OldTimer1960

Yes, of course. That is, if you always want to be behind the curve. Once the trend is established, it is harder to compete as then many teams are looking for the same thing (in this case it would be athletic RTs, as if finding good LTs wasn't hard enough!). A current trend that might be worth getting out ahead of is: While teams are all trying to find big WRs and big CBs to cover those WRs, maybe bucking that trend and finding faster, quicker (likely smaller) WRs that the big CBs would have trouble covering would be a good idea. Likewise, with teams now looking for smaller faster LBs to cover the fast pass-catching TEs, maybe it would be a good idea to develop a power running game to take advantage of those smaller LBs.

The 49ers, I believe. I understand the "value of the position" argument, but the value of positions can change. Look at FB and RB - those positions, especially RB, are not valued as highly as they used to be. On the flip side, S, TE, and nickel CB are valued much more highly than they used to be. Who is to say that RT isn't increasing in value? Certainly, defenses try to take advantage of weak pass blockers at RT by moving thir best pass rushers there on occasion. If you follow the argument that they should not take a top OT because they would likely lose Glenn or the rookie eventually to FA to its logical conclusion, then wherever they draft that RT, they should hope that he doesn't turn out to be too good, or they could lose Glenn or him. That doesn't make too much sense to me.

If this part is true, then I would expect RT pay to eventually catch up with LT pay.

25 years of negativism...

I still would not hold strictly to the need to start immediately. Some of these guys need some time at the pro level before they go on to good careers. Eric Moulds caught 20 and 29 passes his first 2 years in the league and he turned out to have a very good career.

I think you are looking for a long term very good player. I disagree that he has to be an immediate starter. By the "immediate starter" rule, Green Bay should not have drafted Aaron Rodgers.

Who exactly are these great RT prospects that will be around at pick 41? I've seen similar posts countless times, yet NONE of them lists these great OT prospects that will be available. OT (both LT AND RT) are very important in the now pass-dominated NFL. Do people really think that defenses won't put a good pass rusher on the left side of their defense to take advantage of a RT who is weak at pass blocking? If we were talking about drafting another pass rushing DE to play on the other side from Mario Williams, would people be saying "we don't need a LDE - plenty can be found in the 2nd round - NEVER draft a good pass rusher in the top 10 if you will play him at LDE, those players just need to stuff the run"?

I REALLY don't understand there being SO MUCH negativity towards EJ Manuel after 1 partial season with mainly very inexperienced receivers. I am NOT here to say that Manuel will for sure be a star or even a competent starting QB, BUT I can't see how many here seem to KNOW that he will be terrible. First, without any excuses, his rookie season was encouraging (at least to me). He had two horrible games against the Steelers and Tampa (nearly 40% of his season total of INTs came against Tampa in one terrible game). He had some good games, especially the second game against the Jets in a wind storm. Mostly he was OK, not great. He WAS a rookie QB playing with very inexperienced WRs and a marginal OL while being in and out of the lineup with injuries. For those that say he is bad because he was injured, I argue that he doesn't have a history of missing time with injuries in college. For those that are down on him because he didn't take the league by storm, I argue to have some patience. There are only a small handful of truly exceptional QBs: P. Manning, Brady and Brees. There are a few more very good ones: Roethlisberger, Rivers, Ryan and maybe a couple more. There are some promising young guys whose hype exceeds their actual play: Kaepernick in particular and even Russell Wilson. Kaepernick had some games that were very comparable to some of Manuel's "poor" games and Kaepernick had much better and more experienced receivers, not to mention 3 1st round picks on his OL... Once again, I don't know if EJ Manuel will become a good starting QB or not, but I, for one, think I saw enough positives combined with his physical talent and reported work-ethic to think that it would be wise to give him AT LEAST one more season, likely two in order to see if he can be an answer. Let him grow with his young receiving crew. BTW, Drew Brees basically didn't play as a rookie. In year two, Brees threw 17 TDs and 16 INTs and averaged 205 yards/game. In year three: Brees threw 11 TDs and 15 INTs while averaging 191 yards/game. I suppose all those who KNOW that Manuel will never be any good could also have predicted that Brees would go on to have an almost certain Hall of Fame career - because they knew that he had "it".

Was with you up to "Gragg has more potential". I'd love for Gragg to become a strong contributor - some late round picks do, but the odds are strongly against that happening.

We'll, I am pretty sure that you can get the top rated center, guard, Punter or kicker at 9, but I'd rather have the 3rd best OT or WR than them. The "Nth best at a given position" isn't the ideal way to make comparisons, IMHO.

102 catches and 15+ ypc the past two years as a Soph and Jr is very good production- admit I'd prefer to see more TDS...

Not a fan of Ebron at 9, either, but comparing his production to Maybin's is a COMPLETE mismatch. Ebron had excellent production in the ACC, while Maybin was expected to be a backup until the starter at Penn St was suspended for his season.

I agree that there is a cluster of very close 2nd tier players - too bad they are a notch, maybe two below the top 6... I could live with Ebron, Lee, Beckham, Cooks, Mosley or Barr - but would feel that we just missed on a top prospect...

Agreed on the trade down, but IMHO an extra 3rd is only useful if it is used with our 3rd to move back int 2nd. A mid- late 3rd is a crap-shoot even in a deep draft

But have to understand.WHY he bounced to multiple programs. Was he in trouble? Was he disgruntled because he couldn't win the starting job? If so, why couldn't he start at middling college programs? Be very wary before round 4 or 5. He may have a great arm, but that is DEFINITELY not enough to be a top NFL QB prospect with such a spotty college career.

If the 3 OTs and WRs Watkins & Evans are gone when the Bills pick comes up, I am hoping for the magic trade down. If all of those players are gone, then I could identify the following players that would be roughly equivalent to me: Mosley LB Barr LB Lee WR Beckham WR Ebron TE I don't really see a steep drop off after these 5, either, so if the offer were good enough, could move further - all depends what is offered. I do think OT is a considerable need, but if the top 3 are gone, I'm not grooving on the left-overs. WR is still a big need, IMHO, but Lee and Beckham are the best remaining (I think), though Cooks isn't too far behind and there may be good options top of round 2. Not a fan of other TEs in round 1. Could default to a DB if necessary...

I am not a big Ebron fan, either. I am a little bit more positive on Mosley though. If we assume that Mack,Clowney, Robinson, Mathews, Watkins and Evans are all gone, what should the Bills do (other than the magic trade down)? They *could* take: Barr - I am not sold on him being that great - think I'd prefer Mosley. Lewan - at least based on what I've seen, he doesn't sound like the powerful run blocking RT I would be looking for - I've seen him described as a "finesse" LT. I wouldn't be disappointed if they took Lewan as he still has what look to be great skill and a pair of good OTs is very valuable Another WR - still like Marquise Lee and some are saying that Odell Beckham is worth a top 10 pick. I am not a big fan of Kelvin Benjamin anywhere in round 1 (would consider him in 2nd though) Mosley - Many think he'd be a great fit with Alonzo I just can't see them taking a QB in round 1 and I don't think an OG will go there. I don't think there is a DE after Clowney worth taking that high. I would be very surprised with a CB or S. I know they lost Byrd, but I don't think they'll take another in round 1. If the draft unfolds this way, the Bills will be in a tough spot. Given those options and what I've read, I'd take Mosley or WR Lee or Beckham (and feel like I just missed out on the very top tier of players) I agree, but can't see Evans getting past Tampa Bay with pick 7. If he does - and nobody trades into the Viking's spot to nab him, then he looks to be the best option to me.

While I agree with the point that you make further below that it is too early to write either Smith or Manuel off, I wouldn't say that their stats are that similar. Smith: 56% completion 190 yds/game, 12 TDs, 21 Ints, 66 rating Manuel: 59% completion, 197 yds/game, 11 TDs, 9 Ints, 78 rating Smith threw more than twice as many ints and that is truly big.

I believe that he has the size, arm and athletic ability to succeed. I believe that he has the work ethic and intelligence to succeed. Because QB is such a difficult position to judge, I don't know for sure that he will succeed. I believe that it is foolish to judge him (or any rookie) too harshly after one season. In my opinion, he played pretty well (save two really bad games) for a rookie QB with mostly unproven and young receivers. I would hope to see significant progress from he and the offense overall, but I still would hope for further improvement the year after, too. As much as some here think that a rookie season defines a player, I strongly disagree.

Why is it logical to think that the offense and defense need good players in order to succeed, but the Special Teams coach is supposed to take any group of players regardless of talent and desire and make them into a good unit? I am not a huge Crossman fan, but he has been in the league for some time, so some coaches think he belongs. Not to defend him, but recall how decimated the secondary was to start last season? That caused turnover on the bottom of the roster as backups/special teamers were forced to play defense and Crossman had to make due with the guys signed off the street. At least give him a chance this year and see how they do. If they are still bottom of the league, then we'll suspect that it is mostly or at least partly Crossman's fault.

Except you can make that case for ANY position... Tom Brady was a 6th round pick and Kurt Warner wasn't drafted, so why pick a QB high? Andre Reed was a 4th round pick - don't need WR high, Antonio Gates was a 4th or 5th round pick - don't need TE high,....

I agree with your general point, but I think that you are being too generous calling Robinson, Mack and Watkins "once in a generation". Just two years ago, Andrew Luck came out and I'd say he was at least on level above these guys. No doubt that Robinson, Mack and Watkins are very good prospects - a level above others in this draft, but I don't think that they are clearly above other prospects in the last decade.

If a 4th round pick doesn't become a long-term starter, I wouldn't call tha a "miss". That is the most likely outcome that late in the draft. You hope to find starters, are reasonably happy if they are good backups and ST players and not too surprised if they don't stick around in the league very long.

I agree that QB is the most important position, but I disagree that it would never make sense to trade up to #1 for any other position. If some team thinks Jadaveon Clowney will be as good as Bruce Smith was, then I would say it would be worth it.

I agree with your point - it is a point that some here miss. I think of this every time I read someone criticizing the Bills for "blowing" a 3rd round pick on TJ Graham or some similar rant. Yet, you can't fill out a competitive roster with only 1st and 2nd round picks. Whether it be by skill, luck or a combination, a team has to hit on some of these later picks to be successful.