, some people look at it as a sheer 'how much talent did you add' sort of thing, and this was a weak draft pool in these people's view.) Pretty much every reviewer has pointed out that the Vikings got the best play maker, and potentially best player, in the draft. There's just some risk there. Personally I look at it this way: I'm not sure they were expecting Oher to be there, but the Vikings were reportedly perfectly content with ending up with Loadholt at 22. Obviously in hindsight that was a lot higher than necessary, but a lot of mock drafts/draft day speculation had Loadholt going at 22 also, so it wouldn't have been seen as much of a reach, if at all. They stayed patient and ended up with him with their normal second round pick. In that sense they got a guy who has a real shot at being the best player in the draft for nothing (or at least for who ever they would have ended up with in the 2nd round.) The Vikings biggest needs were QB, WR, and a right tackle. A QB out of the draft wouldn't contribute anytime soon, the top two picks they did get should step in immediately at their other areas of need. Both the packers and Vikings ended up with 2 players with first round talent, one of which with top ten talent. The Vikings pick was riskier, but they also didn't panic and trade up to get Loadholt, as the Packers did to get the "Muscle Milk" stooge*. They both filled huge areas of need. All in all I'd call it a wash as far as "who did better" but I think it's clear both teams had a very good draft. * Not that I mean it's by any means a sure thing Matthews would have been available in round 2, but they gave up a decent amount to move up half a round. Meanwhile the Vikings stood pat while they watched a guy they were willing to take at #1 creep further and further. Maybe saying the Packers "panicked" is a bit strong, but I think the Vikings deserve a bit of credit for their gamble paying off. Edit: It's also been made public that the Patriots were going to take Harvin with the following pick, so in that sense the Vikings got him at his "peak value" draft slot wise.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 7 times, last at 04/28/2009 11:51:16 am

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 04/28/2009 @ 11:57:16 AM
Of course the Vikings also got a good grade in '05 when ESPN said this: The Vikings got playmakers on both sides of the ball in the first round, surprising some pundits by choosing wide receiver Troy Williamson over Mike Williams and adding to a fast-improving, young defensive front with pass-rush end Erasmus James. But the Vikes not only started fast, they finished nicely as well, adding "value board" prospects such as offensive lineman Marcus Johnson (who could replace right guard David Dixon), corner Dustin Fox (a potential "nickel" contributor as a rookie) and tailback Ciatrick Fason. If coach Mike Tice is as serious as he claims to be about returning to the power run game that Minnesota abandoned in 2004, Fason could be a factor.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 12:08:19 PM
If the Vikings took Loadholt in the first round, that would have been stupid. Therefore, I can't give them any bonus points for waiting on him until the second round. That said, I think the Vikings had a fine draft. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:57:16 AM and tailback Ciatrick Fason. If coach Mike Tice is as serious as he claims to be about returning to the power run game that Minnesota abandoned in 2004, Fason could be a factor. The Vikings never should have given up on Turkleton. Or Larry Ned.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 04/28/2009 12:08:27 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 12:20:23 PM
Well, like I said, obviously in hindsight it would have been dumb, but you can tell a lot of things with the power of hindsight. I've been looking over a few rankings/mock drafts and it looks like it would have actually been seen as somewhat of a reach, but since you could make the case the Right OT was the Vikings' biggest need the talent/need combo would have been an ok pick. (And, like I said, they were "content" to take him with their first pick (I guess that doesn't necessarily imply at #22 either), assuming the top flight receivers and tackles were gone. Upon further review I'd have to admit however that calling Loadholt a "first round talent" is a bit of a stretch. He cracked the bottom of the first a few times, but was generally projected as a high second. (He was Mel Kiper Jr.'s second "Best available" in his last first round mock.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 12:26:56 PM
why did my comment get 2 turd ratings? I basically said everything that every else after me just said.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 4 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 04/28/2009 @ 12:28:17 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 12:08:19 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:57:16 AM and tailback Ciatrick Fason. If coach Mike Tice is as serious as he claims to be about returning to the power run game that Minnesota abandoned in 2004, Fason could be a factor. The Vikings never should have given up on Turkleton. Or Larry Ned. Fason was awful. He was supposed to be a big power goalline guy, except he'd always come to a dead stop on the 2 to try and put a move on someone, lose all momentum, and lose a down.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 04/28/2009 @ 12:32:38 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:26:56 PM why did my comment get 2 turd ratings? I basically said everything that every else after me just said. 70% - Because you didn't know, or lookup, the Packers 2008 record. (6-10) 20% - Because the offense and defense feed each other, so it's not like it could have zero impact. (And, for that matter, it was the same Defense they had in 2007) 10% - Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/28/2009 12:37:15 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 04/28/2009 @ 12:43:05 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:32:38 PM 10% - Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun. You know what, it is kind of fun.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 04/28/2009 @ 12:46:46 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 12:43:05 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:32:38 PM 10% - Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun. You know what, it is kind of fun. Indeed.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 12:53:29 PM
Did someone else turd it before you? Otherwise, your childish rejoinder is a miss.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 12:56:21 PM
What would be funny about a round number?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:00:13 PM
I wasn't referring to the number of times you did it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:04:26 PM
I'm not sure what else you could be referring to. Back on topic: 2010 Mock Draft!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:11:39 PM
They lost Corey Williams between 07 and 08, and they couldn't stop the run worth a lick last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:16:10 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:04:26 PM I'm not sure what else you could be referring to. It's not "piling on" if you're the first (and only) one to do it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:20:31 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:16:10 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:04:26 PM I'm not sure what else you could be referring to. It's not "piling on" if you're the first (and only) one to do it. It's not? I think 950 turds would say otherwise.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 04/28/2009 @ 01:25:57 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:32:38 PM Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun My post met the first condition, yours didn't. I win.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 04/28/2009 1:26:39 pm

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 04/28/2009 @ 01:43:25 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:25:57 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:32:38 PM Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun My post met the first condition, yours didn't. I win. Was it 10% of the reason too?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:56:48 PM
Yes		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 01:57:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:32:38 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:26:56 PM why did my comment get 2 turd ratings? I basically said everything that every else after me just said. 70% - Because you didn't know, or lookup, the Packers 2008 record. (6-10) 20% - Because the offense and defense feed each other, so it's not like it could have zero impact. (And, for that matter, it was the same Defense they had in 2007) 10% - Because someone else already turded it, and piling on is fun. But I complimented the Vikings, saying that they might have the proper pieces to be a super bowl contender. Does one gaffe in a team's record negate any positive analysis for my team's rival?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 02:09:47 PM
Yes. If for no other reason than you fell victim to Nutcan Bylaw 2.1.3 Section D a.k.a "Jon's (sp?) Rule" which states. Any nutcan poster shall be penalized for any error they might or might not make if said poster acknowledges that said error might exist and said acknowledgment takes a sizable percentage of the time it would take to verify whether or not said error exists. The penalty for violating this bylaw will vary depending on how easily verifiable the information in question is, or how much it should fall under common knowledge. Examples of violations include the use of words or names with acknowledgment that the spelling is most likely incorrect. I.e. "I think Bill Bellecheck (sp?) is a cheater."		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/28/2009 2:13:06 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 04/28/2009 @ 02:15:32 PM
And because, in spite of his previous lectures about how all of our rating "methodologies" are wrong, Jeremy has no respect for the integrity of the rating system.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 02:16:42 PM
Well, I was joking about the "piling on" portion.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 03:08:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:16:42 PM Well, I was joking about the "piling on" portion. Really? Oops.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 04/28/2009 @ 03:14:24 PM
Go LIONS!!! A+ for managing to take a receiver in the 1st round and disguising it as a tight end.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 03:36:33 PM
Well, their biggest need was a tackle, they decided to compromise between that and their "only pick wide receivers" mandate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 04/28/2009 @ 06:48:36 PM
Slightly off topic, but is ESPN.com actively trying to make it's homepage worse? Cause it's working.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 04/28/2009 @ 06:49:31 PM
That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 04/28/2009 @ 09:44:02 PM
Well, Favre's been released, so he can now go join any team he wants... (thanks to my Twitter friend - Packers Lounge) ;)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 04/29/2009 @ 04:29:05 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:09:47 PM Yes. If for no other reason than you fell victim to Nutcan Bylaw 2.1.3 Section D a.k.a "Jon's (sp?) Rule" which states. Any nutcan poster shall be penalized for any error they might or might not make if said poster acknowledges that said error might exist and said acknowledgment takes a sizable percentage of the time it would take to verify whether or not said error exists. The penalty for violating this bylaw will vary depending on how easily verifiable the information in question is, or how much it should fall under common knowledge. Examples of violations include the use of words or names with acknowledgment that the spelling is most likely incorrect. I.e. "I think Bill Bellecheck (sp?) is a cheater." I'm so glad you remembered! I'm not sure I ever realized anyone even agreed with the concept in the slightest. I'm pretty sure I've actually broken it from time to time, but I guess that doesn't mean it's still not a valid rule in some sense. Nice catch Jeremy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 04/29/2009 @ 06:47:06 AM
Anyone see Matt Stafford on Letterman? Check it out, pretty funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmywp9IWuys		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/29/2009 @ 09:38:56 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 05:29:05 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:09:47 PM Yes. If for no other reason than you fell victim to Nutcan Bylaw 2.1.3 Section D a.k.a "Jon's (sp?) Rule" which states. Any nutcan poster shall be penalized for any error they might or might not make if said poster acknowledges that said error might exist and said acknowledgment takes a sizable percentage of the time it would take to verify whether or not said error exists. The penalty for violating this bylaw will vary depending on how easily verifiable the information in question is, or how much it should fall under common knowledge. Examples of violations include the use of words or names with acknowledgment that the spelling is most likely incorrect. I.e. "I think Bill Bellecheck (sp?) is a cheater." I'm so glad you remembered! I'm not sure I ever realized anyone even agreed with the concept in the slightest. I'm pretty sure I've actually broken it from time to time, but I guess that doesn't mean it's still not a valid rule in some sense. Nice catch Jeremy. What if you are posting from work, and verifying the errors will further take time out of the day and increase the risk of said poster getting caught?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 04/29/2009 @ 10:07:37 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:38:56 AM Jon Wrote - Today @ 05:29:05 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:09:47 PM Yes. If for no other reason than you fell victim to Nutcan Bylaw 2.1.3 Section D a.k.a "Jon's (sp?) Rule" which states. Any nutcan poster shall be penalized for any error they might or might not make if said poster acknowledges that said error might exist and said acknowledgment takes a sizable percentage of the time it would take to verify whether or not said error exists. The penalty for violating this bylaw will vary depending on how easily verifiable the information in question is, or how much it should fall under common knowledge. Examples of violations include the use of words or names with acknowledgment that the spelling is most likely incorrect. I.e. "I think Bill Bellecheck (sp?) is a cheater." I'm so glad you remembered! I'm not sure I ever realized anyone even agreed with the concept in the slightest. I'm pretty sure I've actually broken it from time to time, but I guess that doesn't mean it's still not a valid rule in some sense. Nice catch Jeremy. What if you are posting from work, and verifying the errors will further take time out of the day and increase the risk of said poster getting caught? Aren't pointless arguments on random blogs what being at work is all about? Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:36:33 PM Well, their biggest need was a tackle, they decided to compromise between that and their "only pick wide receivers" mandate. To be fair, the Lions didn't really have a "biggest need." There are very few positions they don't need (WR!) and you can make an argument that the defensive line or the secondary was their biggest need as well. My hope was that they would pick with the knowledge that they are most likely going to be the worst team again this year, and that its going to take at least a couple years to dig out of the hole they've made. The 1-15 Dolphins were not even remotely close to as bad as the 0-16 Lions, and the Lions won't be turning it around this year like the Dolphins did. that said, they got the (theoretically) best QB, TE and S in the draft so hopefully its something to build on. Although Joey Harrington was way dreamier than Matthew Stafford.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.