All_Pro_Bills

This made me laugh. Its exactly what I said to my wife this morning before even reading this thread as she told to stop rambling on about the worldwide conspiracy works against the Bills. Starting tonight with round 1, if the Bills pick a guy the commentators don't agree with they are 'reaching'. But if a team like the Patriots does it the panel of experts will state that its obvious NE is so much more astute than everyone else and they must know something everyone else doesn't.

I saw Mayock's mock last night and my first thought was thank the Lord the draft starts tonight and all the analysis and speculation will be over. Of course we'll get two months of expert anaylsis, grading, and breakdown of each teams selections in the league where the season never ends. I just can't get past the thought that taking the 4th ranked player at OT is the best option for the Bills at 9. Sure they need to upgrade the ROT spot but these high OT picks are typically made by teams looking for the LOT spot, not ROT. There are a few players that should be available in the 2nd round with grades and tools to fill that ROT spot. Why spend the 9 pick on a LOT prospect only to slide him over to ROT? No doubt it will make your line better but is it the best use of that first round pick. Why not Ebron or Mosley? And I'll throw it out there for the sake of discussion. Not that I advocate this but what if the Bills shocked everyone and selected Bortles at 9? I could make an argument for it. For one, I'm not sold on the idea that EJ ends our search for the franchise QB. He missed time in three stretches of time last season with injuries and that's a red flag. And while I've never met him in person so I have no firsthand knowledge here, from watching the games and assessing his performance I just don't feel he's got the 'IT' that makes a franchise QB. And Bortles looks to bring a better skill set and decision making to the table here. So you want to make a splash? Here it is, without trading up. Now take that ROT in round two and create some competition to drive both guys to become better at the QB spot and I don't have to bank on EJ to develop or go to plan B next year.

This team was 6-10 last season. I just don't believe its 1 superstar player away, a WR at that, from turning that to 10-6 and challenging the Patriots for the AFC East. If Bills management believes that there's a serious disconnect from reality. Also, we need to factor in the moves the other 3 teams have made. Just like the Bills, they've added some players via free agency so from that perspective I suspect they all feel they've improved their rosters. So the target is always moving. Lets say for the sake of discussion the Bills move up and take Watkins, give up some choices, and for the 2 games they play New England Revis covers Watkins and takes him out of the gameplan. Now what? What's your new superstar WR doing for your offense? And no upgrade at ROT or TE because you've surrendered those picks to move up. I just think there are so many examples where a team gave away lots of picks and assets to move up and hindsight shows it to be the team trading down that benefited most. Sure there might be situations where moving up and giving up a lot of assets worked and I'm sure somebody can think of a couple. Some poor moves I can think of: Atlanta traded up to take Julio Jones. Sure he's a dynamic receiver but it didn't get them to the SuperBowl DItka bet the farm on Ricky WIlliams with the Saints. That move didn't do much for the Saints and got Mike fired. Minnesota trades picks and players to Dallas for Herchel Walker. Worked out great for the Cowboys but not so much for the Vikings. Washington moves up to pick RG3. Cost the Redskins the 2nd overall pick this year along with a few other picks and they are now a team with a new coach with lots of questions about the 'franchise' guy they moved up to get.

I like Watkins too and I see the value of adding a potential 'star' player but I don't share the level of optimism with the idea of trading up held by a lot of proponents of the idea. I pray they don't move up and either stay where they are or trade down a couple spots and pick up a few more picks. I think its a severe miscalculation to believe adding Watkins to the Bills offense (which is probably a 100% sure thing to be a big upgrade) at the cost of possibly surrendering a 2nd and 3rd rounder (depending on how far up you need to move) is going to put the Bills over the top and in a position to challenge New England for the division title. And in my view that's got to be the goal, to knock the Pats out of the top spot in the division. Adding one WR at the expense of not addressing other needs with 2/3 round picks will more or less guarantee a 3rd or 4th place finish. This team needs to hit on finding starters with their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks or if possible trading back and getting another 2nd or 3rd in the process. Trading up to get that one guy is a mistake a lot of teams make every year. Believing they are one player away from becoming very competitive when in reality they are many players short. The only position I would even contemplate doing this for would be to get a franchise QB and I don't see the Bills moving up to get a QB here.

Absolutely. You look at championship teams and with few exceptions they have depth and in most cases veteran depth. Guys get hurt, you need somebody to step in. You move a guy like SJ and one or two of your receivers goes down for a couple weeks and you're in big trouble, maybe the entire season goes down in flames because you've got some rookie street free agent starting because you got rid of a guy like SJ? For the Bills, I would prefer Evans or Ebron in the 1st and an OT like Moses or Kouandjio in the 2nd if either is there. I think most if not all of these stories and tweets about the 'Bills love' this guy or that guy or they're looking to trade up are smokescreens and misinformation. Teams are gaming the draft board and potential picks with each other in order to create some uncertainty. Maybe somebody jumps up in front up you and picks a player they think you like and now the guy you actually want falls in your lap because a couple teams made moves as a result of the bogus storyline you put out?

In the case of Detroit having no interest in a QB, for the Bills to have the necessary leverage at 9 (assuming another team could deal with Detroit and give up slightly less) there would need to be at least 2 suitors for the #9 pick. But I agree with previous comments that Manziel should be gone by the time the Bills are picking but just how many QBs go before our pick could range from 1 to maybe 4 if things get crazy.

Manziel carries a lot of risk because its not clear his game will translate to the NFL level. I suspect somebody will 'reach' for him at some point in the first round but I pray its not the Bills. I think that would be a wasted pick. I'd prefer to see Evans or Ebron (I don't think Mathews is going to be the at 9) in the 1st, an OT Moses or Kouandjio in the 2nd, and if your thinking of a QB prospect Mettenberger in the 3rd would be interesting if he's there.

Initially I wasn't sold on the idea of picking a TE at #9 but I've warmed up to Ebron after doing some thinking on the impact of guys like Gronkowski, Graham, and Davis. I can't see trading up when the 'grade' between picks is so small and the draft is pretty deep. More importantly is the goal, not to accumulate talent but to take the division title away from New England. So do you think the moves in free agency and adding Watkins, while surrendering some other picks that can be used to address other needs is enough to knock NE off the mountain in the AFC East? I don't think so because you need to set and achieve goals to win and to me the goals should be these below: Goal #1 - Improve the run defense. Because NE has not beaten the Bills recently as a result of Brady's outstanding play but rather through running the ball with outstanding results. Stopping their stretch play and draws. Forcing more 3rd and longs needs to happen. They added Spikes and Rivers. Do they need to do more via the draft? Goal #2 - Get the defense off the field on 3rd down. For all the sacks this defense gave up two many big plays of 20+ yards on the ground and through the air. Added the 2 LBs and Graham but lost Byrd. Do they need to do more via the draft? Goal #3 - Get more out of the QB position. Manuel showed some flashes of great play but was inconsistent and bad at times missing time with injuries. Draft isn't going to help here unless we look at a project for the long term and back up for now. Goal #4 - Protect the QB and increase running backs yards BEFORE contact rushing. Statistically the BIlls ranked high in the rushing attack but this was helped by a high number of carries and the running backs themselves gaining a lot of yardage after contact. You could probably count on one hand how many times FJ or CJ didn't get hit in the backfield on running plays. The QB played the part of a tackling dummy for most of the season. Its hard to believe any other team had their QBs hit more. They added Chris Williams to the O-line. Is that enough? Here a definite no. You'd think they'd be targeting an OT in round 2 if they go Ebron in round 1. But if you trade up that might mean no number 2 or maybe number 3 pick. Goal #5 - Add some offensive weapons. Here you might want to consider trading up for Watkins. But looking at the whole team from a perspective of 22 starters would his contribution be so much greater than that gained from Ebron and keeping those additional picks to address other areas? Moving up doesn't make sense to me.

If you think adding an 'impact' player on either side of the ball is going to put your team over the top to become a contender for the championship then you should definitely considering moving up to take him. Giving up some assets in the current or future draft seems like a reasonable trade off for a championship shot. But I don't see the Bills as being that one guy away. They have fewer holes than in past years but still have several needs. I think somebody said it earlier if you're trying to land a QB then it might make sense because they are so hard to find and acquire. Also, while I don't have any data to back up my view I suspect that you won't find most of the consistent winning franchises trading up too often but more times trading back to get more picks and more chances to find impact guys to fill out the roster and improve several areas in one draft rahter than just adding one guy.

Assuming the Cowboys have any real interest in Manziel I think a better questions is if Manziel is on the board at #9 would you trade out of the 9th spot with Dallas for their 1st at 16 and maybe a 2 and a 4 picks this year? As for Romo I would pass on that. We've already had our share of late game meltdowns and we don't need to add any more to the list.

The Bills are in a position to take a BPA approach with their pick at #9 and I expect they've 'gamed' the draft process and developed multiple scenarios based on many posisble ways it might play out. Just who's available at the 9 spot is going to be dependent on how many QB's get taken in the first 8 picks. 2, or 3, a stretch to think 4 but anything seems possible this year. So we will get immediate starter and impact player regardless of the position but I don't see Martin as the selection in any scenario. Trading back is always a possibility but you need the board to fall in the right way for someone to want to jump up along with having your contingencies in place if that happens. Finally, the draft is next week! Moving it back 3 weeks does nothing except make it unnecessarily later in the year and takes 3 weeks away from teams in offseason prep with rookies.

From a legal standpoint any agreement or contract can be amended or modified with the consent of all the parties involved. So if moving to a new facility either in Buffalo or the Falls presented itself earlier the current agreement could be changed to allow the move. That aside, I think the legal hurdles this agreement presents would be enough to discourage any party intent on moving the team from bidding. So from us Bills fans I say, goodbye LA, goodbye Toronto.

What Parker is doing is representing the interests of his client in a way consistent with Byrd's objectives and instructions. Parker isn't out to screw the Bills for some personal satisfaction. As I always believed, Byrd's main goal, for whatever reason, appears to be to get out of Buffalo. That's what Parker is setting up here. From what I hear of the money offer from the Bills it sounded more than reasonalbe and subject to a little negotiation back and forth on duration, guaranteed money, and total dollars. You'd think two motivated parties could get a dealfrom there that would make both sides happy. But you can't negotiate with somebody that is not interested in negotiating.

I'm not sure that Marrone was unhappy or had any desire to replace Pettine at the end of the season. But once it became clear he was going to be hired by Cleveland and the opportunity of bringing in Schwartz presented itself he acted quickly. It could have been a plan or maybe he just stumbled onto a potential upgrade through a series of unexpected events.

Good points and to summarize your detailed analysis, the advantages of running a no huddle/hurry up are negated if you don't score points or sustain a significant number of high play count drives. And the Bills did not score enough points and had too many 3 and outs which rendered that approach a tactical disadvantage. Hopefully, learning curve of the coaching staff isn't too steep here and they make some adjustments.

Having people leave for promotions can be an indicator of a well run,high performance organization. At least it is in the business world and I don't see much different between that and the coaching profession. Sports is after all, an entertainment business. I'm not saying the Bills are in this category yet but losing people isn't always a bad thing. It means competitors value your people so there is some recongnition that you're doing something right. Organizations like this, tend to attract good people. People interested in doing a superior job and moving up in their respective industry. The fact the Bills landed Shwartz, apparently their first choice for the DC job, is in my view an encouraging sign that the culture here is changing for the better. The next step is to get some results on the field next season. As for Pettine and his coaches, no hard feelings and good luck to them in Cleveland except when they play the Bills.

Maybe Life Alert can do a commerical deal with the woman he left to die in the street?

Coaches leave teams all the time. It happens every year. Its not so much the coaches that are important but rather the philosophy and system being employed by the team. What you need is a DC that understands that and can execute that system. In this case, Marrone wanted to run a pressure type defense vs. something like read and react and found Pettine (who had the experience and knowledge to run and design the details) to execute that system. Lets see who they bring in prior to hitting the panic button.

If the Browns do hire Pettine then good luck to him in Cleveland. But the way the entire process is being played out the past week tells me they like Mike but they seem to be holding out for someone they like better that might pan out. If it doesn't they have their backup plan in place. Either way there are only 32 of these jobs out there for the coaching profession. I'm probably in the minority here but I think the Bills will be okay here. Pettine brought a more dynamic scheme to the Bills defense but it is in no way unique or groundbreaking. Many other teams run similar systems. So while identifying and hiring a replacement DC is a major task its no reason to panic. Other than a philosophical difference in approach to bring more pressure on the QB which lead to more sacks and turnovers the Bills defense still gave up way too many yards on the ground and way too many big plays over 20+ yards. They surrendered about a FG less per game 2013 vs. 2012. I'm not attempting to downplay the contributions Mike made to the team, rather pointing out that everybody is replaceable.

I would be shocked if Cleveland offered the job to Pettine given the circumstances of the Browns current situation. The most likely scenario is an NFL team wouldn't hire a DC with just 1 season of experience away from his mentor. The wildcard here is that we're talking about an owner and front office that appears dysfunctional so maybe they buck the odds..

Along with all those Super Bowl Champions hats and shirts for the losing team that get produced before the big game!

The Lynch trade comes up every time Seattle makes some noise. But the Lynch trade might not be the worst all-time for the Bills, not even close. For old-timers (sorry for that label guys) who lived through the AFL days trading Daryle Lamonica to the Raiders might be remembered as the worst trade ever. Lamonica finished his career with a 90% winning percentage, highest in the history of pro football.

Didn't see this discussed anywhere today. SI's latest mock draft version 4.0 has Bills taking TE Ebron with their pick at 9. Good choice but If it falls this way I would prefer either Watkins or Mosley. http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/08/2014-nfl-mock-draft-johnny-manziel-2/ Thoughts on the three?

Don't think the Bills should pull the plug on EJ after season one but they need to have a viable "Plan B" for the 2014 beyond Tuel and Lewis. That plan might not be selecting another QB at #9 in round 1 but it should include taking a look at free agent veterans and determining which can be a clear upgrade in proven performance (not potential) over the current #2 and #3 QB's on the roster now. They can't go into the 2014 season banking on improvement from Manuel and if it doesn't materialize be faced with the prospect of accepting another 6-10 season. The defense should improve with a season of the new system under their belt and the likelihood of plugging in 1 or 2 upgrades to the starting lineup has the potential to be top 5 against run and pass. And on the other side of the ball addressing needs at WR, G, and TE (maybe OT) could solidfy this unit. And even if EJ improves to the point of just average it should be enough to post 3 or 4 more wins. But if he doesn't you better have somebody on the roster that can take over.

The draft class looks to be very deep this year so trading back to collect a few more picks might be a good strategy. But that might work against finding somebody willing to trade back unless its a team that's in love with a particular player. Maybe Dallas would jump at the chance to pick Manziel for example, because Jerry likes to make a splash and draw the spotlight (and maybe truly has lost confidence in Romo depite public statements?). The decision to accept a trade-back offer might boil down to the difference between selecting one 'game changer' vs. two 'good' players. Given the Bills have a few holes, but not as many as year past, is this the right approach? I am not sure. Lets say Mack is still on the board, which seem unlikely to me right now at #9. If you can get one guy to potentially set up your defense to be dominant top 5, run and pass, does it make sense to trade back and pick up a guard and tight end on the other side of the ball?