2003Contenders

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?

Agreed... Many on this baord could have written a more credible article. My guess is that "Two league sources " = Eric Moulds and his advisor.

Unless some team is willing to fork over a #1 for him -- which ain't happening -- you can be rest assured that he stays on the roster... at least for this season.

You know, this is actually a good point -- that Marv knows that the ST are a strength but is not willing to tear them down for the sake of improving other areas. That to me, was one of TD's failures. He'd become so obsessed with whichever side of the ball was struggling that he'd neglect the side that was doing well.

I think we all get too hung up on "draft value" as perceived by various draftniks out there. What is important is drafting a good football player that will fit our scheme -- hopefully someone with very little risk. That is what the Patriots have been doing for years. Every year I am undwhelmed by the guys that they draft -- but every year they pick up playmakers. Meanwhile, a team like Detroit comes away with a great "draft grade", but winds up with a class full of non-players. If the Bills really do see a player that they like at #8 that they feel will help the team, even if he doesn't grade out on some draft boards as being worthy of the #8 selection, I'd be inclined to shrug off the "reach" alegations and take that player (provided, of course, that there is no opportunity to trade down).

Considering that Royal is new to the Bills -- the Bills haven't even had a mini camp yet with him on the roster -- and he played for a team that wasn't even in the same conference last season, I wouldn't read too much into the statement at all.

I think each situation is different and unique. I remember Peyton Manning's rookie season. The Colts were 3-13 that year -- and Manning was a good part of the reason why they finished so poorly. But even so, you could still see that he possessed that "it" factor. He had an unquestioned confidence in himself -- and you knew that he would eventually get better. In JP's case, I have my doubts based on what I did and didn't see out of him last year. I'm not so sure that he has that "it" factor. On the other hand, there were clearly mitigating circumstances. I mentioned Manning above. One thing that I will never forget is that the Colts went almost exclusively with mass protection formations, which usually meant that he only had one or two passing options with a bail-out valve to Faulk. While this may have led to his forcing the ball frequently, it prevented him from getting beaten to a pulp -- and fearing the sound of defenders' steps. Additionally, Manning had a pretty good line to begin with. Our coaching staff severely handicapped JP last season by refusing to protect him at all costs -- and not placing him in the best situation to succeed. I don't think any of us have high expectations about this season. I'd really like to see the Bills start the season with a very conservative/mass-protect system. This may equate to boring football, but I think it will be the best test to see what we have in our young QB. We can give JP some time to develop and see how he perfroms when he doesn't have opposing defenders racing after him. If he can keep his eyes focused on his weapons -- rather than the defenders in his face -- maybe his completion percentage will increase. If he fails under these circumstance, then we know that we need to go in another direction.