2003Contenders

I know some fear Bunkley as a "late riser", meaning that his stock really didn't soar until the combine. However, his numbers last season sure look good to me. What is the knock on him other than that he had a knee injury 3 or 4 years ago?

I still believe that, if D'Brick gets past the Jets at #4, then he will fall to us at 8. That is, of course, if some other team doesn't trade up with the teams currently slated at 5-7.

Count me in as one of those who is very hyped up about this particular draft... 1. Reggie Bush has the portential to be a real difference maker in the NFL, easily the best RB prospect since LT. Although he is unlikley to be the workhorse that LT has become, Bush is so explosive, that he will change the way defensive coordinators gameplan. The only reason I don't think other teams are trying to move up to get him is that Houston has pretty much made it known that they intend to take him -- and only a knock-your-socks off type of trade would get them to budge. Thus, only the teams picking at the top of the the draft already would have such ammunition -- and those teams all have too many needs to trade away draft picks for a single player, even one as enticing as Bush. Also, the Texans' greatest need (like ours) is along the OL, and they know that this draft is pretty well stocked with linmen through the first 3-4 rounds. Thus, they can afford to stay pat and draft Bush. 2. The #2 spot is interesting, namely because the Saints just paid big money for Drew Brees. That would seemingly take them out of the Matt Leinart sweepstakes, but they have also made it known that they would be willing to trade down with the right partner. If they do trade, what team is likely to deal with them? The rumor is the Jets. However, if the Titans are set on taking a QB at #3 -- do we know for sure whether they like Young or Leinart better? If the Jets like Leinart and feel that the Titans prefer Young, it may be in Jets' best interest to stay at #4. If there is no trade, do the Saints take Mario Williams? 3. Depending on what happens at #2, this is where the real drama starts. If the Saints don't trade down -- and do take, say, Mario, then that leaves Tennessee to decide which QB they want. Does Chow have fond memories of Leinart -- or does the coaching staff want to have McNair mentor Vince Young? With a messy salary cap situation, the Titans may elect to trade down to avoid paying the kind of coin that a rookie QB drafted in the top 3 would command. Like the Saints, though, will they manage to find a trading partner even if they wanted to? 4. The Jets will torment themselves watching to see what the Saints and Titans do. If they are dead set on one of the QBs, they may elect to ease anxiety by trading up with the Saints. However, the Jets are in real need of help at MANY positions, so they can't afford to be giving away important draft picks to move up 2 spots in this draft. If they get lucky and the Saints do stay put and draft Mario Williams, while Tennessee selects Young, Leinart could fall to them at #4. Unliklely, but if that happens, then the Bills could be the real winner with Ferguson falling all the way to 8. The way I see it, there is some high drama early on that will affect how the rest of the draft goes. Additionally, there are a couple of teams (Minny and Denver) who could be in the market to trade up into the top 10. Even after the first round, this draft is so deep that there is plenty of value in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. That, coupled with the knowledge that we have that extra pick in the 3rd, means that I am less worried about the team taking the best playmaker at #8, rather than INSISTING on taking a DL or OL. Maybe the quality of this year's draft is being overhyped. We won't know the answer to that for a number fo years. However, I like the drama and excitement that is sure to be there in less than 2 weeks!

Good point... Cuz the other NE David -- Patten -- sure set the world on fire in DC last year...

It's funny because Kiper was talking on Mike and Mike this morning about how the first 4 picks of the draft could surprise people. For example, let's say that the Jets decide that they cannot afford to trade up to #2 with the Saints. Since he doesn't see any other team being willing to give up what it would take to move up to #2, the Saints would have to stay put and draft Mario Williams. Then the onus is on the Titans to decide which QB they like the best at #3. There is some speculation that they may actually prefer Vince Young. If the Titans were to select Young over Leinart, then Leinart would be there for the Jets at #4. Would it be possible, then, for Ferguson to get past GB, SF, and Oakland? Not likely -- but possible. The Packers are supposely in love with Hawk -- and the latest I've heard is that the Raiders really like Huff, provided that Leinart/Young aren't there. What about the 49ers? I'd expect them to draft Ferguson if he were to fall to them, but they have so-o-o-o many needs... Thus, while it is VERY unlikely that D'Brick would fall to us, well... stranger things have happened.

One thing that may help is the speed of our revamped WR crew. With spread formations and quick throws -- it should be easy to beat the blitz. Doing that just a couple of times a game for a big gain, should force opponents to back off, which should in turn open things up more for Willis. In a way, I am glad that we start the season against NE. If they have a weakness on defense it is definitely their secondary. If the OL can manage to keep JP upright, I think the offense could be surprisngly good this year. At least that's my story -- and I'm sticking to it!

That may explain why the Lions are interested in Tutan too. The strange thing about Bennie Anderson is that he was only a year or so removed from blocking for Jamal Lewis' 2,000-yard season, when we brought him in. I have to confess that I thought he was a good acquisition at the time -- so I can't be hypocritical by blaming TD for a move that I agreed with then. The question is: Why exactly did he suck so bad when he came here? Was it a poor supporting cast? Poor coaching? (i.e. Is McNally really as good as everyone says?) On a related note, given that Anderson's stength in Baltimore was as a run blocker, maybe he wasn't properly utilized, as MM gave up on the running game too quickly. Poor conditioning? (The write-up by Scouts from 2005 suggested that Anderson was often unmotivated to stay in shape.) Or, did we just get damaged goods that Baltimore was willing to cast aside?

The flip side of the coin is that a position of need may not necessarily be the same a year -- or even a few months -- from now. Thus, if you've taken a mediocre player at a real need position you are more likely to have to address that position yet again in the not-so-distant future, whereas, you could draft a future stud at a position that may not be one of need now -- but could be one of need in the future. Obviously, in the best of all possible worlds you can draft the best value at a position of need. Teams with good scouting departments are well aware that maybe a crop of players at a specific position may not be so great in this class -- but may be exceptional the following year. They are also well aware of their own future needs and not just there here and now. In fact, the draft is usually a better place to find depth and future needs than it is to find current needs, considering how few rookies start right away. Free agency is the better place to address immediate needs. TD's sin was that he was too busy trying to make waves in the draft, rather than trying to build a quality team. I would hardly, say, for example that Roscoe Parrish was the best available player when we took him last season. In fact, given that TD likely suspected that Moulds' days were numbered, he probably viewed him as a "need" pick. Our drastic needs at DT and OL are because TD spent too many years simply overlooking these positions, when there were quality players that he could have drafted over the years. His fetish for "skill" players and refusal to invest day one picks (outside of Mike Williams) in the less glamorous OL positions is why we're in the situation we are in now.

Your point is well taken, and it relates to draft philosophy. The Patriots have been doing this for years. They pinpoint particular players that they feel will fit their system and draft them accordingly without worrying too much about how that player's "value" is perceived by other teams. Other teams use the Jimmy Johnson value system -- and refuse to deviate from it, regardless of the position. If the highest rated player is at a non-need position, that is where a trade-down comes in. Then, of course, there are other teams that draft purely for position of need -- and are willing to overlook better value at another position. Ususally the teams that have weaker scouting departments fall into this trap. We are in a nice spot this year simply because -- as much of an oxymoron as it seems -- we have S-O-O-O many needs. Thus, there will definitely be a good player sitting there for us at #8 that will fill a position of need. From that perspective, if we have, say, 3-4 guys all ranked pretty closely, then it makes good sense for us to trade down, since we will still have a shot at getting one of them. Say, for example, that Ngata, Bunkley, Huff, Justice, and Davis are all still on the board. We could use any one of them -- and potentially wind up with a good player that fills a need. Now, let's say that a team that runs a 3-4 alignment has a real need for a DT, well, Ngata is likley more valueable to them than he would be to us. Thus, we could afford to trade down 3-4 spots and still be assured of drafting one of the players I've mentioned -- and at the same time pick up an extra draft pick or two. If one of the QBs slips, that makes our situation even better. Now, assuming that we can't find a decent trading partner, then we will need to suck it up and go with the original strategy that I outlined above. That is to say that, even though, say, Winston Justice may be ranked #12 in terms of his overall value, if the Bills feel that he is the best option to help our OL with the #8 pick, then they should go for it -- and not worry about someone like Mel Kiper suggesting that we "reached" for him.

If nothing else, with all of the bodies we now have at WR, there is no need to invest a day one pick on a WR in the draft. That means more opportunities to draft OL, DL, and DB help.

Remember also that Fairchild was the OC in St. Louis in 2004 when the Rams were reportedly all set to draft JP if we hadn't traded up ahead of them. I know that Fairchild may not have had any say so in the Rams' planning, but you would have to think that he at least was aware of what was going on.

If we were picking late in the 1st round I would like this kind of trade. (Think of what the Cowboys did with us in the JP deal... That was for the #22 overall pick.) However, picking #8 this year, we had better wind up with another later first round pick THIS year.

Are the Packers still shopping Javon Walker?

Maybe if we build the line this year JP will excel -- and there will be no need to sell the farm to get Quinn next year. Hmmmm.

As the old saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat... The Patriots have had a lot of success, for example, in recent years by targeting specific players that they want to draft. Then they are willing to "reach" at times to select such players. The point is that they have done their homework and feel that the players(s) will fit well into their system, even though the player's "value" may be lesser to other teams. During his Dallas days Jimmy Johnson did well by using his point value system and sticking very closely to it to draft the best available players, regardless of position. Because he had SO many picks -- and high ones at that -- this particular system worked well for him. Once he moved onto to Miami he stuck with this point system -- but he started obsessing over need positions rather than best athlete available. Remember the number of RB misses he scored in the draft? It's all really a crapshoot. You never know how good or bad someone is going to be coming out of college. Remember in 1998 when many scouts thought that Manning was a "system" QB, while Leaf was someone you could actually build a team around? Indeed, Leaf did have better measurable tools, but he was missing the heart and brains. No matter what happens, we have to trust our scouts to do a good job of rating the prospects. Looking back at TD's career in Buffalo, I do not think it is pure coincidence that his first draft was the best. With the team pretty much torn apart that off-season, we had needs almost everywhere. Thus, he could afford to draft the best player available with each pick -- and he had the good sense to trade down a couple times to get more bang for the buck. I'd like to see Marv use that draft as the model. There are valid arguments to take any number of guys at #8, depending on who is there... Davis, Huff, Ngata, Winston, Bunkley... We can use ANY of them. It is up to the scouts to correctly identify which one best suits our needs... And with so many needs, if we have the opportunity to trade down and pick up, say, another 2nd round pick, that is a wise decision, provided that we don't trade down too far and risk losing a REALLY good player.

My guess is that it was the 5th rounder. I think Moulds outpriced himself to the point where he had far fewer suitors than his advisor let on. Thus, it was probably a liklihood that there was going to be no market for him, if Marv didn't act quickly. Yes, I know we had the cap room to hang onto him, if no other trade offers came along -- but given that he was not going to play for us, why bother?

I also do not see a significant drop-off from Ngata, hailed to be the #1 DT and, say the #4 or #5 DT that should be available in the 2nd round. There is, however, significant dropoff from Huff to the next best S and Davis to the next best TE. That's why I'd rather draft one of these two if we don't trade down to get better value at DT/OL.

Given that Jauron served as interim HC in Detroit last year -- and opted to initially start Gracia over Joey, I think that says it all. Given the choice of Joey versus Nall, I'm happy with Nall.

Remember the preseason games that Marv teamed to cover with Steve Tasker last year? That was just a few months ago, and at that time, he seemed somewhat complimentary of JP from an overall standpoint, if I recall correctly. (If anyone has copies of those games last season, please correct me if I am wrong.) Not saying that means anything -- however, it could give us an early indication of his views on JP. Of course, I seem to recall TD siding with Flutie over RJ -- prior to taking the Bills' GM job, only to later say that that was his "media personna".

Ever since the Erik Flowers fiasco I've been leery of drafting these late risers like Bunkley.

Has it been confirmed that the trade was for Houston's #4?

There is none. Everyone keeps citing that silly Yahoo article that was written by some loser with no knowlwedge of the situation.

As we all know, the verdict is still out on JP. Obviously the Bills really did love him -- or they wouldn't have traded up into the 1st round to get him. Still, I really think that the guy who was blowing the trumpet to get him was Sam Wyche. Remember that it was Wyche who had scouted JP at Eli Manning's workout. Wyche had been very vocal in insisting that JP actually had a BETTER workout than Manning.

Let's review a few things that happened last year... 1. In the Saints game, with the score still close in the first half, JP threw the ball deep, while Eric cut his route off. The ball was easily intercepted and the Saints went on to beat the Bills handily. After the game, JP took the company line that he and Moulds simply were not on the same page for that play, while Moulds made it a point to emphasize that HE ran the right route and the INT was all JP's fault. I have no doubt that Moulds did, in fact, run the right route, but it was not necessary for him to emphasize that JP was in error. 2. When MM was trying to keep the switch to Holcomb in Week 5 on the low-down, Moulds could hardly contain himself -- and spilled the beans to the press. Reports circulated that Moulds had gone to MM and pled that they make the shift. 3. In the Miami game with JP finally having what looked to be his breakout game, Moulds sulks because it is Lee Evans that scores 3 TDs. We all know what happened next. 4. The very next game after Moulds' suspension, Holcomb is reinstated as starter, and he keeps the job for the remainder of the season, despite only having one decent performance (against Cinci). But at least Eric is happy. Now, to me it is clear that EM does not like JP. Maybe he didn't want to have to endure playing with a "rookie" QB at this late state in his career. Maybe the two simply had a personality conflict. Or -- most likely -- maybe just maybe JP felt more comfortable tossing the ball to Lee Evans (and to a lesser degree Josh Reed) than he did to Moulds, which threatened EM. (Maybe EM should remember that he was once the young player who rose to prominance as the aging and sulking Andre Reed became less involved in the offense.) Regardless, it has become abundantly clear that the two cannot co-exist. Maybe, if the Bills rid themselves of this team "leader", maybe the young QB will manage to find his groove without being B word-slapped.

This whole topic is off-base, as the writer of the article knows nothing. Just days ago, we heard from Marv's own lips that the reason that they brought in Nall was so that they did not confuse the situation by bringing in a highly drafted rookie to compete for the starting job. So you can simply forget about trading JP -- unless some team comes to us and presents us with an offer we can't refuse, which is NOT going to happen. If we draft a QB at all, it will be a flyer in the late rounds. I've said it several times, Nall projects to be good enough to give JP a spirited challenge, but probably isn't good enough to win the job. I'm sure the new staff wants to see how JP holds up when facing competition. If he falters, then we know the answer -- and he's as good as gone after 2006. If he rises to the challenge, then he (and the whole team) will be better as a result. And, if Nall proves to be better than I think he is -- and he cements himself as the starter, well, that can't be bad either. Right?