Brandon

I don't think Derrick Harvey will be available, either. Its much the same as with McKelvin. The Pats, Ravens, and Bengals could all end up taking him, assuming he's as good as the hype around here. The Pats have an obvious need at OLB and Harvey would probably fit there as a pass rusher. The Ravens? How many DEs are listed on their roster? 1...Jarrett Johnson. Cincinnatti had only 20 sacks as a team last year. They have a couple of guys who played well in situational roles last year, but may be looking for a true starter.

I don't think its a bad move. Its probably not what I'd do, but McKelvin would be a very solid pick.

Its hard to argue that the Bills will be anything but a defensive team. Their offense is miserable and they've made no upgrades to this point. They haven't finished better than 25th in total yardage in the last five years and have been in the bottom 23 teams in scoring four of the last five years. The best showing for the Bills passing game in that time has been 27th, a time during which they haven't broken 3,000 team passing yards once. This first pick may be a defensive player, but on the balance, I fully expect this draft to lean toward offense. They can't win with the level of ineptitude we've seen on that side of the ball the last several years, no matter how well the defense plays.

I think its certainly possible that McKelvin is the guy they want, but at the same time, I don't believe he'll be available. All four teams immediately ahead of the Bills could potentially take him, but especially New England at 7 and Baltimore at 8. Additionally, considering that McKelvin is a bit of a longshot to even reach the 11th overall pick, I'm not so sure I believe that the Bills would be leaking their interest to the media. It may either be total speculation by Clayton or a bit of posturing by the Bills with these trade talks ongoing.

I'd guess that their interest is legitimate. Look at their WR corps. Its horrible.

I agree, the Bills do need playmakers, but they're needed on both sides of the ball. I have no problems with drafting a DE at 11, but I also hold no illusions that it'll turn this team into a winner alone. It won't. I also remain unconvinced that Harvey is a game-changing DE that will provide a serious upgrade, especially in the immediate term. I do not classify the #2 WR as subordinate in some way to the #1. Both are starters, both will play 90%+ of the snaps. Both need to be able to play. Its just like the supposed #2 CB. If that guy can't play or is limited in some way, the opposing team will game plan around that weakness and use it to cripple your offense/defense as a whole.

I'm not really that concerned about the Patriots or how the Giants beat them. I'm really not. The Bills simply are not competitive with them at this time and realistically will not be for at least another year or two. Its funny that everyone has jumped on the Giants bandwagon as the blueprint to beat the Patriots. And it probably is. The problem? The Giants, for all their goodness, allowed 36 TDs defensively last year (more than the Bills D, I might add). Yes, folks...they allowed 16 more TDs than the Bills offense scored last year. In other words, put all of the Giants defensive players on this team, and this team STILL loses 9-10 games next year. The difference? The Giants actually have an offense, too. This team will not win consistently until it can score at least 20 points per game. It doesn't mean we should definitely take a WR at 11. But the point I'm illustrating is simply this: for all those that are on the defensive end bandwagon, realize that the Giants defense, as good as their pass rush is, still gave up yards and still gave up points. A WR may not turn this team into an instant winner, either, but this team's offense could be stymied by fighting through a wet paper bag. Until that changes, they're not going to win, no matter how many defensive ends you draft.

Its definitely not as bad as the 2000 draft. We all remember it as being terrible for the Bills, but it was a miserable draft for most other teams as well.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...the reality is that we didn't. Of course, as Lurker said, teams weren't exactly beating his door down to sign him, either. Overrated? Looks that way.

If I thought there was a Bruce Smith on the board at 11, I'd say go for it. I don't think Harvey is that type of player, though. As for the WRs, the difference is that I don't classify the second WR as any less important than the #1. It may not be necessary to pick that position in R1, but I don't view it any differently as any other starting position.

You can potentially get a great DE for a fraction of the money, but you can say that of any position selected in R1. If they take Devin Thomas, as I believe they will, they'll be paying the contract you describe. On the other hand, look at how much a decent veteran WR like Jerry Porter cost this offseason. 6 years, $30M with $10M guaranteed. Bernard Berrian? 6 years, $42 million, $16 million guaranteed. There's no telling what Lee Evans will sign for. Its a nice way to get a 'bargain' at DE, but its a nice way to get a bargain at any position.

No offense, but that's not a very compelling argument. Any 'star' player is going to cost a fortune when the Bills re-sign him. Just wait until the Bills re-sign Lee Evans, assuming they do.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills take as many as three WRs in this draft, though obviously two probably wouldn't be high picks. They have only three quality WRs on the roster. They need at least five, if not six. I think they'll probably draft Devin Thomas at 11, followed by another in R4-6, and one more in the 7th. That 4th-6th will probably be a slot guy to compete with Reed and Parrish, while the R7 guy a backup redzone target. I'm not as sure about a R2 TE, though. I believe they will select a CB in R2, while the quality is still there. They should still get a solid TE prospect in R3 or could even consider trading back up late into R2 if necessary.

I'm not sure that its a fact or not. Defensive linemen, in particular, often take a couple of years to adjust to the strength of the OL they face in the NFL. The one area where I think a rookie WR can certainly have a big impact on this team is in the redzone. Even in the worst case scenario, if you bring in a 6'4" WR against the 5'10" CBs in the AFC East, at the very least, he's going to draw some attention away from the other receivers on the team, allowing them to make plays, even if the rookie himself may not be doing so on a consistent basis. It might indirectly lead to an additional 10 TDs next year and that's worth a lot, especially on a team that scored only 20 TDs offensively last year.

Agreed. Whitner was certainly considered a 'reach', while some thought Lynch was as well.

That seems to be the logic, alright. I don't get it, either. If that first group of WRs can't play, neither can the second. IMO, The Bills would be better off waiting until the middle of the draft to pick a WR in that scenario. In fact, if they draft a CB or DE in R1, I'd rather they just draft the best receiving TE on the board in R2 and pick a WR project (or two) in R3-5. Your 2nd-3rd round guy very likely is not going to beat out Josh Reed or Roscoe Parrish this year anyway, so why even bother?

That's because a lot of people oversimplify. Its always a balancing act of need vs talent. You have to consider the group of talent that you can get in the first 3-4 rounds and whether drafting a lesser need in R1 prevents you from filling bigger needs with quality talent. As this appears to be a thin draft class, I think it very well might. If the Bills have a WR rated highly enough that they feel comfortable picking him at 11, they should just do it and be done with it, particularly if they aren't high on that second tier at the position. Of course, I still can't understand why the 1st round WRs suck and would be horrid picks, but these 2nd-3rd round guys will magically make this offense so much better.

Yes. He was predicting they'd pick Whitner about a week before it happened. He missed it last year, though.

The entire article: http://buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=5996

Another possible translation: "Lee doesn't want to re-sign with the Bills until we actually give him some help by adding another quality receiver or two. Afterall, why would he want to waste his career facing constant double and triple teams and catching 50 passes and 5 TDs every year?"

If they draft a defender in R1, yes, I'd be willing to wait until R3 for a WR. Of course, that's because I'd plan on drafting the best receiving TE still on the board in R2. I'm just not convinced that this 2nd tier of WRs is all that great unless you want another smurf. I'm not entirely opposed to bringing in another WR under 6' tall, but I don't think that's what they're looking for. Otherwise, if you want a tall WR in R2, your options appear to be Jordy Nelson or Jordy Nelson, so if you don't like Jordy Nelson (or if he's off the board at 41), you're probably out of luck.

IMO, there is no such thing as a #2 WR, just as there is no such thing as a #2 CB. Both guys are just as important as the '#1' player on either side of the ball. The Bills don't necessarily have to spend a first round pick on another WR, but they do need a complete player who isn't limited by size/speed/whatever that opposing defenses can game plan around and exploit.

I'm pretty sure that the second number is how many questions they attempted to answer.

No thanks. I'd rather see them wait until the 6th or 7th to add a FB.

I like this offensive line well enough. The Bills have a fairly good line and unless someone is a glaring weakness, I think they need to allow them to develop some continuity. They could stand to upgrade at C, but this is a weak draft at the position. The rest seem, at worst, good enough to win with.