2003Contenders

Probably not. If they go OT, fans will insist that they took the WRONG one (if 2 or fewer are drafted before 9) -- OR insist that they reached for a position of need, if 3 or more have already been drafted. Clausen is clearly polarizing, so fans will be split over that pick. If they address any defensive player at all, fans will whine about not addressing the offense, which is in more dire need of repair. If they take the BPA, which is probably Spiller (if he is there), fans will wonder why they drafted a RB when we already have 2 good ones on the roster. And lest we forget, there are 6 other rounds and 8 other picks in this year's draft, and recent history has shown that the team has performed considerably better in rounds 2-7 than they have in the first. That tells me that there was perhaps too much involvement from non-scouts (Jauron?) with the higher round picks -- whereas, the team was more liable to trust the scouts with the lesser known players in the later rounds. So, this year, I have resigned myself to just relax, trust the front office -- and let the chips fall where they may.

The notion of draft grades in and of itself is silly. Going back to 2006, shortly after the draft most experts ranked that draft as a bad one for the Bills, given that they had "reached" for both Whitner and McCargo. However, by the end of the season, Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Butler, and Ellison were all starters -- which meant that the draft was a very good one, right? Four years later, Kyle Williams is the only one of those players that I wouldn't list as a fringe starter. Taking a player earlier than some draftnik like McShay thinks he should go to me is NOT necessarily a reach. A good example is the Patriots, who seemingly take guys a bit "early" every year. However, the Patriots trust their scouts, and they know how to pinpoint the right guys for their team. Compare that to the Lions over the years. I don't recall looking back and calling very many of Millen's picks "reaches". Still, the results weren't good (no players left on the team from the 2002-2006 drafts). Maybe Millen was basing his picks on draft magazines rather than what the scouts were telling him? With all of that said, the real key is not only having a grade on your players -- but also knowing what the other teams' grade is on the same players. For example, going back to 2006 again, the Whitner pick probably was a "reach" because Marv was duped into thinking that both the Lions and Ravens had an interest in Whitner which would have precluded the Bills from trading down to the 14th (with the Eagles) or 15th (with the Broncos) spot. I believe that Marv could have made the deal to move down, picked up an extra 2nd round pick AND STILL taken Whitner. And, even if Whitner did happen to go to the Lions or Ravens, he wasn't such an indispensable selection that the Bills couldn't have taken someone else instead. (I think that is what Nix was trying to say last week when he said that when you pick at 9, you need to be prepared for at least 10 players in that slot.)

Here's what could potentially hold a trade of this sort up, assuming that the Bills do actually see Campbell as an improvement over Edwards/Fitzpatrick/Brohm: the contract situation. I have little doubt that the Bills could get Campbell with a 4th or 5th round draft pick, given that it is clear that Washington is ready to move on. The problem is that Campbell just signed a one-year tender, which means that he becomes a free agent next year. Even if the Bills like him enough to make the trade, I doubt that they would be sold on him enough to sign him to a long-term extension. That begs the question: do the Bills want to trade a pick (even a relatively low one) for a player who may only be on the team for a single season? And is that player significantly better than what they already have to warrant this sort of investment? Given that the new regime seems to really place a high premium on their existing draft picks, I would guess that the answer is no.

Amongst all the smoke screens that Nix and Modrak put up yesterday, this is the one thing I do NOT think you have to worry about. Modrak was pretty clear that there were only 2 QBs at the top of this draft, Bradford and Clausen. He said there was significant drop-off after that but wouldn't go into detail about how significant the drop-off is. So, while they may be interested in Tebow with pick 41, you can safely cross him off the list at 9.

I still wouldn't bet against LT at 9 -- at least not based on Nix's comments. While Nix did say that the scouts only have 2 guys graded as top 9, we do not know who those guys are. Assuming one of them is Okung and he is gone, we have no idea who the Bills have as the 2nd best OT. It could be Davis. It could be Williams. It could be Bulaga. This may be smoke on the part of Nix too -- as if they do wind up taking a tackle there, look for him to say that (whomever it is is) -- that is the guy that they had ranked as the #2 OT in this draft. Remember back in 2007, when they traded up for Poz and claimed that they had him ranked ahead of Willis?

Well, that settles it. The Bills will NOT be taking Bulaga if Chris Brown says that is the pick. He is NEVER right. Not sure if the Bills purposely feed him bad information, but his predictions are ALWAYS wrong.

Schouman was actually a pleasant surprise early last season before he got hurt. He was Trent's favorite receiver.

1. Marc Bulger was a product of the Mike Martz offensive system. Once Martz left, his decline kicked in right away. (I wouldn't be surprised to see Bulger sign with Chicago to work again with Martz as Cutler's backup.) 2. The younger version of Bulger got by with his quick release. In fact, his ability to get rid of the ball quickly masked some of the Rams' offensive line's deficiencies that were highlighted when Warner couldn't stay healthy behind that line. Eventually, of course, Bulger succumbed to the same problems: his release has slowed tremendously, and he hasn't managed to stay healthy the last few years. 3. Bulger never really had a top notch arm. He played well enough in the dome, but it would be interesting to compare his stats when he played in more frigid conditions. Honestly, I do not see that the current version of Marc Bulger is really any better than what the team has now.

He is Aaron Rodgers' backup in Green Bay. You may better know him as the 7th round draft pick that everyone keeps pointing to that beat out 2nd rounder Brian Brohm for the #2 job (and eventually a roster spot). My guess is that the poster meant Matt "Ryan".

Well, if he is on the trading block it helps his value if the Bills say he is the starting SS.

I like saving the various NFL Draft Magazines every year -- especially Pro Football Weekly and Sporting News -- just so that I can go back and revisit them over the years. So I recently looked back at the 2008 mags. And I would surmise that (aside from Bradford and MAYBE Clausen), Brohm's reputation when he came out back in 2008 was significantly better than that of any other QB that is set to be drafted in April. Does that mean that the draftniks missed the boat with Brohm? Could be. Or it could be that he found himself in a bad situation in GB. SN had Brohm rated as the #1 QB prospect -- ahead of Matt Ryan. They compared him to Peyton Manning and predicted that he would be NFL ready from day one, given his pedigree (dad and brothers were coaches) and top flight production exhibited at Louisville. PFW rated him third behind Ryan and Henne. They ranked him ahead of Joe Flacco, but cautioned that they believed that Brohm had limited upside. They predicted that he would be destined to become a career backup or a marginal starter who would leave his team always hoping for more. My concern is that his greatest strength coming out seemed to be that he had a great deal of polish -- and the learning curve for the NFL wouldn't be very steep for him. However, the reason the Packers left him unprotected was because he had less of a grasp of the offense than 7th rounder Flynn. To be honest, there is very little to go on when it comes to Brohm. From the Bills perspective, he had very little opportunity to display his goods. The Atlanta game was difficult to evaluate. On one hand, his stats were lousy -- but he played behind the worst OL that we put on the field last year. Gauging his physical skills in that game, I thought he showed a lively arm -- and the ball seemed to come out of his hand quickly. I, for one, would rather that the Bills give him a real opportunity before using a 2nd-3rd round pick on the likes of McCoy, Pike, LeFevour, etc.

My favorite regular season game was the 1992 "No punt" game against the Niners at Candlestick. Kelly and Young each passed for over 400 yards in that game.

Remember "The Package"? Wade unveiled that on opening day 2000, when the Bills hosted the Titans on a Sunday night. (First game after MCM.) At that time, the Bills ran a 3-4, but for that game, since the Titans were a run-heavy team, Wade came up with the idea of having both Washington and Big Pat play DT -- along with Wiley and Hanson as DE. That was essentially a 4-4.

Let's see... Bills @ Pats: Trent wasn't horrible in that game, but I have to believe that a Pro Bowl QB would have gotten us into field goal range on that final drive. Cleveland @ Bills: A Pro Bowl QB puts up at least 6 points against the Cleveland D. Bills @ Jags: That was game that the Bills almost won with mediocre play from Fitz. Pats @ Bills: The Bills arguably outplayed the Pats in that game but found a way to lose because of a couple big plays and untimely penalties. Bills @ Jets: Offense was totally inept -- but still had a chance to win until the very end. That is 5 games I count. Not to mention games like the Saints and Texans ones whose outcome may have been different if the offense hadn't put the defense in a bad situation for 3+ quarters.

I'd rather take my chances with what we have now.

Well, looking at it from strictly a position standpoint, there are 2 DTs, 4 OTs, and 2 QBs that could all go before the #9 pick. All three are positions of need. So are DE, ILB, OLB, and WR. If you presume that Lynch is gone, then you could argue that RB is also a need pick -- however, you can ALWAYS find good RBs in the later rounds. I would imagine that if the draft works out this way, the Bills would be in a prime position to trade down with a team that may be interested in a DB or DE, since the top at both positions would be available in that scenario.

He could play DE on obvious passing downs -- and MAYBE OLB on run downs. The problem is that he gets paid too much to be a role player.

Well, we knew going in that there wasn't much reason to be excited about free agency. There's just not much value out there now. I, for one, however, am excited about the draft. I have faith in Nix and Gaily (and his staff of recent college coaches) to do a good job working the draft. I also believe that Modrak, unhindered by Jauron and his fetish for DBs, will prove to be a better resource this year.

Indeed. In defense of the Bills' brass back in those days, that defense was built to stop Marino and the pass-happy Dolphins' offense, which it did successfully. Naturally, it had far less success against the bigger, run-oriented NFC East teams that they faced in the Super Bowl. Those Super Bowl losses all hurt, but the object is to build a team capable of winning your division -- something that has been overlooked for the past decade. And when you are building essentially from the ground up, you start with the big men along the DL and OL.

While I hope that Schobel decides to return (the team doesn't need yet another starting position to back-fill), the writing is clearly on the wall. Really, for the past few years, Schobel has avoided as many team workouts as he could. Yet another reason why I am so glad that Jauron is gone.

What's wrong with bringing the guy in to take a private look at him? Views on him seem to be very polarizing: from he is a born winner that will make any team better to he will never play QB in the NFL. I suspect that this same sort of debate is going on within the Bills' ranks. Having Tebow come in and be highly scrutinized by the decision-makers should serve to provide a final evaluation on this kid.

Agreed. My only concern is the lack of any exploration whatsoever. (Of course, who knows what actually may be going on behind the scenes.) Maybe they are waiting until the circus level atmosphere tones down, and decent but low key vets can be added for reasonable offers. I really think that this new front office with Nix, Modrak (unburdened by Jauron and his goons), and Gailey (with his college connections and supporting staff) believes that they can work this year's draft. That's why I do not expect them to be trading away draft picks for RFAs. I hope they are right.

Troy Smith was so good that the Ravens traded up in the first round to get Flacco two years ago -- and the Ravens' front office knows what they are doing.

Honestly, with some genuine competency now at the GM level and the abundance of recent college level coaches that have been added to the mix, I wouldn't be surprised if the team trusts their evaluations enough to make a number of trades to move down and acquire more picks.

Well, it depends on the QB, too. If the Bills were to acquire a veteran QB (say McNabb for the sake of argument), then I would agree that his presence would in and of itself make the OL better. However, an inexperienced QB (say a rookie) behind a patchwork OL could spell doom for both the short term as well as the long term. It's really a catch-22. I would say, assuming that we are unable to address the QB position in free agency or trade, I would rather invest the high pick on an OL than a QB. Of course, if the team can find a LT via trade or free agency...