2003Contenders

I suspect that one of two things will happen -- whether the Bills draft a QB early or not. Either they pick up a veteran backup -- or they invest a late round pick on a polished but less toolsy player like McElroy. If they draft a Newton/Gabbert/Locker/Mallet then this 4th QB would be in competition with Levi Brown (who let's not forget, the Bills actually cut last year and only made it onto the roster after Trent was let go after Week 3) for a roster spot. If they don't draft a Newton/Gabbert/Locker/Mallet then such a QB would become a necessity.

Think about this for a minute. The run D last year wasn't pounded into submission -- and RBs didn't have great success running it up the gut. The run D took most of its lumps in pursuit and in allowing RBs to cut-back. That is more on the DEs and LBs in my mind. And that is why I tend to agree that we need more help at LB and DE (especially LB) than we do at DT.

I think we are on the same page here. Regardless of what they do in the draft, Fitz is going to be the man in 2011 (assuming there is no work stoppage) and probably 2012, too. Having a serviceable starter that you HOPE to improve upon affords the Bills the luxury of taking a gamble on one of these young QBs -- and giving him the time to develop a la Aaron Rogers. The only problem with that scenario is that the Bills have so many other needs that HAVE to be addressed (especially on defense) -- and do you want to pass on guys in the first two rounds who can be instant starters at other positions for a young QB who MAY be better than what we have now in a couple of years? The conventional wisdom is that if you believe strongly that the prospect will be a franchise QB, you DO make that pick. Me, personally -- I do not feel THAT strongly about any of these QBs this year. I understand the rare talents that Newton possesses, but there certainly are many questions as well. I don't know enough about Gabbert to comment -- and neither Mallet nor Locker (the other two potential franchise QBs) appear to be in the discussion at #3 overall. I guess we have to trust that Chan/Buddy and the scouts know what they are doing.

Actually, we should all hope that Newton has a great workout. That improves the chances of his going 1-2, and means one more player falls to the Bills at 3.

Agreed about the QBs in this year's draft. Unless they see a genuine upgrade over Fitzpatrick (and IMHO there are only maybe 3-4 such guys) in this year's draft, it would be foolish to waste an early pick on the position. The only caveat that I would add is that the Bills do need to address the QB situation somewhat. Since they have wisely appeared to put an end to the Brohm experiment, that leaves just Fitz and the developmental Levi Brown. What happens if Fitz goes down? That's why, in the last couple of rounds, I wouldn't mind them picking up a Frank Reich type (someone like McElroy), who is probably never going to be a starter but is polished and savvy enough to be a quality backup from day one.

As of now, he has the Bills taking Patrick Peterson.

2006: I REALLY wanted them to trade down with either the Broncos or Eagles, who were both angling to move up. Assuming that they stayed put, I wanted Ngata. When they traded up in the later part of the 1st round, I assumed that it was for OL help (Mangold or Justice); I thought McCargo was a REAL reach. I know we all cursed the name of Chris Mortenson that day because of his criticism of that draft, but his suggestion that there was panic and confusion in the Bills' War Room that day seems to be correct. 2007: I was hoping that either Peterson or Willis would fall. When that didn't happen, I thought they should either draft Leon Hall or D. Revis. 2008: I must confess that I was thrilled with the McKelvin pick at the time. 2009: I couldn't believe that Orakpo was still on the board at #11 -- and I couldn't believe that the Bills by-passed him in favor of Maybin. I was very happy with the other first round pick, Wood. 2010: I was OK with Spiller, believing the hype that he was the BPA. Time will tell.

I remember reading somewhere that, while scouts/coaches favor a score that is above average, they do not want a score that is TOO high -- not only for the reason(s) cited above but also because they fear that a player that is overly intelligent will tend to over-analyze a situation, rather than rely on instincts.

I think Trent's unraveling was a bit more complex than that with all of the following factors weighing in: 1. The 4-0 start in 2008 was a bit of a mirage -- as all 4 opponents were horrible. And, the team required late game comebacks to win 2 of those games. Still, Trent was being cited as an early-season MVP candidate. 2. Horrible coaching. That starts with Jauron, who for whatever reason didn't seem interested in preparing Edwards to face 3-4 defensive alignments, which was the exclusive formation for the rest of the division. 3 different coordinators in 3 years (each progressively less qualified than the previous one) didn't help. 3. Certainly, the severe concussion played a factor in Trent becoming somewhat gutless in the pocket. 4. Shortly after the concussion, Josh Reed also went down for several games. That left Lee Evans as the only WR option -- with the Bills desperately trying to get a disinterested James Hardy involved. I will never forget that infamous Monday night game against Cleveland, where Trent threw 2 or 3 early interceptions, stemming from him and his receivers not being on the same page. He lost confidence in them (and himself) and started checking down to the RBs on almost every pass play. I remember Jaws at the time commenting how Trent was playing scared and that the Bills could not afford to continue to hide their QB by relying on the RBs so much. I believe that when Gailey took over, he saw the talent and smarts that Trent possessed -- and felt that he could correct the lost mojo that was further beaten down in 2009. However, after 2 games against live competition, Gailey realized that Trent's problems simply were not fixable.

Yea, I think the bottom line is that if Chan believes that Newton (or Gabbert, for that matter) has the potential to be a true franchise QB, then that is the direction they will go with the #3 pick. Otherwise, the pick will be a defensive player.

One thing that I remember very specifically is that Jim Kelly called that game for CBS -- his first professional broadcast. Perhaps, Jimbo liked what he saw and whispered in Ralph's ear? Like RJ or not, he was VERY good in that game against the Ravens, and if that was your only real chance to see him play in a live game scenario, it is hard to fault anyone for coming back with a less than stellar report on him. Remember, he even exhibited toughness, coming back in the game after having been knocked out with a high ankle sprain. I wish the interpretation of that would have been that he was injury prone, instead.

Nice summary. In my mind, the real culprit for this mess was Paul Tagliabu -- who strong-armed the owners into signing a deal that wasn't beneficial to them, just so that he could retire claiming to have left behind a legacy of labor peace. Ralph and Mike Brown were the only ones smart enough to have objected. In guaranteeing the players (who represent only a PORTION of labor costs) roughly 60% of gross revenue, I have no doubt that some of the smaller market teams may have indeed lost money. Remember that the revenue is defined in broad terms across all 32 teams and divided by 32 accordingly. Thus, a large market team like Dallas or Washington may only have to pay 40% of their revenue toward player salaries. Whereas, a smaller market team like Indy may be paying 70-80%. It is hard to stay in business when that much of your revenue (not profit) is dedicated to labor -- and not even TOTAL labor -- costs.

Agreed -- for the most part. Where I do disagree is that they should NOT take less than market value to trade down. That works if they are certain to get the guy they are targeting (which they are NOT) -- or if they have multiple guys closely ranked one of whom they are assured will still be on the clock if they do miss out on Jordan (or whomever). But that's the problem: it really does seem like over the years the Bills have allowed themselves to fall too in love with the player they have decided on with their first pick -- and are reluctant to trade down as a consequence.

Call me one who is skeptical. However, if the Bills brass believe that Newton could be something special -- even if he is going to take some time to groom -- then that possibility exists with him sitting behind Fitz for a year or two.

Which makes the model even that much more silly given that Parcells is supposedly the one who came up with it -- and yet the most successful QB that he ever drafted didn't fit the bill. But, of course, Chad Henne met all the prerequisites.

Yep, and when I look at the recap of their draft, perhaps my reading comprehension is off, but it sounds to me like most of the guys wound up injured. Balaga became a serviceable starting RT (which is what you would expect from a first round draft pick) -- and most everyone else became a role player. Now, let's take a closer look at the Bills' own 2010 draft class. Spiller was certainly a let-down, but it is WAY too early too suggest that the Bills made a mistake passing on someone like Bulaga to take him. Troup and Carrington were decent role players. Easley looked good before he went down in preseason with the injury. Wang was pressed into playing time. Moates was a solid contributor and probably the team's best pass rusher down the stretch. And that doesn't even count a number of guys like Nelson who were undrafted free agents. You can take from a single draft less than a year later whatever you wish. Recall that after 2006, we thought that draft class looked like one of the best for the Bills ever. Now, depending on what happens with Whitner, Kyle Williams just may be the last man standing from that class. We'll see what happens moving forward, but even that 2009 class bolstered by Wood, Levitre and Byrd looks pretty good -- even with the Maybin gaffe.

I agree. The only problem is that there isn't (IMHO) a QB like that in this year's draft class, and other teams rarely make elite QBs available.

The OL situation reminds me a bit of what the Bills had back in 1998. Remember to start the season off, when RJ was taking all of those sacks, Mauck had the lineman go on a strike, where they refused to talk to the press. When RJ went down with an injury and Flutie was inserted -- suddenly the line was no longer a problem. The same thing happened last year once Fitz became the starter. In the middle part of the season when they were all healthy, the OL actually played pretty well. Funny how a QB capable of reading a defense and making quick decisions can make an OL look so much better! I will say, however, that the rash of injuries late in the year did reveal a pronounced lack of depth. I believe that the coaches like Bell and believe that he will be even better with a full off-season to get healthy. They look to be in good shape with Levitre, Wood and some combination of Hangartner/Urbick inside. From what I have heard, they really seem to like Pears at RT and believe that he was a nice, low profile pickup. Clearly, they could stand to add some depth -- and certainly an upgrade at either tackle position would be nice. Just do not be overly upset, when the team decides to stick with what they have and add just a few more low profile players for depth.

Folks, this is all a balancing act with many parts at play: 1. Who is the best football player available? 2. What are the team's most pressing needs? 3. What is the variation between the level of the player that the Bills seek to draft at a given position versus the existing starting player at that position? 4. Money. 5. How QUICKLY do you expect the drafted player to contribute? Everyone always talks about 1, 2 and 4 (and to a lesser extent 5) above -- but I think too often that 3 gets overlooked. The Bills were a 4-12 football team. They have MANY needs, and practically every position (besides RB and possibly OG) could stand an upgrade. The question is: how much of an upgrade can they hope to find in the draft? I would argue that LB (both inside and outside), DL (both DT and DE depending on the scheme), OT, and TE are all positions that COULD immediately be upgraded if the right player is drafted. However, the team could certainly stand an upgrade at QB, WR and DB -- although IMHO none of these needs are as dire. Specifically, in regards to the QB position, I think a fair assessment of Fitzpatrick after the 2010 season is that he is an adequate starter -- but not an elite one. It makes no sense to invest a high (and by high, I mean first 2-3 rounds) draft pick on a young QB that projects to be no better than a "solid NFL starter", given that it is unlikely that the player will ever be a real improvement over Fitzpatrick. However, if the team sees a youngster that they believe has the potential to be a franchise QB -- even if they believe it will take a couple of years for that player to get on the field -- then they should by all means strongly consider drafting such a rare commodity. Given that Fitz is a serviceable starter, the Bills certainly have the luxury of allowing a youngster to sit for a couple of years. The prior regime's philosophy was to shy away from that mind-set, fearing that drafting a young QB with such a high pick would place too much pressure on the team to rush the kid out there. (That is the reason Marv passed on Cutler back in 2006.) The current Nix/Gaily regime strikes me as a patient crew -- willing to allow the hypothetical rookie QB to sit until he is ready (even if Fitz struggles). I am by no means a scout and many of you on here are much more in tune to the college game than I am. From my untrained perception, I do NOT see any QB in the this class that I would label a can't-miss-prospect. Certainly not one that I would bank on becoming elite. Newton has the most upside -- but plenty of risk. The presence of Fitz helps mitigate that risk -- but it also diminishes the reward, given the odds that Newton will develop into a QB that is truly elite and THAT much better than Fitz. The money piece of the equation (given the bust factor) also plays a pivotal role here. Had Luck come out, the risk certainly would have been worth it. As it stands today, I just do not see a QB in this draft with that kind of ceiling and at the same time with so little risk. Quite simply, the Buffalo Bills are not going to draft a QB with the #3 overall pick, knowing that they will have to pay him a ridiculous amount of money -- just to watch him ride the pine for a year or more, wondering the whole time if he will ever be better than what they already have. I could, however, see them drafting a Jake Locker late in the 1st/early in the 2nd where the risk is not nearly as high and there exists a capacity to let the young man sit and learn. While it is bad news that the Bills have so many needs, it is also good news that they will have plenty of quality players to choose from WITHOUT having to "reach" based on need.

The problem dates back to 2007 when Tagliabu jammed the agreement down the owners' throats so that he could vacate the Commissioner position claiming to have orchestrated labor peace. Ralph and Mike Brown were the only owners smart enough (and ballsy enough) to cry BS. That agreement guaranteed the players over 60% of TOTAL revenue. For bigger market teams like the Cowboys and Redskins that didn't matter too much, since their % of the overall pie was significantly larger than the smaller market teams, like Buffalo. Thus, from the owners' standpoint, the existing CBA is broke. The players would love nothing better than to continue to play under the existing agreement. Things like extending the season to 18 games, imposing a hard rookie cap, extending roster sizes, etc are just window dressing.

Sounds to me like the salesman was looking for trouble. If my boss asks me to take off a tie -- I take off my tie.

You know it is a shame that this dude will forever be remembered for the ridiculous trade that netted the Cowboys all those draft picks (and eventually a Super Bowl roster). I blame the Vikings more for not using Walker properly than I do for giving up so much to get him. He was one of the absolute greatest athletes to ever play in the NFL. He was edged out by Darrell Green as the fastest man in the NFL -- AND won a competition as the NFL's strongest man.

Indeed, the beginning of the end for TD in terms of fan perception was the day that he announced that Gregg Williams wouldn't be back just days after the 2003 season ended. In that press conference he chastised the fans for not having been more supportive. Many fans never forgave him for that. Prior to that here was the fan perception: 2001: Cleaned up salary cap, oversaw quality draft with plenty of wheeling and dealing 2002: Made the bold move to trade for Bledsoe WITHOUT giving up a pick in THAT year's draft 2003: Turned Peerless Price into a 1st round draft pick. Negotiated hard to attract quality free agents to shore up defense (Takeo, S Adams, L Milloy)

Same goes for Pittsburgh too.

We all give Mel a lot of crap, but had he been doing our drafts for us since 2006, I think we would have been better off. Here is who he had us taking: 2006: Ngata (thought Whitner was a reach and the move up to get McCargo puzzling) 2007: Revis or Leon Hall (understood the "need" for Lynch but thought 12 was too early) 2008: Don't remember who had mocked for us to take, but I think he was OK with the McKelvin pick there 2009: Orakpo (was down on Maybin; McShay loved Maybin) 2010: A Davis (He agreed that Spiller was probably the BPA but thought he was a luxury pick) What's funny is that most of those picks were in line with conventional wisdom. Maybe it would be alright for once if the Bills didn't try to outsmart everybody. One good thing: most of those players this year at the top of the draft played in the SEC, which is in Nix's wheelhouse.