uncle flap

BUMPAROO

They had a red alternate jersey in 2000 and/or 2001 I believe. Red Moulds Jersey

George Wilson said: The Bills will have full integration of the Nike technology into our uniforms, rotating 3 uniforms during the season. https://twitter.com/#!/GWilson37/status/187215231938854912 and followed up with: I've only seen the uniform that I wore today, and only been told about the other 2. We all will have to wait and see. https://twitter.com/#!/GWilson37/status/187216727959027713

What do you think? http://instagr.am/p/JiM8pJuJiY/ http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg734/scaled.php?tn=0&server=734&filename=vhetj.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640 Also, what do you think the Bills will have for their 3rd? The main jersey is pretty similar to the historical Bills jerseys, so I am hoping the bring back the red jersey to have something different.

FWIW, the Bills announced they did in fact bring in Cox and Gilmore. So, it seems the MO of Chris Brown following someone on twitter holds some weight. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Highly-touted-DT-Cox-in-for-pre-draft-visit/cffce04f-b5e8-488b-b537-25d9a94e55d9

It hasn't. This is just speculation stemming from Chris Brown beginning to follow Floyd on twitter. The Floyd account was only created about a week ago, and has yet to be verified FWIW. OTOH, I think if it was a fake account it would've been discredited by now, but who knows?

Or... they could think that the Tackles available at #10 are only marginally better than the Tackles likely available later. And that Floyd is way better than the rest of the WRs slated to go in later rounds.

Thank you all

Here's the article: http://www.buffalobillsdraft.com/2012/04/do-we-now-know-26-of-the-bills-30-pre-draft-visits/ and here's the list including uncomfirmed visits: http://www.buffalobillsdraft.com/bills-prospect-interviews/ The uncomfirmed guys are players that Chris Brown has recently followed on twitter, leading the author to believe they have visited or will be visiting. (WR Reuben Randle-LSU* CB Stephon Gilmore-South Carolina* WR Stephen Hill-Georgia Tech* DE Vinny Curry-Marshall* CB Morris Claiborne-LSU* DT Fetcher Cox-Mississipi State*)

By no means am I arguing that the Bills should draft one, but the easy answer is that QB is the most important position in the NFL. So, basically, if you're taking a flyer on a player anyway, you stand to gain the most if you hit on a QB than on another position. You're right in saying the odds are against that happening, but I think an apt analogy for a late round QB selection would be playing powerball vs buying a scratch off. Do you spend a dollar on a chance to win major money with terrible odds, or that same dollar on a smaller jackpot but with slightly better odds?

I'm going to assume that you're asking who the Bills should pick at ten between those three. So I voted Floyd/Fitzgerald. I don't disagree with anyone's assessments of how those respective positions impact teams, but let's look at the Bills going into next year: Certainly they'd benefit from an upgrade at all of those positions, so the question now is; which one has the most impact? I'll start with Martin/Long. Adding a Pro Bowl LT gives the QB more time in the pocket and adds to the run game. However, Fitzpatrick (and by association, the offense as a whole) gets better with better talent at receiver. He could have all day to throw, but is still limited by his accuracy, and more so by the lack of talent on the receiving end. How many passes did we see bounce off the hands of receivers last year? What I'm saying is vs a stud LT and a stud WR in the Bills offense, a stud WR is more valuable. You can scheme around a weak Oline, but unless you're throwing screens every pass play, you can't scheme around WRs that can't catch consistently. Next, Kuechly/Willis. If we are talking Willis's level of talent, there's no denying his mere presence affects the opponent's gameplan/playcalling. But on the Bills, we have to ask if Sheppard can then start at Sam? I don't know for sure, but I think he's likely much better suited at Mike. So you may have an issue at Sam. Which the Bills already seemingly do. Don't get me wrong, I'd take Willis over Shep all day, but even with a suffocating defense, the offense still has to be able to score. The Bills aren't built like the SB winning Ravens who were able to play ball control run-first offense. The line is not good enough for that and if there is only one true threat at receiver, opposing defenses will put 8 or 9 in the box. Fred and CJ are good, but not that good without the line help. So here we have Floyd/Fitzgerald. The Bills run a spread offense that needs talent on the outside. With Fitzgerald-type talent, you get exactly what Buddy meant when he said he wants a WR that is open when he's covered. The guy who can beat press coverage then track down a less than perfect throw while outjumping a DB. The Bills have what looks to be a good D on paper. The offense is good, but we all know the limitations. It seems obvious to me that adding a top flight receiver adds another dimension and makes defenses think twice before committing extra resources in any one area. Take away Floyd/Fitz, SJ gets single coverage and vice versa. Give safety help to both, then the middle is wide open for the run game, the TEs, or the slot receivers. "Serviceable" will do for the Bills at LT and LB when added to the current lineups. Upgrading at those positions don't help the team as a whole as much as upgrading at WR would. I'm not saying the Bills shouldn't upgrade at those positions, but I think they should not overlook the WR position to do so.

Thanks for the sample. One drive sure tells the story. And even in your example, the first sack was because the Fred didn't pick up Ware on the overloaded side. So blame Fred for not realizing that, or Fitz for not motioning him over and/or alerting him. And I think as the year wore on, the defense (or lack thereof) was more of a problem than the oline. In a perfect world, I'd love for the Bills to have a dominant line and what that does for the offense as a whole. But they can't fix everything at once. THIS YEAR, it seems the way for the Bills to improve the most overall AND maximize "value" on draft day is to get the WR OLB and CB early. If there are better rated tackles in those slots, so be it. However, if the grades are in the same neighborhood, I'd prefer one of those three positions over OT. As far as developmental picks - what tackles are going to be available that are going to start day 1? There's a fair chance even if they draft a tackle at 10, he might not start right away. Floyd or one of the better CBs has/have a better chance at starting day one and making an impact.

So you're not high on Hairston? Also, I'd say a good receiver is more important to the Bills passing game than an OT. I agree we need LB help more, but McGee is old. McKelvin isn't guaranteed to be resigned after this year. Did Florence lose a step as the season went on or was he just a victim of a lack of pass rush? I def agree pass rush makes the secondary better but you can't just put anybody out there. I think it's a good idea to draft a future (if not immediate) starter this year, so next year they aren't forced to add up to 3 corners.

Man, when you put it like that it does seem stupid. I agreed with the OP earlier, and my main reason is that WR, OLB, and CB are all much more important to the Bills than OT. That, and I really want Floyd to be the 1st round pick. I guess what I really meant is that I'd be happy if the draft turned out that way, not that I want Nix to follow a script dictating what position to take in each particular round. So while I'd love to see the Bills maximize "value," I'm more interested in filling more important positions with better players. Within reason, I'm totally okay with reaching for a player that might not be the BPA, but is the BPA in a position of need.

For the Bills, I'd say Floyd is the best pick. Using the "numbers" justification, defenses will have to commit extra resources somewhere leaving less resources in another area. Double SJ, then Floyd gets single coverage and vice versa. If the defenses use the safeties to help cover both, that takes the safeties out of run defense or creates a mismatch with an LB trying to cover Fred or CJ coming out of the backfield. And don't forget the Bills run a lot of multiple receiver sets. Focus on Floyd and SJ, there's Nelson et al to deal with too. With Floyd's ability to beat press coverage and his ability to "go up and get it," I don't know how effective opposing defenses will be if they try to sit on all the short and intermediate routes like they did the latter half of last year. Say what you want about Fitz's deep ball accuracy, the signs point to Floyd being able to track it down over smaller defensive backs on less than perfect throws.

You make a great case for Floyd

There's a list here: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/06/pfws-exclusive-draft-value-chart-7

THIS IS (almost*) EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN! :thumbsup: Assuming Floyd is there, he will have more of an impact on the Bills, than any other player likely to be available at 10. We need guys to compete at OLB and CB, and the odds of success are better the higher the pick (duh). Chan has shown he can work with a patchwork line. Obviously, there's room for improvement, but I don't think their priorities are in line with many of the fans clamoring for LT at #10. If Floyd is gone - get a CB first, then OLB or WR and vice versa the next round. *Although I'm not high on Thigpen, I don't think they need to pick a QB for the sake of picking a QB. They might be better served targeting a guy in the 1st or 2nd next year (for grooming as the starter, not just as a Thigpen replacement).

Love the draft- especially the first four rounds. On the roster, I think they keep more than 6 LBs. So maybe they don't draft 3. Production aside, I don't want to see Moats go, so I'm hoping Wanny has a use for him. I'm also wondering if the McKillop signing has any bearing on drafting. As it stands, they've got a slew of backup/depth guys. I'm all for the idea of creating competition and letting the players fight it out, but I guess I'm saying I wouldn't use 3 picks on LBs knowing perhaps 2 won't make the team. OTOH, if Nix & Co think those three are going to win spots over the guys they already have, I'm all for it.

I would be disappointed if the Bills aren't even considering Floyd since to me he seems like a perfect fit. Is it true that the Bills weren't in attendance at Notre Dame's Pro Day? I haven't heard one way or the other, so I'm curious where you got that info. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd find it hard to believe there weren't at least scouts there, if Buddy himself wasn't. OTOH, I remember Chan said something last year about thinking the pro days were a waste of time and he'd rather watch tape from the games or something like that. So maybe the org as a whole doesn't think they are that important if they really didn't send anyone at all. I'm sure they talked to Floyd at the combine, so maybe they were satisfied with that. Also, individual visits are still going on- he just may not have been here yet. I guess all I'm trying to say is we probably can't or shouldn't read too much into the pre-draft activities. And I really hope the Bills get Floyd.

This was discussed a lil while ago here: TBD: Wanny's Dallas Cowboys Playbook You can read my take on it there, or if you want the quick answer, CBs will mostly be in zone coverage. I'm even more excited about it when you take into account that Mario is in the mix. The success of this defense hinges on the front 4 creating pressure in passing situations and keeping the OL off of the LBs so they can read and react on running/play action situations.

I don't disagree with that either. In fact, that's precisely my point. The player's performance/impact on the team is more important than if he was considered a reach or not. I don't recall where Lee Evans was ranked overall pre-draft, but let's say he was pegged for a late first rounder. So at #13, he's a reach. But if he performs well enough to justify that pick, then in the end it doesn't matter that he was a reach, right? And on the contrary, if some Top 5 ranked guy is picked at 13 and he turned out to be a bust, it wouldn't matter that he was a steal or a value pick. He's still a bust and a bad pick.

I don't disagree with anything you've said in this thread. The main point I've been trying to make is that the player selected (and his subsequent contribution to the team) is more important than the position where he was selected. Teams, including the Bills, get into trouble when they too frequently reach for needs. But what's worse than reaching is selecting players that suck. So, in essence, what we are now talking about is poor player evaluation that leads to these reaches. I don't have a problem with a team picking a player that they are high on a little early if they're convinced he's THE guy that best fits. And I understand not wanting to take the risk of losing that player by trading down. I'm not advocating it's NEVER worth the risk, but I won't fault a GM for thinking that. I will fault the GM/team for picking bums. And to me, that's what this all boils down to.

Picture this: Trent Richardson falls to #10. Obviously the BPA. Sure, they'll be offers to trade down. But other GMs know the Bills don't need a RB and try to play hardball. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and you don't think you're getting enough compensation. Do you take the "value" pick? Or do you "reach" for a need? Spiller was the consensus BPA. But I bet a bunch of the guys here preaching BPA all the way hated the pick because he wasn't a need - that he was a luxury pick. I don't write these things to defend the Bills poor drafting in the past. The fact remains good GMs must find a balance between the best player(s) available AND addressing needs. I will gladly concede that reaching for needs can harm a team when those picks don't pan out. Contrary to what some seem to believe, it isn't always possible to trade back and get fair compensation. And GMs can never know for sure that a player they're targeting will be there in the next round or at their next pick. What about the guy they want in that next round? All of a sudden you draft for "value," get a guy you don't really want/need, and someone swoops in and get the guy you wanted before you do. On the flip side of the coin, say Kalil drops to the Bills at #10. They take him and he's a bust. Does it matter that on draft day everyone said the Bills got great value? No. Of course, there's no way they could pass on Kalil and I'm not saying they should bc all signs point to him being a stud. I'm just saying that even though the Bills appeared to get great "value" for their pick on draft day - if that player turns out to be a bust, it's the exact same thing as taking a lower slotted player who is also a bust. Reach and value in and of themselves don't mean much compared to actual on field NFL performance... If following the draft Kiper gives the Bills an "A" because they didnt "reach" and got lots of "value" picks, but they all wind up as busts 3 years down the road, do we then still consider it a good draft? Or what if Kiper gives the Bills a poor grade but 3 years down the road each pick is a perennial pro bowler? Is it a big deal that they "reached?"

I really don't mean to keep defending PTR, but you and many others are missing the point. First, you talk about a "real" concept, then use the most improbable scenario imaginable as an example. No one said that the words reach or value or steal don't mean anything. We all know what they mean. The point is: What does it really matter if a player is considered a reach or not? Let's go back to Troup as an example. If he was selected to the Pro Bowl, would it matter that he was considered a "reach" on draft day? The answer is no. Now obviously Troup hasn't panned out, but that's not because he was a reach. Like I said before, anyone can easily argue it was a bad pick. If Gronkowski or whoever else they should've drafted there actually turned out to be garbage, would it matter that we got "value" for the pick? And now let's go back to the main point - which doesn't have to do with best player available vs drafting for need. It is that the draftniks are defining the "reaches" and "value picks." Someone already said that Pierre-Paul was considered a "reach." Oops, I guess the giants really messed that one up, huh? It's easy to decide who should've been picked where in retrospect. The fact is there are busts in every round, as well as surprise gems. Let's not get all hung up on where McShay or Kiper ranks somebody - remember, they aren't the ones making the picks.