2003Contenders

Kelsay is an enigma. He usually does a good job diagnosing a play and is in the right position to make a stop. But he rarely ever makes that stop. He probably looks great in practice, when the players are not playing at full speed and he doesn't have to make tackles. He is probably a force in the classroom, where he may even act as a second coach in describing the breakdown of a play. That probably explains why the coaching staffs -- and he is on his fourth now -- always seem to like the guy. The funny thing is that if the rest of the front 7 was better, we could probably live with his shortcomings. But, alas, with so little surrounding talent, Kelsay's weaknesses are magnified.

Kudos to Chan and Nix for keeping it close to the vest regardless of what they decide to do.

I voted yes. However, I can understand concerns about his injury history -- as well as the fact that he has not been the same player since getting busted for 'roids.

The sad thing is that this mess was brought about by someone in the Bills' organization foolishly thinking in absolute terms. That is, according to Orakpo's agent, they knew that the Bills were not going to draft him because of the team's disdain for Texas players after the Mike Williams fiasco.(Not coincidentally, Derrick Dockery, also a UT product, had recently been cut by the Bills leading up to that draft.) Vinnie Cerato, the Redskins personnel guy at the time, echoes the same sentiment. He said that the Redskins wanted Orakpo so bad that they tried to trade up inside the top 10 and couldn't find any takers. Once Orakpo fell out of the top 10, Cerato knew he would be there at 13 because, even though the Bills needed a DE, he knew they wouldn't take Orakpo thanks to their disdain for Texas players. So the Bills had a front office so inept that they: 1. Completely ruled out talented players based on their bias against a top college program 2. Their bias was so well known around NFL circles, that they couldn't even leverage a potential trade down scenario.

Rich Gannon is a good example, I think, of a QB that took many years to thrust himself into the limelight.

How about the STUPID PI on Florence? That pass from Flacco was a lame duck; all Florence had to do was turn around and it was an easy INT. In fact, that single play was even MORE damaging that the Spiller fumble, as it set up the sequence of unfortunate events (which included the Spiller fumble) that rounded out the first half. As others have already mentioned, the dropped Pick 6 was on Whitner, not Poz. As much as the fumble by Spiller hurts, I think the bigger culprit for the loss on Sunday was indeed Whitner and his inability to cover Todd Heap. Agreed. I think adding one front-seven player like Ray Lewis, who is a great player obsessed with winning and an even more important presence in the locker room, would do more to improve this team than any other possible acquisition. The problem is that these guys don't come around very often.

Indeed, Modrak gets a pass on this one. He wanted Cutler and tried to make Marv understand that JP wasn't an NFL QB. Marv was reluctant to take a QB in the first round because he didn't want to throw a high profile rookie QB out there with so many other problems yet to solve. From what I am told, the only first round picks during the Levy/Russ era that Modrak highly recommended was the Leodis McKelvin pick in 2008. (Modrak was on board with the CJ pick last spring.) He really wanted Cushing in 2009. In 2007 Lynch was another one of those consensus picks, but Modrak was supposedly trying to get them to draft one of the top corners (Hall or Revis). In fact, Marv almost pulled the trigger on Poz there but Modrak convinced him that he could be drafted MUCH later, whereas Lynch would definitely go within the next 4-5 picks.

I have heard from a pretty reliable source that the final decision on that pick was indeed Marv's. It was his first pick as the new GM, and after the Donahoe autocratic style, Marv wanted to place his consensus-style print on the team. At the time, Ngata was indeed the conventional choice, given the big need the team had at DT. However, there was some concern about Ngata's character and the knock on him was that he had a tendency to take plays off. There were also some concerns that Ngata was not an specially good fit for Jauron's new Cover 2 Defense that was looking for more of a penetrator than a run stuffer. Some of the scouts and coaches believed that Broderick Bunkley was a better fit for that scheme. Meanwhile, there was consensus in the war room that the best QB in the draft was Jay Cutler (rather than Vince Young or Matt Leinart), but there was also heated debate about whether or not JP Losman was THE guy. While all of this was going on, both the Broncos (who were picking at 15) and the Eagles (picking at 14) were desperately trying to trade up. Amidst all of the confusion, Whitner was the one player that everyone in the war room could live with: -- He filled a definite need (Lawyer Milloy had just recently been released) -- Reminded many of Bob Sanders, who was an important part of that similar-themed Indy defense -- Came out of a well renowned college for cranking out DBs (OSU) -- Was highly recommended by some of the veteran players (London Fletcher among them). Meanwhile, Whitner's agent had smartly worried Marv by suggesting that Whitner would NOT get passed the Ravens, who were picking at 13 -- a spot before the Eagles or Broncos, who had made the trade offers. So, there was plenty of hemming and hawing -- and Marv wound up making the consensus pick, the one with the least "risk". While I do not believe that Whitner has been a total bust, Marv probably made the worst possible choice he could have made: 1. The Ravens were going to take Ngata all along. Had the Bills traded down with either Denver or Philly, they could have still landed Whitner AND picked up another high (presumably a 2nd rounder) draft pick. 2. Ironoically JP would go on to have a pretty good season in 2006, but the team would have been MUCH better off to this day with Cutler. 3. Both Ngata and Bunkley are quality starting DTs.

For all the hand-wringing about the OL (and it is well below average), they have played well enough two of the last three games to have warranted a victory for the Bills. I am suddenly MUCH more worried about the defense than I am about either the OL or the QB.

Here are some things to remember. 1. It is WAY too early to tell how good of a job Nix and the gang did with the draft. Think back to 2006 and 2007, the early returns on both drafts was pretty good. So, if Troup, Carrington, Easly, Wang etc turn out to be decent players, then we can thank Nix for that. 2. The concept from the outset was to rebuild this team from the ground up. That means NOT spending a fortune in free agency, and when signing free agents, try to go with younger guys with upside. Because of the impending labor situation (and the unique rules associated with this being the final year of the existing CBA), players with 5 or fewer years in the league where not unrestricted. Thus, there truly were not many viable guys to pick up. D. Edwards was actually one of the better FAs that ANY team picked up. Think about it for a minute, how many key signings did OTHER teams make in the off-season? 3. As many here have already pointed out, sometimes the best moves you make are the ones you DON'T make. That is: Campbell, Clausen, etc.

The last QB I can think of where that happened successfully was with Troy Aikman, 20 years ago. He was almost killed as a rookie, and the Cowboys had the benefit of all those Hershel Walker picks to get that OL fixed in a hurry. The only other QBs taken #1 overall to have succeeded since then (really, just the Manning brothers and Carson Palmer [who didn't take a snap as a rookie, anyway]) were all placed in situations where the OL was already in pretty good shape. Michael Vick was a unique talent, so it is hard to correlate his early success (or lack thereof) to OL play. Jeff George, Tim Couch, David Carr, Alex Smith, and Matt Stafford are the other QBs we are talking about. The verdict is still out on Stafford, obviously, although he has certainly had problems staying healthy. Bradford looks to be a keeper; and the Rams just happened to draft a stud OT with their #2 overall pick last year. The likelihood of success for a QB drafted #1 overall is no better than 50/50, and teams with lousy OLs clearly have an almost certitude of failure.

Well, I will say this: Fewell had already evaluated that Fitz and Jackson were superior to Edwards and Lynch, and the defense was at least middle of the road with him at the helm.. No one was exactly knocking on Chan's door, so the Bills could have very easily signed him as the OC if they wanted him.

While I value an elite QB and would be all for the team picking one (if available) in the draft, I wouldn't want that kid on the field until the OL is fixed. We've seen it over and over again in the league what happens when you stick a rookie QB behind a suspect OL. In fact, if the rest of this year is spent doing nothing more than fortifying the OL, then I would consider the season to be a positive one, regardless of record.

You know, I have always been something of a Modrak apologist because I always gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't necessarily the one calling the shots. However, it is no coincidence that one and only GOOD draft of the post Polian/Butler era was that 2001 Donahoe draft in which Modrak was NOT present.

It's funny I look back at the last two drafts under a new regime, 2001 and 2006 (and by "new" I mean new front office personnel AND new coaching staff; thus, I overlook 2004 as Mularkey was an extension of the TD regime). Because the Bills were so devoid of talent we prematurely hailed both of those drafts as great, since so many rookies made an immediate contribution. Hind-sight being 20-20 neither draft was nearly as sensational, although 2001 is still easily the best draft the team has had in the past decade. If Troupe and Carrington turn out to be core players in the future (as well as Easley, who showed some positive signs prior to his injury), then you can label the 2010 draft a success.

My philosophy on this is similar to what it was on the Peters situation last off-season. That is, both are somewhat overrated but still good players. Regardless, what has the team won with them at the helm and in particular how good has the offense been? Maybe if that $9M per year were spent on fortifying the OL and DL, then trading Lee would be a smart thing to do. The flip side of the coin is that he DOES command attention from the opponent. Just how terrible will the offense look without him?

Obviously an upgrade at QB is one of the MANY things that this team currently needs. If there is a "can't miss" prospect sitting there in April, then the Bills have to strongly consider drafting him. The flip side of the coin is that, until this OL gets fixed, I am not sure I want to see a young QB playing the role of a sitting duck. (That IMHO is one reason why Chan has held back on plugging Brohm in at QB at this time.)

I wonder if the image of Marshawn laughing it up on the sidelines Sunday in a blowout loss had anything to do with the timing of this trade?

They need to just stop with this stupid idea of featuring Lynch for a future trade. The book is out on Lynch, and I doubt that a good performance is going to drive his stock up any more than it is now. Sadly, Perry Fewell and the staff had already decided last year that Fitz was superior to Trent and that Freddy was superior to Marshawn. It took our new coaching staff all preseason and 2 games to make the same determination on the QB situation. How long for the RB situation?

The Bills certainly need an upgrade at QB, but they have MUCH bigger problems than Fitz right now. That is why I would rather they focus on a big man (OL or DL) in the first round of next year's draft rather than a QB.

Another great myth: Ralph is Cheap. I wouldn't say that he is cheap, but rather the manner in which he spends his money is misguided. Can you call someone that pays $24M for a guy like Kelsay cheap? No. However, why is he unwilling to may top dollar for a genuine GM or Head Coach? That would be money better spent IMHO.

The players trump the coaching and the scheme. Exhibit A: Perry Fewell's Giants racked up 10 sacks last night, 9 by half time.

Because even with they blitz, they don't get to the QB. Thus, leaving someone wide open. That is what happened over and over again against the Packers. They backed off last week against Brady and gave him ALL DAY to survey the field. In fact, they played a very bend-but-don't break style of defense against the Pats, and Brady has always been the master of taking what the defense give him. Against Sanchez, I am hopeful that rattle him by blitzing, especially if they can cook up a scheme that disguises it well. The only problem is that the run defense is so bad, that the Jets could exploit the blitz by some well timed draws. Uggg.

Yet another poor pick-up from the Levy/Brandon reign. I can't criticize this one because I thought it was a pretty good pick up at the time. But did that regime make ANY good roster moves... I mean ANY?

That is the Catch-22, though. How do they know he is the guy if he doesn't play? And if he doesn't get to play (and they don't know whether or not he is the guy) -- will they back off drafting a QB next April because they believe he MIGHT be the guy? I hope that if they do believe that Brohm has a future as possibly being a starting QB that they would let him start a few games this year to help identify whether or not he has what it takes. If you are worried about him getting killed behind the porous OL, then use mass protection schemes, even if it means just sending 1-2 guys out to catch the ball. That's what the Colts did with Manning back in 1998. They went 3-13 that year, but how did that investment work out?