WhitewalkerInPhilly

I really have to ask why a 4-3 under base wouldn't work. From what I understand, Whaley saying that Lawson would be a DE/OLB hyrbrid would be explained by the fact that the 4-3 under is pretty close to a 5-2. Let's run down the list really quick. Big, space eating 3-4 DE prototype as the Strong -Side DE: Alan Branch? Check A 1 or 2i technique NT who can charge a single gap if open, or command a double team: Marcel Dareus? Check A Weakside DT who is slightly undersized, but is quick and charges a 1 gap at the 3 technique: Kyle Williams? Check A pass rusher who would be a 3-4 OLB in a straight 3-4: Not only do we have Mario Williams, we have depth in Hughes. Check and Check. A Strongside LB who plays directly on the line, lining up over the TE and is primarily in charge with setting the edge, but who still has some ability in coverage: Pretty much exactly the description of what they had Manny Lawson doing last year. Check. Run stuffing MLB who hits the running gaps: Spikes? Check. An incredibly versatile WLB who has great horizontal movement and typically does his best work unblocked: #TheLegendofKiko. That makes for a very complete looking front 7. While I would love to see depth, I don't see any position where they would HAVE to take someone in the first two rounds.

I think it's more like more time has caused people to really nitpick. Even at the beginning, no one was saying that this QB class was going to have an Andrew Luck, obvious lock #1 pick QB. Do I think that, given some time,he could really develop? Of course. I just hope this lays to rest the idea of "THE BILLS MUST TAKE A QB, ALL THESE OTHER NEW ROOKIE QB'S ARE TEH GREATEST, WILL BEAT OUT EJ DAY ONE, TAKE ONE NOAW!" And I do really think that, given Cleveland's owner being so desperate to win now that he fired his GM and Head Coach after one season, they can't avoid taking a QB if a good one drops to them at 4.

Good read. I read his article about the Wide 9,written before we signed Spikes. Afterwards, when I was looking for how Schwartz was going to use Spikes, he mentioned that the way Schwartz uses his MLB is like a NT ad I thought "this looks like a perfect fit!" What I like about the setup he described is how similar to Mike Pettine's D-line this theory sounds. It jives with the story that the language is staying the same, and Lawson's new designation as LB/DE hybrid makes a lot more sense if he is supposed to be on the line of scrimmage constantly as the SLB, and would be a backup plan for an edge rusher if Hughes goes down. I do also expect that some Wide 9 will make an appearance this year in obvious pass situations, since it's a way of getting a pass rush without blitzing, something Schwartz tends not to do. Seriously. If official statistics, PFF grades and repeat Pro Bowl appearances aren't enough to sway the man, we're all wasting our time trying to convince someone who has replaces one reality and substituted it with his own.

from your lips to god's aka whaley's ears.

Honestly I Really can't complain that much. i am alright with frontloading some of our home games to the start of the season to help a young team to come together. we say a good, but not amazing kc team get on a run early even though they didn't have a super hard schedule. we play kc, at home, coming off a bye. we have all of preseason to prep for a road game against chicago, which while a tough game seems winynable. the only team we play coming off a bye is the jets, at home, when we are coming off a thursday game. we play a lot of good teams, but we were always going to play them, while we play only a few really, really stunning teams (NE, Denver, GB). we may or may not do well this year, but i can't blame how the schedulers laid it out.

Same here. I am very happy with Mike Williams, but that had left the Tampa WR group in shambles behind Vincent Jackson. I agree about this year. Again, one of the growing trends is use of the spread offense, and we used it extremely well under Chan to help Spiller run the ball. Considering the inevitable injuries and scheme changes which happen over the course of the season, and considering that a rookie WR always does need some time to adjust I could easily see keeping Evans, Stevie, Williams, Woods and Goodwin to give a terrifyingly good group. In a few years, when Williams and Stevie's contracts are up are are getting too high for their level of production, you would still have an immensely talented core of big outside prototypical #1 guy (Evans), DeSean Jackson like speedster (Goodwin) and an incredible route running possession receiver (Woods).

I highly doubt that a CB is the pick at 9. That said, if Graham is going to move to FS like Marrone mentioned could happen, the Bills are dangerously thin at CB. Robey, while a phenomenal slot corner would get torched on the outside. Considering Brooks is the next man down on the depth chart, it would be nice to have someone with the height and speed to play the position. I wouldn't be shocked if a CB would be our #41 pick, especially if we wind up trading back.

I wonder, while a lot of people are putting in bids, Mary Wilson can choose who to sell to. Money may not be the only story.

I know I've been repeating this ad nasuseam for a for months, but thank you for saying it succinctly and well. There are some playmakers I would take over Mathews, but I doubt they will be there at 9. If anything, our own defensive strategy is an example as to why you need two equally good tackles. The Rex Ryan/Mike Pettine defenses (of which I know of at least three games where we'll see it) loves generating pressure by mismatching personnel. They might drop a DT or DE into coverage so you can overload a vulnerable side with only a five man blitz. I can think of zero reason to keep two very good rookie tackle prospect at opposite ends of the line.

I can't say that I hate the idea. He had great hands in training camp, and I was hoping that he would scratch the roster. He's probably slowed a hair, but he had a decent time and he probably has a better shot of cracking the roster as a TE than as a WR.

you mean he would never agree to play the position he played for three years in college?

I agree about Lewan, just not for the reasons most people are saying. I am alright with getting an elite tackle prospect and keeping them on the right side, but they really should be staying there for a while. RT can get away with being a little bigger and more raw than the LT (a big reason people kept thinking Glenn should go there) so if you're not getting "elite" I can settle for "very solid" in rounds 2-3. *Twitch* And untwitch. I wouldn't want him at nine, but if the Bills traded back for a second or third round pick it may be a nice pickup.

Edited for changes as of 4/11/14.

for the pats to go into the spread, they will need at least 3-4 wr. in that case, i can't possibly imagine not being in the nickel or dime, in which case spikes and whoever is the slb should be on the bench and the nb and seacry should be in. not that teams won't scheme to try to get spikes in coverage but that specific example isn't the best one.

the pitch: 'we want e.j. to have 4 seconds to throw the ball, and be better than 20th in rushing yards per attempt considering we have a young qb and the best 1-2 rb punch in the league rignt now'

Agreed. While I really, really want Evans if Tampa snatching him (which they almost certainly will, barring Watkins dropping that far) means that it makes available a guy who was speculated to go top 5 for two years in a row, in a position that could definitely use an upgrade (OL that was 28th in sacks, 20th in yards per attempt) drops to 9th, I would not lose a wink of sleep taking him.

i've heard that he does. there's another highlight reel I posted a few pages back that shows that even when covered he can make a lot of incredible jump ball catches, even on ones that probably should have been intercepted.

From what I am hearing, and looking over what Manny Lawson's role was last year, I wouldn't be surprised if they rotate at the LDE position. Lawson was pretty much always an edge setter outside Branch and Hughes is great when he can speed rush. Either way, due to their builds I wouldn't be surprised if they line up at the 9 technique.

Honestly, I know these are all highlight reels, but I am generally impressed with what I've seen from Mike Williams. I don't know if the Bills are done in FA, but that looks pretty promising.

I'm not quite as sold as our defense being set but I see your point. I think at least three of our first five picks ought to be another big, physical receiving threat for EJ (I hear the draft is really deep for that) and two more people to bolster the line. With two more to fill in the shuffle at FS and DE/SLB I think this team would look more complete than we have seen in years.

The Bruins would likely be a stumbling block. It would be hard to trade a franchise like that for the Bills.

Man, I'm late to the party. But I did have the chance to look things over and deliberate before I joined in the fray. I love the move. Because of his contract set-up, he has a very low number for this year, and that has the very last of his guaranteed money. If Over the Cap is right (and they are usually pretty good) while his contract number is high (6.8 million cap hit), he can be cut without a dime of dead money. This means that A) He has a Pro Bowl season that justifies paying that much or B)He under-performs or is average and we cut him or C) He is average and we renegotiate his contract. In any case, we add a veteran to a position that sorely needed one. For people who are saying "He's not a "open even when covered"" guy, watch this reel from 2012: Admittedly, that is a lot of Vincent Jackson, but Williams knows how to position his body well to make the catch and has a truly dangerous vertical jump. Looking over his measurables he reminds me a lot of Sammy Watkins. He looks a hair slower (4.5 s to 4.4) while being a hair bigger (6'2 rounded as opposed to 6'1 rounded). All for the cost of a 6th round pick.

Does picking up Mike Williams change your mind at all BB? If there is no one that is a perfect fit for our needs, Tampa now looks like a likely candidate for picking up Evans at 7, and that means there's a good chance a very talented player who isn't a perfect hit might slide to #9 and suddenly we have some tasty trade bait.

I think we need to chronicle this for posterity: an NFL fan outside of Buffalo doesn't think that EJ Manuel is the worst thing ever. To explain CR, the most popular member of the Buffalo Bills on this board is the backup quarterback, right up until the moment he becomes a starter. I do think that the Browns are going to be better with Pettine. I seem to remember that you guys had a decent defense in place, and Pettine is a very good coordinator. How much that transitions into Head Coach is kind of a crap shoot. For example, Pettine's replacement as the Bills DC is Jim Schwartz, the recently fired HC of the Lions. Phenomenal DC that couldn't make the transition. I would actually be rather shocked if you guys don't take a QB at #4. As an outsider, changing over your entire staff after one year sends a message of "I want to win, and I want to win NOW"(which I bet is refreshing) and nothing can bring change quicker than a QB. Cleveland is a nice town, and I hope that Buffalo follows in the tradition of rejuvenated Rust Belt cities. Best of luck when not playing each other/vying for the same wildcard spot.

Well, apparently this was serious. In a word: No. In two words: Hell no! Look, I understand the value of a punishing defensive line. And I would love to see a developmental player in rotation as a 4-3 DE, but I don't see anyone in the top 10 that I would love to have besides Clowney, who the Bills have almost zero chance of getting.