draft 24 Buffalo Bills 2024 First Draft Pick: Round 2, Pick #33 (from Carolina): WR, Florida State, Keon Coleman

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

1 hour ago, bdutton said:

No.

[Ann]

 

 

[Ann]

Maddy Glab and Chris Brown shared their initial reactions following the Bills selection of Florida State WR Keon Coleman in the 2nd round, 33rd overall.
 

 

[Ann]

Longer version
 

[Ann]

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

Full interview is on Facebook (I couldn’t find it anywhere else)
 

 

 

[art_vandelay]

I'll preface this by saying that I was really hoping we would have picked up Legette, but if Coleman turns out to be like Drake London or Mike Williams, we'll all be happy.  Just hoping he doesnt turn into NKeal Harry in the pros. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, art_vandelay said:

I'll preface this by saying that I was really hoping we would have picked up Legette, but if Coleman turns out to be like Drake London or Mike Williams, we'll all be happy.  Just hoping he doesnt turn into NKeal Harry in the pros. 

 

I'm probably reaching here because I don't follow college ball, but while people like to talk about the ability (or inability) of Coleman and Harry to separate, the biggest separation is between the drafting history of the Pats* vs. Beane, the latter of whom has bona fides as a successful talent evaluator.

 

NE*? Bellicheat*? Dude was terrible at evaluating talent for the draft.

 

I'll trust Beane taking Coleman long before I'll trust Bellicheat* drafting pretty much anyone. And that's not because I dislike the Pats*. It's because the proof is in their drafting legacies.

 

[Ann]

#0

 

 

 

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, Ann said:

#0

 

 

 

 

Letting DL have single digit #'s is dumb.  And, while it is no big deal, 0 looks wrong as a player #.  (Though Marty Biron's 00 was sweet.   )

[CarpetCrawler]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Letting DL have single digit #'s is dumb.  And, while it is no big deal, 0 looks wrong as a player #.  (Though Marty Biron's 00 was sweet.   )

 

What about Jim Otto? 

 

[Taro T]

10 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

 

What about Jim Otto? 

 

 

What about it?

 

That's not a 0, now is it?

 

It is a 00.  And pretty sure, already said that 00 on Marty Biron was pretty sweet.

[CarpetCrawler]

9 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

What about it?

 

That's not a 0, now is it?

 

It is a 00.  And pretty sure, already said that 00 on Marty Biron was pretty sweet.

Not slighting Biron, I wasn't even referencing him.

Didn't you say letting a DL wear 0 was dumb? I'm pretty sure you said that first before mentioning Biron?

I'm just pointing out another time that 00 was used (in football no less), And I was actually agreeing with you by showing it would look better that 0 for a lineman. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, CarpetCrawler said:

Not slighting Biron, I wasn't even referencing him.

Didn't you say letting a DL wear 0 was dumb? I'm pretty sure you said that first before mentioning Biron?

I'm just pointing out another time that 00 was used (in football no less), And I was actually agreeing with you by showing it would look better that 0 for a lineman. 

 

Yes, letting linemen wear single digit #'s is dumb.

 

Is 00 a single digit #?  Pretty sure it isn't.  You seem to be in agreement with me (as you even go so far as to state you ARE agreeing),  yet you are arguing about it.  00 is NOT 0.  When used in arithmetic, they represent the same value, but we aren't looking at them in a mathematical context.

[snafu]

30 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

 

What about Jim Otto? 

 

 

 

It only works on a guy named  0tt0 .

 

 

 

 

[CarpetCrawler]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Yes, letting linemen wear single digit #'s is dumb.

 

Is 00 a single digit #?  Pretty sure it isn't.  You seem to be in agreement with me (as you even go so far as to state you ARE agreeing),  yet you are arguing about it.  00 is NOT 0.  When used in arithmetic, they represent the same value, but we aren't looking at them in a mathematical context.

It wasn't me that started the argumentative tone. I was just showing that 00 could look cool on a lineman as opposed to 0 which I think would not. Sheesh

[Hedge]

6 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

It wasn't me that started the argumentative tone. I was just showing that 00 could look cool on a lineman as opposed to 0 which I think would not. Sheesh

On the super fatties in the trenches I would also support a triple zero!

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, CarpetCrawler said:

It wasn't me that started the argumentative tone. I was just showing that 00 could look cool on a lineman as opposed to 0 which I think would not. Sheesh

 

Apologies.  Took "what about Jim Otto" as a snarky "well, you don't like 0, what about Jim Otto, HE wore 0."  

 

Which, as the photo you posted CLEARLY shows he DIDN'T wear 0, he wore 00.  They are NOT the same thing.  And, as had already been stated, 00 could be a sweet uni in the right circumstances.  (And for clarity, though previously unstated, but ONLY in the right circumstances.)

 

(And, with all that said, would find 0 being perfectly appropriate for ANY J-E-S-T jest, Jest, JEST! player.  Let's face it, it fits them to a T.)

[IDBillzFan]

33 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Yes, letting linemen wear single digit #'s is dumb.

 

Wearing a flat-brimmed baseball hat when you're over the age of 25 is dumb. 

 

Why would anyone care what number a player wears, beyond other players adjusting to it on the field, which they seem to have done?