Dawgg

Agreed. Taking the best player at OL, DL, LB, or CB -- whoever that may be -- will serve this team well.

Apparently not...

You can't handle the truth! ... and I love your posts. All 26K of them.

... and you wonder why Bills fans embrace mediocrity today

The Bills devoted a second rounder in 2002, a first rounder in 2003, and another second rounder in 2005 -- all to the WR position. Look where that's gotten us. NOWHERE. WR is the last piece of a puzzle that's far from being complete. This team is woefully thin on the offensive line (one injury and it's back to square zero). This team lacks playmakers in the secondary... they play hard, but they're simply not good enough. The pass rush can use improvement -- DRAMATIC improvement. There are plenty of needs that would be better to address in round one, unless of course the WR is truly a rare talent, the type that can take over a game.

Let me explain it for you. The Giants didn't waste any of THEIR high first-rounder on a WR. They spent their first rounders fortifying other positions, and managed to get their #1 receiver in free agency. Same goes for the Patriots. The point is, WR is a position that's relatively easy to strengthen outside the draft. Other positions aren't. At least you and Matt Millen agree.

... and the Jags sure wish they had some of those picks back. I think they realized, after watching the Matt Jones and Reggie Williams, that picking a receiver with a first round pick is a risky proposition at best... which is why you see them addressing the position in free agency. I don't agree that the same applies for DBs... DBs, particularly corners, have skyrocketed in price and drafting them has become essential. But I do think teams that consistently spend high draft picks at WR generally aren't as consistent as those who spend them on both lines and/or the defense.

The Giants and Pats acquired their WRs through free agency. The Colts took Harrison and Wayne outside of the top 15, with Wayne being at the end of the first round. In the top 15, I think it's best to take the best defensive playmaker or OL/DL available.

I don't think this argument advocates for taking a DT with #11 regardless of the situation. I think the point is that teams that prioritize defensive playmakers over WRs in the first round tend to be more consistent over the long haul... and I think AKC is absolutely correct in that assertion. As I pointed out in previous posts, we had Wilfork and Tommie Harris staring at us in the face and we took Lee Evans -- a good player in his own right -- but let's not kid ourselves... that was a mistake. Let's not repeat it

Agreed 100%. Great post.

Receivers in the first round are luxury picks -- picks you make when either it's (a) a WR with rare skills and ability or (b) when your other needs have been addressed. Granted numerous good receivers have come out of the first round, it's quite rare for them to make significant contributions in year one and more often than not in year 2 as well. Now contrast the "draft" marketplace for WR with the free agent marketplace for WR and you notice that there is a very fluid market for WRs... you see good receivers with plenty left switching teams quite often and at reasonable prices. The same can't be said about cornerbacks and pass rushers. Both positions have seen their respective prices fly through the roof, making them much harder to strengthen in free agency (without surrendering record $) -- hence the need to fortify the positions in the draft. EDIT: We had Tommie Harris and Vince Wilfork staring us in the face and we took Lee Evans. Love Lee... but let's not make that mistake again, please

Thank you. That's where WR should be addressed. Not in round 1.

You can't judge a WR by his stats. Nevermind, carry on with your regurgitation

Hold up... he had a hip problem his rookie year and missed the year, but played 2 full years free of injury. Yeah, he had an ankle issue last year that limited him to 6 games... but he made significant contributions as soon as he returned, both in regular season games and playoff games. To me, that shows that he's well-conditioned. I think the concerns about his injury history are a bit overblown. So why not sign this guy? He's a veteran, played on a winning team and would provide some solid leadership on this squad. We have spent enough first day picks on receivers (we have 3 on the squad already). Let's spend our premium picks on defensive playmakers.

I disagree on Hackett. This is precisely the type of player the Bills need to be targeting in free agency. As for his injury risk, I don't think that's why he got so little money. The market simply dried up. You saw what happened to Bryant Johnson -- he had to settle for a one-year deal It's hard to break into a lineup when you're a 5th round draft pick competing with Deion Branch, Darrell Jackson, Bobby Engram, and Nate Burleson. Those players were either (a) making a ton of money or (b) highly touted players coming out of the draft... so I'm not sure if we can fault the guy for the number of starts he's had, given the circumstances. It's hard to judge a receiver solely by his numbers -- you have to watch him play. From what I've seen of Hackett, he'd be a great fit. I'm sure you think that the Bills should extend Lee Evans and make him one of the highest paid receives in the league. If you judge him on numbers alone, it doesn't make a very good case to pay him that kind of coin... if you watch him play and consider the underlying circumstances, you might have a different opinion on the issue. But if you want to talk numbers, one that popped out at me wrt Hackett: With a full season under his belt in 2006, a whopping 73% of his receptions went for first downs. He knows where the sticks are, he helps move the chains, and he's seems like a pretty smart player from what I've seen. Why? Rookie WRs generally take a while to develop. This team is looking for immediate help and there are good options available. Hackett is exactly the type of player we should be going after. He's young, he's cheap, he's played on winning teams, and he has a few years of experience under his belt.

A good front office is able to make independent valuations of their players in context with other players in the NFL. The Bills front office is far from good, and that's been the reason why this franchise is mired in mediocrity.

LOL I seriously thought somone had hijacked his account when I read that

NO WAY. If the Bills were one player away, then we can talk. But this team has too many holes to justify a trade like that.

By no means am I suggesting that the Bills take the most ruthless approach at all times. Nor am I saying that they should maximize value at every single opportunity. What I am commenting on is THIS opportunity in particular. When you have the undisputed #1 player in free agency, you simply must try and get something in return. The Bills could have given Nate and his agent full permission to speak with other teams and negotiate a contract and then afterwards could seek out some compensation, be it a 2nd or 3rd round pick. It doesn't have to be as acrimonious as the Lance Briggs situation. In the case of Peerless Price, all parties came out winners. Peerless was able to negotiate with the Falcons and get the contract he wanted, and the Bills were able to work out adequate compensation. These types of opportunities are very rare... when you have a premier young pending free agent on your roster and you have a chance to improve your team. Marv should have taken advantage of it. I understand your argument that this build goodwill with other players, but the reality of the situation is that it really doesn't... players follow the money -- as they should.

Right on.

While I appreciate your point, and it sure does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside, I think it's very much overstated. Free agents AND agents look at three factors when they shop for teams (and contracts): 1. $MONEY$ 2. A chance to win 3. $MONEY$ Look no further than New England, where Bill Bellichick and the front office has proven to be among the most ruthless in the business. He cut team captain Lawyer Milloy a day before the season started, completely screwing him over. He demanded that Ty Law, who was arguably the MVP of their Super Bowl run, to take a paycut. He refused to even talk extension with the grossly underpaid Deion Branch. Yet they have no problem signing one of the Top 2 free agents on the market in Adalius Thomas? Wes Welker was happy to play for them, as is Donte Stallworth. So let me get this straight... players are willing to sign with a team that is KNOWN for underpaying its players and has a coach that would cut them in a heartbeat? Absolutely. You look at the way Tom Donahoe treated some of the incumbent veteran players when they walked out the door in 2001. Yet he had no problems signing some of the premier free agents in the NFL, like London Fletcher, Takeo Spikes and Sam Adams. I'm not going to sit here and say that Marv has done a bad job... I feel quite the contrary. I like the fact that he purged this team of excess baggage moving players such as McGahee and Mike Williams. But this was a mistake.

Nope, Marv made that deal. Make no mistake no GM who knows what he is doing would make such a promise, especially when they have a top-notch free agent on their hands. It was well known even before the season that Nate would be THE top free agent available at season's end along with Adalius Thomas. Nate had every reason to play hard for the Bills because he was playing for his next contract. The franchise tag would not have changed that. Now if Marv planned to make a legitimate run at signing Nate, then I can understand the move. In fact, when Marv made that boneheaded move, I figured that meant he was going to at least "attempt" to resign him... clearly, that was not the case. As you say, KNEW Nate was gone, which makes that move even more senseless. Franchising Nate Clements wouldn't fly in Buffalo? I understand that you will support any move Marv makes to the grave, but this is stretching it. It is completely within the rights of a franchise to apply the franchise tag and more often than not, it results in the player re-signing with that team. But if the Bills had no intention of paying Clements what he was worth on the open market (a GOOD decision IMO), they owed it to themselves and the fans to attempt at getting something in return. You think the 49ers would have surrendered a 2nd round pick for Clements? In a heartbeat. By your logic, why not give Spikes his release and allow him to negotiate with any team he wants? Why not release Willis and allow him to choose his team? Why did they wait so long just to get a 5th for Moulds? The bottom line is that when you have an asset that commands a value, it is the front office's job to ensure the franchise gets value in return. Marv botched this one up.

Nope, I'm saying he shouldn't have kept that promise to begin with. Nate could have held out all he wanted, but the Bills held all the cards. He still would have reported eventually in order to get paid for the season and more importantly, the Bills get "something" for him.... when asked why he made this promise, Marv said it would be "unfair." This is rather laughable coming from an NFL general manager. It's "unfair" to guarantee him a top-5 salary at his position? The Bills did that to Peerless and Peerless ended up with a $50M contract!

If Marv truly knew what he was doing, he would have franchised Clements and gotten something in return for him. You see the Skins offering a swap of first's for Briggs. I have also heard that they were offering the 6th pick and a swap for Asante Samuel as well. By agreeing to let Nate walk with no compensation in return, Marv missed the boat.

Adrian Peterson - Houston Patrick Willis - San Francisco Brady Quinn - Cleveland Amobi Okoye - St. Louis Ted Ginn Jr - Tennessee