Brandon

I don't know if it really proves anything. Its still only one pick. Most of the better teams in the league do a very good job finding quality players after the first round. The bad teams don't. That's the difference between the winners and losers. The Bills fall more into the latter category than the former, particularly on offense, and its part of the reason why I'm not too thrilled about the idea of waiting to pick a WR or TE in this draft. The Bills simply have not proven that they can draft offensive players effectively at all outside of the first round. Combined with a defense-minded coaching staff, I feel much, much more confident in their ability to find sleepers on defense a little later in the draft than on offense.

It seems like your case for drafting a CB is based on the idea that you don't want to draft anything else. I'm not sure that's a particularly good strategy. Put aside your own personal biases toward any particular position, and its pretty clear where they're going with this pick. They have three major needs going into this draft: CB, WR and TE. They have two major areas of weakness in their receiving corps and only one in the defensive backfield. They're probably going to want to do all they can to ensure that at least one of their holes offensively gets filled. That suggests they are likely to select a WR at 11, ensuring that they get their highest rated prospect at the position, whoever that may be. Add in the fact that they've already gone to considerable expense improving their defense, and its highly likely that they'll turn their attention toward the offense early in this draft. That doesn't rule out a CB in R1, but I feel its fairly unlikely at this time. The best chance of it happening is if they do not have a WR on their board carrying a grade similar to their top CB available at 11 and that's something that we do not know. There's little chance, otherwise, IMO.

If the Falcons don't want him as a member of their all-pro receiving corps, why would we?

He measured in at just under 6ft tall and 181lbs at the combine. Myself, I'm not all that concerned about it. I don't care as long as he can play. However, it certainly appears that the Bills want a bigger, more physical receiver, so the smaller guys can presumably be scratched off the list.

Well, for one, why do you want the Bills to draft Manningham or Jackson. Both are undersized, and it appears that the Bills are interested in adding a bigger, more physical WR in this draft. Second, the idea that all WRs need at least 3 years is bull. Some do, some don't. As I stated in the earlier thread, you must evaluate each player individually, and even then, if all Malcolm Kelly adds as a rookie, for example, is a competent redzone target, he's made a very significant contribution.

That may (or may not) be true in general, but you always have to consider the individual player in question. Some rookie WRs are undoubtedly much more ready to contribute than others and this is an assessment that the Bills will have to make.

The problem lies in thinking along the lines of #1 and #2 WRs. Its a bit misleading. Both guys will be on the field 90% of the time and both need to be capable of playing at a high level, regardless of where they were drafted. If that means drafting another WR in R1, so be it. It should not be thought of any differently on draft day than almost any other position of serious weakness (the exceptions being K, P and FB which are traditionally filled late).

I think you're giving Eliot Spitzer too much credit. Nationally, the guy was a political nobody prior to his election as governor. Even if he was mentioned in the national news (let me guess: the NY Times), so what? How many people get their 15 minutes of fame in the national news every year? An awful lot. How many of those people are all but forgotten two weeks later? Practically all of them. Not many people outside the state of New York care enough about the attorney general up there to remember his name for any length of time. His name may ring a bell for many, but most will have no clue as to why or who he was or what he did, just like most of them probably won't remember this little incident a few years from now.

As pathetic as it is, I would imagine that a decent percentage of the general population doesn't even know who their own state's governor is, let alone his or her party affiliation.

If by 'most people' you mean those living in New York or perhaps the New England region, yeah, that may be true. Otherwise, he's pretty far from a household name on a national basis. So while this may or may not be a story, I think its erroneous to say that he's so well known that there's no reason to mention his party affiliation. That's just not true.

I'm not sure I would. He's obviously an excellent RB, but if the Chiefs are worried about him enough to consider trading him, I don't think I'd be interested at the price of a 1st.

I think the RFA period actually ends today and I'm pretty sure that Turner has to sign the RFA tender. Not that it changes the situation, mind you.

I wouldn't hate it, but he's far from my first choice at 12. I think Willis, Posluszny, and yes, Lynch, are all better prospects at their respective positions and would be better choices for the Bills. One thing I can all but guarantee: the Bills will not select that heavily from one conference. Its usually a good idea to pick from several.

That's fair enough and perhaps I am overreacting to it. Its not so much that the motherfuc#ers swore, as The Dean so eloquently put it, but the lack of judgement by a couple of guys who know they're going to be under the microscope. Oh well.

I re-checked the combine numbers on Arrington and that's true. I thought I remembered him being about 5'8 205, but he's about the same size as Lynch.

Seems these two guys have had themselves a little rap group in the past: (Fair Warning: Some rather offensive language at the following link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Floor_Crew I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but considering that Beason is often believed to be a possible Bills selection, I'm just wondering what the board thinks of this? Is it something you overlook? Or are these players the Bills should pass on? Personally, upon learning this, I would not consider drafting either one of them.

If stats made a pro prospect, Garrett Wolfe should go in the top 10. Lynch is simply a bigger, stronger, and more athletic player than Arrington. Lynch was also productive his entire career at Cal, while Arrington was more or less a one-year wonder. In addition, Lynch is considered a much better receiving threat than Arrington was coming out of college. And finally, don't judge Lynch based on the fact that Arrington has failed in the NFL. In fact, I wouldn't be too quick to judge Arrington, either, considering that he was drafted by Arizona, a team which hasn't been able to run the ball effectively for years. Of note, Arrington's rushing average in 2005 as a rookie was the same as that of Edgerrin James this past year. It suggests the problem is the OL, not the RBs.

One additional point to consider is that the Bills may be looking at guys like Wendling, Rouse and Piscitelli as weakside LBs in their defensive system.

I would make one note on what some have perceived as a lack of a burst: he was playing this past season with two minor ankle sprains. How much it hampered him, I don't know, but its reasonable to expect it did slow him down a bit.

That's true, but offhand I can't remember another 1st round RB prospect in one of his offenses. Its been mostly 2nd-4th round types, which, contrary to popular belief, have a pretty crappy overall success rate in the NFL regardless of where they played. In the end, even if this were a QB, I think its still a secondary consideration. You still have to consider each player on their own individual merits.

I'm not going to deny that I may be reading too much into it, and again, its dependent upon them actually being truthful, which is a dubious assumption to begin with. I do think its an interesting statement by Modrak, at any rate.

Does Lynch play QB?

My first post really isn't worded properly. Its not that I think they wouldn't be interested in Leonard, but that perhaps they aren't particularly high on him. They probably would select him, but maybe not with a 2nd round pick.

If they're being truthful, I'm not sure they're that interested in Leonard. Modrak concluded his statement by saying that Leonard is a player who makes the 45 man roster every week due to his versatility. That's nice, but to sum up a player with that statement doesn't seem to lend support to the idea that he's a player the Bills feel they can feature in an offense, but more of a guy who is used in a secondary role.

That's what I saw when reviewing the Senior Bowl game as well and posted such a few weeks back. His speed and athleticism allowed him to make a lot of tackles in that game, but he did not strike me as a particularly good interior run defender. He got tied up with blockers too often, overran some plays, and chose to stand his ground rather than attack and drop the ballcarrier for a loss on more than one occasion. Granted, its just an all-star game and perhaps he wasn't comfortable in the defense being ran, but I did not like the game he played that day. If that game is indicative of his style of play, I consider him a deluxe version of London Fletcher. That's not a bad thing, but a dominating run defender is something he does not seem to be. BTW, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that Ole Miss finished 94th in the country against the run this past season. Clearly, for whatever reason, he was not a difference-maker for that defense, unless maybe they would've given up 300 yards per game on the ground without him. Ole Miss is not an elite SEC team, but they're not Vandy or Kentucky, either.