Why I don't like talking to other programmers online

Those who I work with know I don't spend much time online interacting with my fellow programmers.  Sometimes I regret this.  The websites we have today for interaction are vastly superior to the ones we used to have.  The web software itself is better, but the content is also much better.  You have multi-disciplinary coders, working with many languages, and many architectural patterns all sharing one common web forum these days.  Unfortunately, these cats seem to be in a perpetual flame war.

The problem is that most of the heavy users of these sites are beginners.  They ask a lot of questions, because they don't have much knowledge or experience.  Intermediate pros answer these questions.  They give very stereotypical platform-centric, ethnocentric advice.  You get rote Java advice from Java programmers.  You get rote VB advice from Visual Basic programmers.  Same thing goes for all the languages.  These guys do not know or understand each other's approaches.  No VB programmer is particularly honest about, or even aware of the flaws in his game plan.  Same is true for Java programmers, C++ programmers, C# programmers, Python programmers, etc.  Ethnocentrism reigns supreme all over these forums.

Very few of the guys on these forums have more than 10 years of experience.  Most of us stop coding before we reach age 10 as professional coders.  We get kicked up the chain of command.  This is what makes a brilliant guy like Robert C. Martin so amazing.  He has been coding for 39 years.  He just never stopped coding.  This is a deeply experienced polyglot programmer who really knows the answer to the question "Why?" because he has seen the full evolution of software development.  He lived through every movement. 

Recently, Uncle Bob had a smack down with the dudes at StackOverflow.com.  I was rather appalled.  The Stackoverflow gang wrote the site in C# and the Microsoft MVC framework.  Ergo, they are members of my most recent tribe.  I was shocked to see such good members of my tribe speak so ignorantly.

It was pretty clear to me that the very brilliant young entrepreneurs at StackOverflow.com did not use the SOLID techniques Uncle Bob advocates.  It is also clear that they felt threatened by the advent of SOLID, because an acceptance of these techniques would marginalize the StackOverflow.com software itself.  They took Uncle Bob to task for preaching SOLID.  As you listened to these podcasts, forum posts, and blogs, it became clear that the noise coming from the stackoverflow gang was driven of their own personal insecurities about the status and longevity of StackOverflow.com rather than the validity of Uncle Bob's SOLID principles.  They didn't want to talk about SOLID.  They wanted to talk about owning a business.

Uncle Bob knows this.  He did a caper Podcast with Scott Hanselman in which the recapped this smack down.  Although he didn't explicitly say it in this way, Uncle Bob gave me every impression that he knew he was dealing with young and insecure entrepreneurs floating on their very first life-boat on the high-seas of commercial SAS.

Older, veteran, multi-lingual programmers with 14 years of experience and 4 or 5 major languages worth of professional experience have a hard time finding people to talk too.  Programmers are rare.  Veterans are scarce.  Multi-lingual veterans are seldom seen.  I wonder if it is possible to form a club where the scarce 2000+ of us might get together on line.  We would have to restrict membership quite sharply.  No monolingual or mono-platform guys allowed.  If you are Unix only, you are out.  If you are Mac only, you are out.  If you are Windows only, you are out.  If you are C/C++ only, you are out. If you are VB.NET only, you are out.  etc.

If such a forum existed, it would be possible for serious and objective software engineers to discuss the patterns and practices of the various languages and platforms free from the sort of fundamentalism that drives so many in our field.  That would be a wonderful thing.  Can you imagine an objective discourse on the strengths and weakness of software systems?  Could be very beneficial.  

But you just can't discuss the pros and cons of Islam with Osama Bin Laden.  Neither can you discuss the pros and cons of VB.NET with a mono-lingual VB programmer.  Neither can you convince a Java programmer that Microsoft uses its own software to write MSN or Microsoft.com.  They think must be running on Unix because Windows doesn't scale.

The last time I had a "conversation" online, it was with a young Java programmer.  I am sure he would have embarrassed James Gosling.  I was doing a comparison of Java, C# and Scala.  He quickly got belligerent.  He seemed to think I was unfairly putting Java down, by not recognizing it's innate superiority to C# and Scala.  His response was to resort to mocking derisiveness.

The lad didn't seem to know that Java generics aren't real generics.  He didn't seem to know that Java lacks full lexical closures.  He was sure it couldn't be important if Java didn't have it.  He didn't know that closures have been burning topic #1 in Javaland for some 2 years now.  He didn't know what an event is.  He didn't know what a delegate is.  He didn't know what a Scala trait is.  He was quite sure Scala could not replace Java because it could never be as cross-platform as Java! (!!!)  He was very rude & insulting in the process.  Young men like to play king of the hill, and they want to beat you down.

I can recall the bad days of 1994 when I was first doing a bit of professional work on the market.  I was very insecure.  I didn't know if I could make it in life doing this particular line of work.  I didn't know how long it would last.  I did know the other options were worse.  But still, this profession might not be for me.  One thing I knew:  Borland and Pascal were my only life-line.  An attack on these agents was an attack upon my livelihood.  I took any objective criticism as an attempt to sink my ship.

I am sure that the young Java lad was in the same boat.  He is probably working on his first pro assignment.  He knows some Java and nothing else.  Any objective critique of Java is immediately interpreted as an attempt to sink his financial lifeboat.  He must respond vigorously.  Most other members of the tribe feel this way.

Still, you can imagine that a guy like me dislikes dealing with a young guy like that.  He can't discuss the pros and cons of his system.  He just isn't experienced enough.  At this point, he would not be willing to be honest about it.  He really can't hear what you say because fear of financial collapse.

This is the rant of a lonely old programmer who has nobody to talk too.  Many of these points are being refreshed in my mind day by day as I learn Scala.  Many programmers around me, particularly those I work with, have no idea why I would ever want to learn a language like Scala.  They believe I am letting down the Microsoft faction.  

What these young fellows don't know or understand is that you can't get married for life if you are a programmer.  Computer languages are not women.   You do not wed a language or vendor as you would a woman.  Even if you did, languages and vendors die, ergo in death shall you part.  Neither are languages religions.  You do not experience a religious conversion experience and become a programmer of language XYX.  

So the reviews for the final cut of Wolverine are starting to roll in

And it sure as fuck isn't pretty.  If you are a studio manager, you are going to have to be upset about reviews like this one.  They are calling it a fiasco.

For those of you stuck under a rock, obsessed with the NFL draft, the Jay Cutler drama, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, or the bad economy, there was another major story in March 2009. It turns out that world media piracy scored it's biggest kill ever.  They jacked an advanced working copy of the new Super Hero blockbuster X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  Of course, this XVID went straight to Bit Torrent, and from there to millions of kids around the world.

The work was unfinished at the time this cut was made.  None of the photo-realistic 3d visual effects (you can expect to see soon) are in the bootleg cut.  Super simple 3d previz graphics are in place.  DOS video game air planes fly across polygon grid sky, etc.  This is hysterical to the typical viewer.  You can also see the wires & cables attached to every character as he or she leaps across the warehouse, office, road, canyon, etc.  Wire removal is one of the most basic and important elements of action film effects these days.

As you may have gathered already, I did see a copy of this film.  Didn't manage to get all the way through it.  Time was pressing.  I needed to get home, and I was board.  The interest wore off rather quickly.  After the novelty of seeing a bad copy one month early wore thin, there was not much reason to watch it.  I refrained from reviewing the bootleg here, as I didn't finish it, and it is quite unfinished.

I wrote to some friends and told them the product was bad.  I did caution them that this work was unfinished, but with such hammy segues between critical plot-points, I couldn't see how this work might be fixed up.  A friend of mine inside the industry cautioned me not to draw any conclusion just yet.  He informed me that there are emergency editors in the world who are paid millions of dollars to fix-up would-be blockbusters teetering on the brink.  With some tweaking, the final cut can be dramatically improved.  He reminded me that the first cut of Star Wars is now a legendary fiasco among film students.  Everything was patched up by D-Day.

I respect this guy, so I heard him out, but I had a hard time believing that such an effort might fix this film.  With such fundamental mistakes in writing and direction, there is only so much magic an emergency editor can weave.

Anyway, the reviews of Wolverine look pretty nasty right now.  A preview was granted to a limited number of friendly critics.  According to Rottentomatoes.com, the number of critics there was just 17.  Right now the count is 9-8.  9 say it is good.  8 say it is bad.  Reading the 9 positive reviews will raise a lot of eyebrows.  When the review is positive, it is not very good.  When it is negative, it is pretty bad.  Based on a reading of these reviews, it would seem that there are some pissed off fanboys, and some lukewarm fanboys.

What will happen when the non-fanboys begin to review this movie?  Right now Wolverine is pulling 53% on the T-Meter, and the strength score.  I would expect that to fall right through the floor as hostile reviewers like Rex Reed begin to check in.  Expect this movie's T-Meter to finish in the 30s.

I have to say, I am most highly displeased.  I am a big fan of comic books.  This is the second bust in a row.  Worse still, this is a movie that should not have been a bust.  It could have and should have been every bit as good as Iron Man or the Incredible Hulk.  Wolverine is not like the Watchmen.  We are not talking about a vastly overrated piece of shit story here.  We're talking about one of the most favored characters in Marvel history.  They also have one of the most favored stars in Hollywood for this one.  What I see here is a missed opportunity for a terrific blockbuster.  Another one goes down the drain.

So, Dave, if you were to put a fine point on it, just what is wrong with this movie?  It is incredibly cliche.  You have a good brother.  You have an evil brother.  The two of them walk through life together, back-to-back until finally one day, the evil brother's evil becomes to terrible, and the good brother parts company with him.  Of course this means war, and the bad brother must have some revenge.  Now the good brother must kill the bad brother.

Folks, Ballywood makes 20 movies like this every single year.  I am not kidding you either.  They litterally make 20 of these movies every single year.  It is an old archetypal story.  This was just too damn similar to other basic stories I have seen.  It wore thin very fast once I identified the anchient pattern of the work.  Everything was utterly predictable.  No surprises here folks.  You knew the end from the begining.  This is why I didn't bother to finish it.

A quick post about THX video certification

I was surfing channels sometime yesterday evening around 5:00pm, aimlessly shuffling from channel to channel.  I was a little burned out on the NFL draft, which I watched through the first 4 rounds in its entirety.  

Somewhere in the 300s I discovered a program {it might have been on GTV} in which an expert was attempting to explain the whys and wherefores of THX video certification.  I only caught the last 6 or so minutes of the interview, so I didn't get it all.  I was pissed.  It seemed like a good and detailed presentation.

It would seem that the interviewer took a skeptical view of THX video certification, and made the Lucas Labs rep defend the standard.  This is good and righteous.  Based on what I heard from the rep, it would seem that the interviewer had challenged him on the drab, colorless, lifelessness quality of the THX picture.

What I heard from the rep curled my blood.  Then I laughed out loud for several minutes.  What did this THX rep say?

First a slight digression.  Many, many times in the past 2 years, my father, my brother, my mother and I have engaged in conversations about how much better movies look on Blu-Ray + HDTV vis-a-vis the movie theater big screen.  The picture is far brighter, far more colorful, and much sharper than the big screen theater.  This is what we love about it.  This is why we spend money on the technology.  This is why we recommend it to everybody.

Well, it turns out that the THX governors claim we're just plain damn wrong.  You see, the HDTV should look just exactly like the movie theater, according to THX corporation.  That flat, dim, colorless, out of focus image you see in the theater is the correct image.  That is what the original authors of the film intended the movie to look like.  You shouldn't make it more colorful, brighter, sharper, deeper, more detailed, or more in focus.  Doing so makes the presentation in the home different from that of the movie theater, and that is just plain damn wrong.  Ergo, the necessary function of THX laboratories is to show HDTV vendors {like Panasonic & LG} how to dumb-down their mighty technology such that it will look just like the movie theater.

Basically I had several immediate responses:

• Can you not see that the theater is limited by the barbaric nature of its technology?  The drab picture is a function of the obsolete analog projection technology they use.  When DLP projection is used, the picture is improved.  This is not a question of artists intent.  It is a question of primitive, outmoded, outdated technology versus fully modern tech.
  
• What bizarre manner of communist thinking led to this preposterous notion that you must dumb down a superior technology to make it look like an inferior technology?
  
• We human beings sure do get side-tracked with stupid ideologies, don't we?

Then the THX rep said another thing which flipped my on-bit.  The interviewer mentioned that {thus far} only LG and Panasonic have submitted units for THX Video certification, and that acceptance has not been very good for this new logo.  In rebuttal, the THX rep responded that there is an obvious need for such technology and tuning, regardless of whether firms like Samsung and Sony are willing to pay for the help and the testing.  "Even Samsung has introduced what they call Film Mode which is every similar to our THX standard presentation", he said.

Of course, I am breaking in the very latest Samsung HDTV right now.  It is the 55 inch Luxia of the 7000 series.  After just 8 days of ownership, I can't claim I know every last thing about my new HDTV just yet.  Ergo, I immediately grabbed the remote and hit the menu button.  Sure enough, there is a setting under the COLOR header which says "Film Mode".

When activated, Color->Film Mode does indeed produce a drab, colorless, lifeless, unfocused, dim picture very similar in character & quality to what I saw on the Panasonic TC-P50G10 when in THX mode.  I sat there shaking my head in disgust.  Why would you even bother to implement such rubbish?  Why would you waste time & effort trying to figure out how to make your technology look inferior?  Shocking...

Any way, this will not cause me to hate my new HDTV.  Let's remember that Film Mode is strictly optional.  You must opt-in if you want it, and it is easy to opt-out if you don't like it.  This is only one option among several, and not particularly recommended by Samsung.  I simply returned to my prior settings and my new HDTV looked as good as before.

This revelation made me recall the famous saying of Martin Luther: "What strange superstitions bewitch the minds of men?"  The THX Video philosophy is a very strange superstition indeed.

So it seems that the press is turning around on the subject of Blu-Ray

Well, well, well, it's about time.  I was just reading the New York Times, and it seems that Eric Taub is getting enthusiastic about Blu-Ray.  He found the nuts to go against the prevailing gainsayers in the media.  This is the biggest news blog yet to come out in support of Blu-Ray.

At the same time, media pundits have noted that Blu-Ray movie sales have doubled from a year ago.  Also, the industry claims it will ship 12 million new Blu-Ray players in 2009.  Somebody even noticed that Blu-Ray acceptance is well ahead of where DVD was at the same point in both of their life-cycles, despite the massive bite of the Great Recession.  Some estimates claim that sales rates will triple current numbers 2010.  Ergo 2010 should be the cross-over point where DVD becomes legacy material, like VHS, and Blu-Ray becomes the standard.

I am pleased.  This is part of a larger trend.  More and more experts and consumers are questioning what they have been told by so-called experts in regard to Blu-Ray.  They are having a hard time squaring their experiance with the twisted tales of a mis-begotten technological misfit, favorited by a small cult of fans, doomed to an early death.  Many are making noises that sound something like this:  "Jesus!  What the fuck were you bastards smoking when you reached that preposterous conclusion?"

For about 4 years now, predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an ultra-fashionable thing among would-be experts.  It has been functionally good, as it has placed great pressure on Sony and Samsung to cut the cost of ownership.  One might even argue that predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an underhanded way to insist upon price cuts.

Still, there have been persistent blithering idiots who have popped up on the net saying foolish things like "I can't tell the difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray" or worse "There is not much difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray".  In the first case, you could be vision impaired, so your statement might be accurate.  In the second case, you are absolutely and completely wrong, and it is easy to mathematically prove.  If you think there isn't much difference, you have neither seen a Blu-Ray, nor studied it.  Ah-hem...  Let me try this another way.  If you weren't suffering from sour grapes, you would be honest and say "It's great, but I just can't afford it."

For the first time, it would appear that mainstream media is beginning to test Blu-Ray seriously. Gone are the foolish claims that DVD can compete with Blu-Ray.  Those claims have finally been thrown out of court.   Now the NYT has investigated the claims of Video On Demand (VOD) firms also.  Guess whay they found?

1. VOD firms don't offer much HD
2. When they do, it is 720p
3. The encoding of said 720p pretty well sucks.  Maybe its better than SD, but...
4. We don't have enough bandwidth to get constant 720p without jerks.
5. Or maybe they don't have enough bandwidth to serve-up constant 720p without jerks
6. I don't like running an Ethernet cable to my TV.
7. I don't like having a computer in my entertainment system.
8. Blu-Ray seems to crush VOD in terms of quality.

In a nutshell, this what they are starting to say now.  It's about time they figured this out.  

I learned most of these things 2 years ago.  Nothing has been able to change my mind since.  I tried the most recent incarnation of the Apple TV recently.  While better than all VOD solutions before it, it still sucks.  Blu-Ray absolutely destroys Apple TV.  I am talking about a total-annihilation demolition.  It is the defeat the dimensions of which Apple has never experienced:  A route from which no honor can be salvaged.  I returned the unit to Fry's electronics.  It wasn't worth owning.

Allow me to make a positive case for Blu-Ray.  My family members, friends and I have come to the conclusion that a Blu-Ray image, when displayed on a high quality large screen, is so compelling we find it difficult to summon the motivation to go to the theater anymore.  The images we see on the big silver screen seem dark, drab, lifeless, colorless, undetailed and soft (meaning unfocused) in comparison to the razor sharp, detailed, colorful pictures we see at home.  The movie always looks better at home.  The movie never looks better at the theater.  There is a wide gulf too.  This is not a small or marginal victory.  We are talking about a 38-10 route.

When watching incredible Blu-Rays like Wall-e, or No Country for Old Men, or Sin City, I have frequently asked myself the following questions:

1. How thrilled were the authors of this movie when they first saw it on Blu-Ray?  They must have been ecstatic.  To see your creation preserved and presented in such an astounding format must be extremely gratifying.
   
2. How long is going to be before the movie theaters realize they are being completely outclassed by home theaters?
   
3. How long is going to take before studios realizes that they should not optimize for the movie theater, but rather for the home theater?  Movies should not be shot in 24fps or on film anymore.  They should be shot at 60p on digital.  You are only in the movie theater for 3-6 weeks.  You will be on Blu-Ray [or something better] forever.  Optimize for your true distribution channel.  Forget the glamor vector.
   

There are plethora of other benefits to watching the movie on Blu-Ray.  You can talk about the movie if you want to.  You can eat your favorite popcorn, and you can have it your way, cheap.  You can drink any damn thing you want, and it is cheaper than the theater.  You can hit pause and go to the bathroom.  You don't have to miss parts of the film.  You can start whenever you want to start.  You can watch with the subtitles on if you are hearing impaired.  None of these things have anything to do with fundamental image and sound, but they are very nice bonuses.

C is going the way of Assembler

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/783238/why-windows-7-isnt-written-in-c-closed

So, a kid just popped up on StackOverflow.com and asked the question “Why isn’t Windows-7 written in C#?” All of the C/C++ programmers on the form blanched at the thought of it. Many others posted about project Singularity, which is a research project inside Microsoft aimed at producing a full operating system in managed code. The comments from the C/C++ guys clearly indicate that they hate the entire idea of Singularity.

The question was closed by one of the forum moderators as “Not a real question”. If he had been honest, he would have said he was shutting down a potential flame war. The question is too politically hot right now.

This is a further evidence that the C/C++ programmers are getting pretty edgy about the incursion of .NET and managed code into sacred ground reserved for them, and them only. They have already lost nearly all of their Windows application turf to .NET, and they are still smoldering about that. Like American Indians on shrinking reservations, they are under presure, and they feel it. They are feeling some real job security stress right now. Every time these questions come up, they C/C++ programmers on the site get pretty dang edgy.

Let’s face it folks: C is going the way of Assembler. It is the expressed wish of the supreme management at Microsoft and SUSE to write as much of their operating system in managed code as possible. Inteface widgets, control pannel utils, little apps, system services, you name it: If there isn't compelling reason to go C, it should be done in C#. C/C++ are increasingly seen as costly and yeilding no real substantive benefits anymore.

The Panasonic G10 series disappoints tremendously

So it is now time to tie up a couple of loose ends from past blog entries.  As you know, I blogged a week ago back about the advent of the Panasonic G10 series.  I was quite sanguine about the force of Moore's law, and how this HDTV was quite likely a further proof that Moore's law applies forcefully to HDTV technology.

Well... it is time to eat some crow.  Nobody likes to be taken in by the hype.  Nobody likes to fuck up.  Nobody likes to admit that they are wrong about anything.  However, it is time for me to eat some humble pie.

There are three important conclusions I reached after one hour with the G10 series at Magnolia:

1. Technologically, the G10 is nothing special.  It is not even an advance over Panasonic's current line up.  The 850 series is better.  The only positive thing that can be said for it is that it is a low-cost option.  It is substantially cheaper the 800 & 850 series from Panasonic.
   
2. THX mode absolutely stinks.  You will never see a dimmer, darker, flatter, more lifeless color in your entire life.  Those who ballyhoo this technology are absolutely and completely wrong.  They couldn't possibly be more wrong.  The ultimate reason I did not buy the G10 is because THX mode looks just plain terrible.  I had to take it out of THX mode and customize it quite a bit before it began to look reasonably decent.
   
3. David Katzmaier and Bryan Gardiner must be smoking crack together.  That is the only logical conclusion I can reach after reading and viewing their statements about the Panasonic G10.  They both view this unit as the Pioneer Kuro replacement.  Readers will know that I am not a member of the cult of Kuro.  I regard it as a strong performer, but vastly over-rated.  With that said, the G10 is absolutely, categorically not comparable to the Kuro.  The Kuro is a lot better than the G10.  The only thing they share in common is glass and plasma
   

To say that I was not impressed by the G10 would be an understatement at best.  I could have saved some $1,400 by purchasing the G10 rather than the Samsung Luxia.  Believe me, I was very well aware of this fact as I made my decision... in the comfort of my computer room at home.  I had an Excel spreadsheet in front of me, mapping out all the makes, models, vendors, prices, sales taxes, shipping costs, etc.  I self-consciously pulled the trigger on a much more expensive unit.  Why?  Because I did not want to buy the G10.  The quality level was too low to be acceptable, and drastically better options were (ultimately) affordable.  

So don't be carried away with the hype.  The Cult of Kuro is going through grief, as they openly state, because their King has died.  They are casting about, looking for a successor.  This is the first fish to pop out of the lake, and it is a plasma, ergo it must be the new king.  Rubbish!  Balls! Poppycock! Blarney!

So Dave, don't you think you are being a bit unfair to these fine gentlemen of quality and merit?  They do talk about running benchmark tests.  

As I have already stated several times in this blog, such benchmarks are predicated on the faulty proposition that the BT.709 is a perfect thing.  It is not.  If BT.709 is a perfect thing, and cannot be improved upon, the road is clear:  Nail 709 or die.  Such is not the case.  BT.709 is a political standard, assembled by industry giants who wanted to manufacture HDTVs and programming at an affordable price.  There are many ways to improve upon this standard.  Ergo, nailing the BT.709 is not really that important, and may ultimately turn undesirable as technology advances.  Arguments based on nailing BT.709 can be discarded rather easily.

What Bryan Gardiner has to say

What David Katzmaier has to say

So did Bill Devaney tip his hand to us?

I sure hope so.

Just a quick followup to my last blog.  I just read a piece on the St. Louis Rams website which portends well in some ways.  You can see it here.  Some note worth points to ponder:

1. The Rams have conducted personal interviews in St. Louis with 23 specific players.  I sure would like to know who those young men are.
2. The first name mentioned would be that of my favorite guy: Eugene Monroe, Left Tackle of UVA.  Nothing against Jason Smith, but I sure hope Eugene is the guy.  I will be happy with Smith if we take him, but Eugene looks more flexible and faster to my eye.
3. The Rams top needs are enumerated as follows: offensive tackle, wide receiver, linebacker, defensive tackle.  I concur with this list, as long as we acknowledge that the last two positions are much further down the list.
4. Odd prospects like Jeremy Maclin and Mark Sanchez are listed as young men who spent 2 days visiting with the Rams.  I hope that is a form of military and strategic deception.  I hope we were punking the Denver Broncos when we borough Sanchez in.  Surely we can't be serious about burning our top pick on a Junior QB this year?  I am sure Sanchez would go along with the game as he would rather be the #2 pick by the Broncos than the #12 pick by the Broncos.  It means money.  I cannot fathom why Maclin would be in the list, unless we intend to do a deal with the Broncos.  He is not the #2 pick.  He is not really a top 10 pick.
5. On the NFL network, Devaney clearly stated that Steven Jackson is our best man, and we are going build around him.  In the article I mentioned, Pat Shurmur, our new offensive coordinator, is paraphrased as advocating a "Power Up" for muscle football.  Translation:  He wants bad-ass offensive linemen to knock 'em loose in every direction.
6. An interesting quote from Devaney in this piece goes as follows.  "There may be a point when you get down into the third round, things are kind of falling apart at that point and probably three or four picks before your turn comes up, you’ll have a group of names pulled out on the side. There may be four or five guys pulled out and we’ll talk about it one more time. We’ll say okay we haven’t taken a receiver at this point. This is the last chance to get the receiver, the next receiver we have now is not until the fifth or sixth round."

The final point is the most by far the most interesting and perhaps telling.  Devaney has a rep for being shut-mouthed, but he slips.  I hope this indicates that we are not intending to draft a receiver until the 3rd round.  I hope we can take this statement seriously, but I seriously doubt it

Let me tell you why.  If I had to project who the Rams are going to take, I would only be willing to predict 3 players right now.  This list presumes we are not doing a deal with the Broncos and we draft where we are.  These men are:

• #2 overall Jason Smith, LOT Baylor University
  
• #35 overall Brian Robiskie, WR, Ohio State University
  
• #66 Eric Wood, C/G Louisville.
  

So why do I say these three?

• Jason smith gets the nod over Eugene Monroe because Monroe has a small medical flag on his record.  He dinged up one of his knees last season.  No big deal, says the scouts, but enough separate #1 from #2.  Also, Smith is known for being mean on the battlefield.  He has a streak of nastiness according to Mike Mayock.  He finishes hard. These two factors add up to a the best "Power Up" candidate, from the Rams' point of view.
  
• Brian Robiskie was expected to slide into the second round.  He may not.  The Giants may take him in the first.  If he falls to the second round, as originally projected, we would be stupid not to take him.  He would be the perfect continuation of our great 2nd round receiver tradition.  It should be noted that both Henry Ellard and Issac Bruce were both selected in the 2nd round, and they both wore #80.  Like these fine gentlemen, Robiskie is said to be a consume professional with all the right character traits.  He is a great replacement for Issac Bruce, but not Torry Holt.
• Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but I am hoping Eric Wood falls to us in the 3rd round.  He has a grade worthy of a late first rounder.  Nobody but nobody has even suggested that a center will go in the first round.  Nobody but nobody has suggest a guard will go before the 3rd round.  One thing is for sure:  Centers and Guards are going no place but down in this draft, and I don't know why.  Perhaps it is because they play the least sexy and least coveted positions in the NFL.  In any case, I am wondering if the best guard/center in the draft may fall to us at the #66 position.  If so, it is a gift from God.  I think this kid is a future Pro Bowl player, deprecated because of his position.