Brandon

I don't think it really even matters anymore. At the rate it has been expanding, the cap will probably be pushing $200 million in five years. The better idea might be to allow teams to either sign rookies a year or two longer, or extend restricted free agency into the 4th or 5th season.

That one scout may not be alone. If the following is to be believed, Gholston recieved a 2nd round grade from the draft advisory committee. http://www.footballsfuture.com/2008/declared.html

Probably not much. There will likely be some teams that will remove him from their 1st round board on that basis, but others won't change their grade much, if any and base their decisions more on what the player did on the field. For those latter teams, as long as a player meets their minimum cut-off in the 40, it won't be a major issue.

If the Bengals at 9, Bills at 11, and Vikings at 17 are all genuinely interested in him, maybe its time to re-evaluate whether or not he actually IS a reach at those spots?

I'll say it again...the Bills have committed almost $35 million to Kelsay and Schobel within the last 13 months in the form of *guaranteed* money.

Its just a guess, but I think that he probably will run in the mid 4.4s and will likely have a very good overall workout. Will he be available when the Bills pick? I think so. Hardy and Sweed have both had excellent combine and Pro Day workouts as well, yet it seemingly hasn't affected their draft stock that much. I don't think it will with Kelly, either. It'll just solidify his spot somewhere in the middle third of the first round, which is where most people seem to expect him to go, anyway.

The league forgot to schedule the Bills as New England's home opponent when the P*ts come off their bye week. They've got to fix that.

Compensatory picks can't be traded.

I think he's probably more likely to be a 2nd rounder, but watch out for Reggie Smith of Oklahoma. If he runs well tomorrow, you never know. He's the big, athletic CB that would seem to fit extremely well in this Bills defensive scheme. He'd also fit well at FS.

Don't forget that $35 million was in guaranteed money the Bills committed to those guys. But they're not high priced. No sir.

All hatred of Mort aside, I think he's more or less correct. While Everett hadn't proven anything on the field, I think the Bills were planning on giving him many more opportunities this past season and were in many ways relying on him to step up at the position and provide the QBs with a much-needed target over the middle. They had all their eggs in one basket and when he got hurt, that was pretty much it for the passing attack.

True, but I also believe that's true of any position the Bills select at #11. On the other hand, my expectations for the pick, regardless of the position, are for a 'very good' player but not a true difference-maker, simply because its rare to find one wherever you're picking. If Vernon Gholston were on the board at 11, I think it would be a no-brainer to pick him. Harvey? I'm not as convinced as many seem to be.

WR, CB, DE...I don't believe that any of them will help us 'stop' the Patriots. Honestly, I'm more concerned about the Jets and Dolphins, as well as the other 10 teams on the schedule than I am the Patriots. I don't think that this team is realistically ready to compete with the Pats for a division title. IMO, I think that an improved offense, particularly the receiving corps, will provide much more 'bang for the buck' than another defensive addition this year and enable this team to be more competitive on a week-to-week basis and not just against one team. As I stated in another thread, the Giants actually allowed more TD passes than the entire Bills offense scored passing AND rushing last year. This team isn't going to win on a consistent basis until it can score even a modest 20 ppg. That said, I'm not sure I'd pick WR #1, but it has nothing to do with the Patriots and more about the WRs in this draft.

Not that it matters much, but here's Kiper's top 25. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/melkiper/index

Its only a reach if the Bills pick him.

I'm not sure how similar they really are. Its one thing to see the height/weight/speed stuff, but on the field, I think they may have enough differences to argue that they're not completely interchangeable. In particular, Thomas brings a skillset quite a bit different than the other two and is much more quick and explosive than they are. Kelly and Sweed are fairly similar, but even there, I think Kelly separates better and has better hands.

I agree with you. The trade down scenario, IMO, is a real risk for the Bills. As I argued last year, when it was Lynch going 'too high', if you like the guy, just take him and be done with it. If you trade down, you're basically telegraphing your pick and giving all of the WR-needy teams still picking after you an incentive to jump ahead of you in the draft order. Just make your pick and be happy that you got the player you wanted. The only time I'd do it is if I had several WRs that graded out equally on my board and brought the same skills to the table. I'm not sure that's the case here. On the other hand, if your plan involves trading down and then fishing through the scraps at WR, then it seems to me that you're not entirely sure what you're looking for. Better bet? Skip the WR altogether in R1 and just draft another position that you're more sure about.

All of the vertical jump measurements from the combine were wrong this year. Thomas's Pro Day jump was 33", still a little weak. Sweed posted a 37.

You're right. I got the list when the compensatories were first announced. Looks like it was wrong.

That's something I'd agree with, particularly in the case of bigger WRs who can't beat press coverage on quickness alone. Of the top group this year, Limas Sweed probably has the best reputation, though whether reputation and reality are the same, I don't know. He also has the reputation of being a very hard worker on and off the field. One negative on Sweed? Age. The Bills have shown a tendency to take some of the youngest players available early in the draft. Sweed is actually slightly overage, turning 24 late this year and is a full two years older than both Kelly and Thomas.

They have 10 picks: 11 41 72 114 132 148 179 219 224 251

Exactly. If I wouldn't draft the guy at 11, I probably wouldn't at 25, either. I expect a Pro Bowler (or damn close to it) at either spot. Again, he can either play or he can't. He's either good or he's not. Justifying a pick by dropping a few spots is like slapping lipstick on a pig.

Funny thing is, no one ever mentions that the Giants gave up 5 more TD passes than the Bills this past season. The Bills gave up more yardage, sure, but a big part of that is because opponents threw the ball a bit more often against them. The yards allowed per attempt was the same (7.0). The Bills also had more interceptions. That's not to say that the Bills were better than the Giants in pass D, they weren't, but that this idea that the Giants pass rush consistently shut down opposing passing attacks is nuts. It worked well in the playoffs, but in the regular season, the Giants actually allowed more TD passes than the Bills entire offense scored last year. The big difference was actually in run defense, where the Giants allowed only 3.8 yards per rush compared to our 4.4.

Just out of curiosity, what makes a WR (or most positions) a value at 13-17 and a poor choice at 11? The guy can either play or he can't.

If they want a WR in R1, I don't think they'll trade down. Everyone would know what they were doing and it would give the WR-needy teams below them a really good opportunity to jump ahead of them in the order and potentially pick the guy the Bills are targeting.