Brainiac72

for me, LB is too high by many... in this era of the passing game, it's the least important position on D, if it wasn't already. they are less important in the passing game than D-line (especially in 4-3) and than the CB's. not only that, but we have adequate bodies there. not really the position to have your stars in, because of the above, but Barnett is pretty good and Sheppard may get there (i like him). Morrison is adequate and Merriman may end up there if healthy cuz there's not room on the line for many snaps. Moats and Batten are ok backups... maybe White not to say we don't bring in more, that's a given for any draft, but unlike developmental QB, another CB, a 2nd/3rd TE, and of course OT... there are at least bodies there. so: QB: 5 RB: 2 WR: 8 TE: 9 OT: 10 G/C: 5 DE: 1 DT: 3 (1 if Troup is healthy) LB: 5 CB: 6 S: 2

i read 27 teams were there. also read 18 were there. sometimes people probably aren't even recognized.

Hairston should be a good RIGHT tackle, which is where everyone said he'd play when drafted. he wasn't too good on the left. the record with him over there bears that out too (2-7 without Bell, 4-3 with him). could he have been worse? yes... he did ok considering. but he'd always be the guy yer trying to upgrade. at best he should be plan B on the left side like he was last year, not plan A.

saw that, kinda disagreed... taking a Guard instead of a Tackle is fine if you have openings for both. But if you have a gaping hole at one, and are decent at the other, i wouldn't. Decastro might be better, but the net upgrade to the Bills is less because of the sorry shape we're in at OT (LT in particular). Buddy and Chan have both mentioned this, and they've been pretty clear the last couple years on what they need and then taking exactly that. Also, Reiff's arms are not the longest but it's like saying a QB at 6'2" doesn't have ideal height. true, but not a killer. i've also read that Reiff is a MUCH better athlete that Gallery ever was. don't assume he can't play left, there is a lot of negative BS leading up to the draft sometimes.

we need a receiving weapon... does it matter if it's a "#2" WR or a #1B" TE? we could use both, and Chan would likely find a way to do so. i think rules on exact numbers of personnel on the field are gone... 4 WR's... 2 TE's... as long as you got a mismatch out there, yer good. personally i think Fleener could help just as much, and has a better chance of being available later, so i'd tend to go that route (though both could go in the 20's).

i don't like it... i'm confident Indy will take the more Manning-like sure thing in Luck. and i'd be surprised if Cleveland doesn't go offense... they really need to do something there. Reiff wasn't overly impressive at combine, so he could be there at 10... especially with Miami probably going QB or maybe WR.

ha, poor guy.. he got up to 300+ to play 3-4 DE, then they had him at OLB! oops. he shouldbe able to get down to 280 again and be a solid depth DE in a 4-3. seems like people want to keep everyone, but of course you cannot. they just signed 2 DE's and could always draft another. i'd guess Dwan and Merriman are gone... and maybe Spencer too, but not if anyone gets hurt. Troup is the #3 DT if he's healthy, and they won't keep more than 9. DE's: Mario, Kelsay, Anderson, Carrington, Draft pick? DT's: KW, Dareus, Troup?, Dotson?, Spencer? somebody making money is going to get cut... maybe 2 of them. Merriman and Johnson are not safe.

yeah, i mean he was kinda bad... but not "no hope" bad. and he made some nice throws against Pittsburgh. with the great attitude and work ethic, he could make something of himself with the right coach. it's too bad the craziness all around his persona prevents many teams from letting him just be a simple developmental QB. if anywhere, i think that could have happened best in Buffalo.

and now we trade brad smith to the Jets for Tebow. probably not. i do think Chan could have done something with him though. he may be best qualified to make him into a reasonable QB, so i would not have minded if he came here. i worry we could be wasting too many years on a so-so QB with no backup plan if he isn't the answer. we're going to draft or acquire a young QB above the 7th round some day.. right???

yes, i think the offense is based on our limitations. i don't think we draft to feed into that. with a better O-line (or healthier at LT) we can open it up more.. maybe not have the issues we had after Bell went down since we could adjust rather than be limited. and who knows who our QB will even BE in a couple years? let's not forget that while draft picks may help as a rookie, they usually aren't that impactful (i.e., better than average) until years 2 or 3. things could change by then, including the offense we run. bottom line, i don't want to go into this season with Hairston miscast as our starting LT again.

on radio this morning they were saying word is Jags had offered 3rd round pick... and Jets were still in the mix. if that's true, we're definitely out cuz we aren't topping that and Jax is a much better place for him if they really want him.

Because there are roster limits. It's not like we lost any DE's, so of course if we sign 2 we'll need to dump someone. Maybe not now, but later... especially since there's a good chance we draft another one. Kelsay, Carrington, Mario, Merriman, Anderson and Curry (or other draftee)? Seriously doubt we keep 6 DE's... and if so, we'd probably dump a DT instead. Maybe the move Merriman to OLB.. but somewhere along that fronr 7, someone goes.

ralph should make a comment about how the Pats are paying an awful lot for a #3 TE. but the Pats can get these guys for 1 year deals, make 'em look good, then let them go and get compensatory picks for them when they sign more lucrative deals elsewhere. problem for them is they never cash in.. always planning for the future, and not quite enough in the present.

yeah, brad smith was pretty unimpressive as a WR to me. but then, so was donald jones. our coaching staff does not seem to mind hands of stone. that's why i love naaman roosevelt. i understand his limitations but at least he catches it.

we need more than 1 TE... seriously, i know he wants to play QB, but i bet the guy has the will to succeed at anything he's remotely qualified for. it would not surprise me at all if he was able to play the position at a competent level. i think i'd rather have him over thigpen at QB, brad smith as "hybrid", and Lee Smith as backup TE. that's 3 options, so if it was just a 5th round pick, why the heck not?

well Hairston was projected even more as a RT than Reiff is... and the Bills still stuck him there. i think the days may be over of only saying a LT is worthy of a top 15 pick, not with OG's now getting like 9.5 million. but we ONLY need a LT, so if there's any doubt, gotta go with the guy who can definitly play there. (and hopefully Hairston can replace Pears).

Everyone said he would be a RT coming into and out of the draft. He still looks better suited to that for me. And Pears is mediocre; hope they didn't give him that much cuz Hairston should probably take his job this year.

Because Bell was a really late starter... didn't even play in high school (no team). Then he didn't play O-line until 2nd year of college... So of course he was a project. All the analysis and scouting reports said Hairston was a RT all along. He held up ok, but Bell was better. The point is, the Bills are almost certainly not going to go into the draft intent on drafting a LT in the first round no matter what. IF the top couple guys they really want are gone, they aren't going to just take the next best thing if they aren't believers... they'll take the best player available and wait on the O-line like they did last year. So signing Bell to a shorter, mid-size deal would make sense then... he'll probably be a lot better than a mid-round pick.

He's way better than Hairston at LT, that's what "he's done" as a Bill. We currently don't have a real LT on the roster. Drafting Martin is certainly one option (at least if we get Mario) but maybe he's not *that* good. OR if he is, maybe he's gone. Last year the Bills only liked 2 OT's for round 1 and both were gone. Could be the same this year. If we need to take someone that needs development in the 3rd round or something, signing Bell is good. And in my opinion, he is a pretty good one, albeit injury prone thus far, obviously.

But we haven't heard any action on Bell, so maybe the rest of the league is wary too, and he won't be overpaid. If we can get him at "just right paid" I'd be open to it since we don't know what the Bills think of the 3rd or 4th best OT. What if the top 2 are gone? Better Bell than a mid-round pick. At least there is a chance he'd stay healthy. We were MUCH more successful in games he played... on our way to 4-0 before he got hurt (we went on to collapse in that 4th game that he got hurt in). It's possible his injury was as big as any in our unfortunate decline.

i'm more afraid to pick a DE in later rounds. what one, on any team, has made an impact in their first year... ever? pretty much all rookies struggle to get sacks in the NFL, but even moreso with non-1sts.

signing these guys is all well and good, but obviously and logically, you don't improve much on a sub-par team by simply paying the existing players of that team 7 or 8 times what they were making before. in fact, on its own you will end up worse, since you can't even retain all your players at that rate. these signings are only good, if they can now replace the "cheap talent" of guys like Chandler and SJ13 with equally good talent on the cheap. again, this is somewhat obvious... but some seem a little too excited; as it stands now we are still the same 6-10 team as '11, but minus our LT and with LESS cap room. the hard part lies ahead, in finding good and CHEAP talent cuz you can't assemble enough talent to win by paying guys what they're worth - you need to have some underpaid guys too!

once we get Mario Williams in FA, this point will be moot. what? that's not going to happen? then i think we have to target DE in the 1st round. sacks from rookie pass-rushers are hard to come by as it is for first rounders, but what SECOND rounders have made an impact their first year? it has to be a very rare occurrence and i can't think of any. pass-rush is so crucial, and so lacking on this team, that if we don't come up with one in FA or the first round, i think we're doomed to mediocrity or worse on defense again. that will kill us if Manning joins the division. i like the odds of getting a competent LT in FA (Bell? Gaither? others middle of the road guys?) or the 2nd round of the draft even, better than finding an impact DE in those spots.

Kyle Williams plays Troup's spot. So aside from when we lineup in a 4-3, or unless we move KW to DE, Troup won't see a lot of action. Carrington does see some action, but with Kelsay and Merriman ahead of him, well.. they aren't just going to bench those guys just yet. Further, quick passing game of the NFL today is going to limit sacks. I'd be surprised if they are not down across the board. Looks at the passing yardage this year, it's insane. Without fooling the D, which we don't, tough to get there. Von Miller one exception, he's a freak.

I like Troup. He looks pretty solid when i see him. As everyone noted, he missed the first 3 games with back problems. And DT's that are there to anchor and not pass rush will never put up stats. So rotating in for some plays, not much chance to notice him. Still think it was not a bad pick, other than I thought we'd get him in the 3rd and not the 2nd. As for our D strategy, I agree we should be more aggressive. I thought that was the point of the 3-4, is that it allows more variance in pass rushing and more confusion for the offense. But we don't do any of that... we just rush the same 4 guys on every play. I don't see how that's ever going to work. And if anything, the sketchy CB situation we have now should lead to a MORE aggressive pass rush, not less.