Brandon

Kelly and his teammate, CB Reggie Smith (who broke a toe in their bowl game) are scheduled to have their pro day workouts Wednesday.

I like it well enough. In an ideal world, I think WR-TE is the way to go, but I'm still not 100% sold on the first group of WRs. Still, I'd be on board if the Bills selected Kelly at 11. I like Bennett better at 41, but I have no problems at all with Davis. A few may whine about his Pro Day, but watching him on the field this past season, he looks like he can play to me. Flowers will probably go a round earlier, but I think there should still be a few good CB prospects left on the board here, possibly even into R4. C? No thanks. All of these guys look like Melvin Fowler clones to me. I don't think Gilberry has enough speed off the edge to fit this defense. I'm not real high on picking a blocking FB in R4. That said, the first blocking FB usually does go in R4, so if the Bills want one that badly, this pick might make sense.

I'll offer up a few counterpoints. 1) There's no question that the Bills defense needs to apply more pressure to opposing QBs, but I also think that last year was probably an abberation. I don't think its unreasonable to expect all three DEs, if they remain healthy, to add 3 sacks to their season totals from last year. If they do that, combined with the guys we have healthy and the FA additions, I think this defense could easily post 40 sacks as a team next year. That's not ideal, but its far from bad, either. One additional note: former 2nd rounder Aaron Schobel is actually the leader in career sacks amongst all DEs drafted in the first two rounds since 2000 with 67.5. 2) Arguably the best first round WR picked in the last 10 years went 6th overall to the Rams. His name was Torry Holt. The Rams won the Super Bowl that year. There is no one-size-fits-all formula to winning the Super Bowl. Every team is different. Jerry Rice went 16th overall, Moss 21st in their respective drafts. If I knew Malcolm Kelly would have as good a career as any of these three, I'd be willing to take him 11th, no doubt about it. Heck, I'd trade up for him if I thought I had to. 3) If Malcolm Kelly falls to R2, there's probably something wrong with him and I wouldn't pick him there, either. If I were making the Bills picks, I'd be targeting TE with pick 41, anyway, as it looks to be a tremendous value at that spot and there's a realistic chance that the top TE on the board will still be available. And I agree on Will James. Maybe not that it 'sealed the deal', but it certainly gives them more options.

There's no way that the Cowboys would accept a 2nd and a 4th in exchange for the 22nd overall pick. Toss in the Bills 2009 1st round pick, and they'd probably go for it. 'Probably' being the key word. Can't trade compensatories, either. The other problem I'd have would be at TE. I think R6 is WAY too late to address that pick. In fact, I think it is actually the Bills' biggest need going into this draft. I look for them to address it in R2 or 3. I also think that Lichtensteiger will probably go in the 6th or 7th, but who really knows.

Yep. Its never quite as simple as going purely BPA. There are always additional factors to consider. I'd also point out that NO GM will go on record and openly say that he didn't take the BPA. Not a single one, unless he's stupid, anyway. The fans will have his head on display on a pike in front of the stadium if he admits going with need over BPA.

You forgot the Billy Joe Hobert era. All of one game. Not bad for a 3rd round pick.

I'm talking about on the team's actual board, in both cases.

The first definition probably applies more to the guys 60 picks or so into the draft and later. At that point, it really starts becoming a case of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' The first two rounds? Not so much, though even those guys after the elite group of 5-15 at the top usually have a significant issue or two in their game and the team-to-team grades may vary significantly.

What is a 'reach'? There are two equally valid definitions, IMO. The pick is a reach... 1) If the guy would still be on the board the next time you pick. 2) You choose a player at a need position with a significantly lower grade than a second player at the same or another need position.

I like Nelson a lot as well. Statistically, its just stupid what the guy did this year against some good competition. I was also very impressed watching him during the Senior Bowl practices. He was embarrassing the opposing CBs. I still have him in the late 2nd round, but I think that's probably more wishful thinking on my part than reality. I think he's probably going to just keep slowly moving up the boards until draft day, when he may very well go late in the 1st or early in the 2nd. Those big guys aren't going to last long at all if they can actually play. Good pick if he's there for the Bills at 41. He's pretty much the last of the taller WRs that stand a good shot of playing early, IMO. I think there are really only five of them in this draft. After him, I think you're looking more at longer term projects or just taking another 6'0" or shorter guy (there ARE plenty of those this year). I'm not totally against the latter type of WR, and a lot of them could probably help immediately, but I'm not sure the Bills are actually interested in them, either.

If I'm makiing that #1 pick for the Bills, I pick Vernon Gholston, every single time.

It has no bearing on individual player valuations whatsoever. The point is just to provide a better idea of how many players are typically off the board at each of those major need positions going into those 2nd-4th round picks. As such, it may be of some use as a rough guide to player availability in those spots, but I'd never state that it was perfect by any means.

That's fairly similar to the one I've been working on the last few days. I'd make a few changes, most notably Rubin (no need for DT, IMO) and Hubbard (overrated, IMO). I'm also not too sure about Stevens, but overall, if this were the Bills draft, I wouldn't be upset at all.

I think that the run could realistically start as early as 14 with Chicago, assuming the Bills don't start it themselves. They re-signed Marty Booker after the Dolphins dumped him, but he's 31 years old and again, dumped by a miserable Dolphins offense. The rest of their WRs aren't much.

That's not really a surprise. There are quite a few teams in the market for a WR going into this draft, further complicating the Bills' draft strategy over the next three weeks. If they choose to wait it out and pick a WR at 41, they may be stuck with a bunch of guys who don't fit either their offense or their apparent height requirement, or in a worst case scenario, both. I don't necessarily disagree with waiting a round to pick a WR, but the Bills need to be careful and have a good contingency plan in place should their guy(s) be off the board. If they don't come out of this draft with a significant upgrade in their receiving corps, whether that be a TE or WR, preferably both, I think this offense is going to be more than a little underwhelming yet again this season.

I just thought I'd do a quick analysis of the four positions we're mostly arguing over (WR, DB, TE and DE) and see exactly where these guys tend to go in the draft. I've taken each Bills pick (11, 41, 72, and 114) and taken an average of the last five drafts to try to help determine exactly who will and who won't be available at those particular spots. Granted, this will vary by draft, but it may prove a useful rule of thumb, so to speak. This compiled from drafthistory.com. Position: Rank at 11, 41, 72, 114 WR: 3rd best, 6th, 10th, 16th TE: 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th DB: 3rd, 9th, 16th, 24th DE: 2nd, 5th, 9th, 12th For example, you could reasonably expect that a TE selected at pick 72 will be about the 5th one off the board, while a DE at the same spot would be the 9th. There are two major limitations of this. One, you can probably ignore the 1st round values. It varies too much year-to-year, but begins to normalize the deeper in the draft you go. Second, the DBs at drafthistory are not separated into CBs and safeties. Best guess? You can probably knock 1/3rd of the value presented off of that rank strictly for CBs. So, for example, that 24th ranking at pick 114 is actually probably more like the 16th best CB at that spot. It may be completely worthless, but then again, the mock drafters may find it somewhat useful, so there it is.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Devin Thomas may not be overly tall, but he is significantly bigger and more physical than what they have now, while also retaining much of the overall short-area quickness and separation ability that they're probably looking for in this dink and dunk passing game. Athletically, I think he's by far the best fit of all the taller WRs in this draft and based on athletic talent alone, I definitely think he's worth the pick. Factor in only one year of production, however, and it becomes a lot less clear. But again, it wouldn't suprise me at all, and if he pans out, I think he could be one of the better WRs in the league.

I'm not sure its quite that simple. I think you also have to weigh the available players in R2-7, the immediate impact of any player picked in R1, your ability to fill all need positions with *quality* prospects, the players on the roster and whether they have any upside, how much you already have invested at that position, the grade discrepancy between the 'talent' player and the 'need' player....and the list goes on.

Cottam and Hubbard are the two picks that I really do not like. Both are workout warriors with great test numbers, but neither have done anything as receivers on the field. I could do without the FB in R4 as well, but that's where he'll probably go. The rest of it is OK. I'm actually not anti-Derrick Harvey, and I could live with it, but I think it'll be 2-3 years before you see any real return on that investment and the upside isn't tremendously high. Hardy? Good pick, but based on averages over the years, he probably won't be there (usually pick 41 nets the 6th or 7th WR off the board).

That's probably true. Then again, Kelsay did tie a career low in terms of sacks and was playing on a problematic ankle much of the year. Denney wasn't healthy at any point in the year, also setting a career low in sacks. I've criticized the entire group as much as anyone over the years, but I also don't think that last year was entirely indicative of their ability. All three guys have proven in the past that they're fully capable of adding 3-4 sacks to their totals from last year. As for Harvey being an upgrade, I think he might be. Then again, the guys taken in R1 last year sure didn't do much. Gaines Adams had 6 sacks. The next four guys off the board had 6 sacks combined. If the Bills do draft him, don't expect miracles out of him as a rookie. I would expect 2-4 sacks from Harvey in 2008 if he joins this team. That's about average for a rookie DE in R1 over the last several years.

Just wondering if anyone has any information on the guy. It seems that the rankings are all over the board, given that he broke his toe late in the year and has yet to work out for the scouts. The question I have is whether or not this guy is a legitimate sleeper for that 11th overall pick, or is it clearly too high? From what I gather, he's a very smart, high character player who fits the mold of a big, physical cover-2 CB and at worst, could transition into the FS spot for the Bills.

If anyone actually cares, Kiper has updated his top 25. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/melkiper/index The three obvious notables: Malcolm Kelly: out of the top 25 Derrick Harvey: Now 23rd. Devin Thomas: Up to 20th.

You can indeed play what-if at any position (although DE production in year 1 is generally poor). The point, however, is that you eventually have to trust the guys you already have as well as your own judgement as a GM/staff. I don't know why they had such a bad season, but I do know that they were a respectable 13th and 8th in the NFL in sacks in 2005 and 2006, repectively. Luckily I'm not the GM, but if I were, I'd tend to give them another year to prove that '07 was an abberation, especially given all the money and picks that I've poured into it, while at the same time hedging my bets by adding someone in the middle of the draft. BTW, I'm actually leaning slightly towards CB with that first pick, not WR.

I'd also point out that for all the complaining about Aaron Schobel (and I've done it, too), he actually leads ALL defensive ends drafted in R1 and 2 since 2000 with 67.5 career sacks. Of the rest, only 4 managed double digit sacks a year ago, and just 15 had 5 or more. There were 48 drafted in that period, BTW.

They're not short on cash, but when you have to keep shoveling money into one area of the team year after year after year, eventually, you want to see some return on your investment. At some point, you have to show some faith in your front office and in the guys you've invested in. What if Harvey produces 3 sacks this year? Do you draft another DE in R1 next year? The top 4 DEs drafted last year produced a grand total of 9, 6 of which came from Gaines Adams.