habes1280

Good question, and I take your point about the value of NFL experience. My reasoning is that, to THIS staff, the SYSTEM is more important than X's and O's. I don't agree with their logic, mind you, nor do I like their gimmicks, but I think Hackett showed his own "rookie-ness" last night when he was forced to adapt to a QB that couldn't execute his gameplan. He (Hackett) needed to adapt on the fly and he couldn't do it. He was lost, and at times, our play-calling looked desperate (a flea-flicker from our own endzone with only one WR in the route-tree?), even BEFORE the game was out of hand. I don't trust Nassib's ability to read and diagnose defenses at the level of Josh Freeman, or for that matter, of David Carr; but I do trust his ability to run our offense, which, quite frankly, is the only offense that I think Hackett is capable of calling. There are better QBs out there, but I don't think our OC is versatile enough, at this stage in his career, to modify our offense to suit their strengths, or to effectively simplify it enough to make us competitive. Nassib would require very little adaptation, and in our circumstances, I think that gives us our best chance to win.

No, he's not on the practice squad. It would require a trade. That said, I really think this would be the best possible option. I'm not worried about the potential egg on the face of the front office; bringing in a promising young QB who knows the system and the terminology for a 3rd round pick makes a lot of sense. He'd know he is the backup, and he's had some time to get over the snub-- and after a poor preseason, the Bills might be able to land him with a 4th or a 5th. This would secure the QB and backup position for the foreseeable future, and, in my opinion, would give us the best opportunity to win in the short term. Bringing in a veteran QB with no knowledge of our gimmicks would be pretty tough to overcome.

That may be true, but it would have been nice to see some innovation from Hackett when Manuel went down. He all but forgot about the "easy throws" coaches typically feed cold QBs to establish confidence-- screens, passes to the backs in the flats, etc-- until the game was out of hand. A flea-flicker from your own end zone with only one receiver running a route is hardly a wise, high-percentage, or confidence inspiring play call. Hackett was challenged, due to circumstances outside his control, but he didn't really answer the bell. He was forced to adapt, and couldn't.

I agree. But I think what gets lost in the simplicity of these arguments is that the Bills didn't simply have two options: to (1) pay Levitre premium dollar in a talent-starved free agent market, or (2) to let him go. The Bills could have done with Levitre what they did with Eric Wood this year, or with Fitzpatrick two years ago, or with any number of previous veterans that they rightly or wrongly recognized as important fixtures of their roster: they could have negotiated a contract well IN ADVANCE of free agency (likely by a full season, as with Wood), and kept competitors from dictating (or driving up) his value. Granted, BOTH sides need to be interested in coming to these agreements early, but most players tend to be willing to trade the possibility of a premium contract for the security of long-term agreement one year before their current contract elapses. The Bills certainly understand this, but while there were some preliminary discussions (if memory serves) with Levitre early last year, they didn't last very long, and there wasn't a lot of interest on the part of the Bills in keeping discussions open-- with Levitre OR Byrd. The Bills instead took a chance, saved money last year, and ended up losing (arguably with both players). I know Whaley wanted to set a precedent-- he didn't want to get kicked around by aggressive negotiations, especially with Wood, Spiller, and others soon to enter contract years-- but the BILLS could have set a far more important one by locking up their core players BEFORE they hit the market. The front office's approach to Eric Wood-- showing loyalty and providing security by extending him early-- set a far more valuable precedent than letting Levitre walk (who did that benefit?) or playing hardball with Byrd.

With the installation of a complicated new defense being so time- and labor-intensive, it's surprising to see so many LBs released. It's not exactly the deepest position on the roster, and Bradham is facing a possible suspension. I wonder if they are dragneting for CBs.

It does. It brings them down to 50.

Disappointing to see Bryan Scott go. He's been a soldier. But the Thad Lewis cut is a bit of a head-scratcher, and makes me wonder whether they have discussions in the works for another, recently released QB (and no, not that one).

Convicted? No, never convicted.

Thanks! I saw your post earlier in this thread, and while I don't have adblock, I did toggle with my security settings for the site and added it to my "Trusted Sites" in IE, which seemed to do the trick. Thanks again for your input, and for pointing me in the right direction.

Anyone else have trouble loading videos on BB.com? I've had this issue for over a month-- tried different computers (all PC's) and different browsers and the videos just don't load.

Big day in professional sports. A lot of players coming out. http://www.theonion.com/articles/dolphins-wr-mike-wallace-comes-out-as-stupid-assho,32252/

Absolutely, without a doubt BARRETT JONES. Second round projection at a position of need (Guard) with a 4th Round pick would be an absolute coup, even if it required a trade-up. I have a feeling that they will be looking at CBs (Poyer, maybe Webb from William & Mary), but Jones would really make this draft, in my opinion.

You might be right, but no, I would personally not be interested in that trade. That's a lot of slots to slide (to the very bottom of the first) and a lot of risk to take for only one additional pick in the top-100. With all of the teams that could easily trade up to 27-29 from their high slots in the 2nd round to leap frog the Bills, there has to be considerable compensation to offset that risk. The chance that a QB could fall, this year's second and next year's first were really the cinchers for me. Without that, I think they're better off fielding more modest trade-down offers (say, #15 and a 3rd and 4th rounder) or simply standing pat.

In fairness-- and with some cynicism sprinkled it-- most of the general population aren't coached on how to take the Wonderlic and drilled on the types of questions that are asked. Scoring extremely well is still a modest accomplishment, but it means a lot less than scoring poorly.

I would, too. It would really be a dream scenario, provided the Bills could play the kind of hardball necessary to engineer a trade yielding this many picks. Ha! Exactly!

I noted this in another thread, but for what it's worth, the annual GM mock draft, done by a collection of pundits each acting on behalf of one given team, has the Bills trading their #8 pick for Atlanta's #30 (1st), #60 (2nd) and a 1st and 4th round pick in 2014; and STILL drafting Barkley with the 30th pick in the 1st round. Needless to say, this is a dream scenario, but Atlanta has shown that they're willing to empty the cupboard to move up-- here's hoping that Buddy's eagerness doesn't keep him from getting this kind of value from a willing trade partner (who, I promise, won't OPEN the negotiations with this many picks).

For what it's worth, the annual GM Mock Draft, done by a collection of pundits each acting on behalf of one given team, has the Bills trading their #8 pick for Atlanta's #30 (1st), #60 (2nd) and a 1st and 4th round pick in 2014; and STILL drafting Barkley with the 30th pick in the 1st round. Needless to say, this is a dream scenario, but Atlanta has shown that they're willing to empty the cupboard to move up-- here's hoping that Buddy's eagerness doesn't keep him from getting this kind of value from a willing trade partner (who, I promise, won't OPEN the negotiations with this many picks).

I can't speak for the front office, but as someone who lives in Minnesota and listens, begrudgingly, to both fans and local pundits on a daily basis, I can say that there is a LOT of regret among commentators and members of the fan base over the Ponder selection, most of whom still see QB as a need position. The Vikes offense certainly performed well enough last season, but that performance was largely on the shoulders of their league MVP running back. Ponder showed flashes of potential down the stretch, but that wasn't because there were entire GAMES where he took the team on his shoulders, it was because he made individual THROWS within those games that exceeded expectations. The fact that he's their starter is hardly evidence that they made the right call-- he's simply the best of what's around and they invested too much in him to turn the page just yet (see J.P. Losman). Don't be surprised if this time next year, the Vikings are sniffing around for better options. The Bills are in a different situation entirely. They have a veteran on the roster who can take snaps if need be, and if the draft goes according to expectations, there won't be a QB spree early in the first round to force the front office's hand.

Fair enough. That might not have been the most illuminating sampling of the players still left on the board. But my point was simply that tempering one's expectations of a top-100 pick might be a bit too generous. I don't think that Nix and Co. have been terrible draft managers, and I agree with the posters who point to the success of our first round selections these past three years. I like those guys, too. I just think that for a team committed to building primarily through the draft for those years, and drafting near the top of the order in each round during that span, the results haven't supported the philosophy (one-third of our draft picks in the past three years are no longer in the LEAGUE, let alone contributing to our team). I'm still holding out hope that our fortunes will change-- that we will bring in an impressive crop of prospects this year, and that prospects from previous years will continue to improve and contribute-- but I'm skeptical, and that was my point: that the skepticism among many of the posters in this thread isn't unfounded.

I take your point, the turnover in coaching and schemes has hurt player development, but your point about Carrington is at the heart of our diminished expectations. Carrington wasn't a midround pick. He was a high third rounder, which puts him in the top 100 players taken that year-- ahead of Jimmy Graham and Aaron Hernandez, ahead of NaVorro Bowman, ahead of a host of other highly-touted prospects I'm too lazy to research. The top-100 is where a team that is building from the draft should be acquiring its nucleus. So to have three selections in that range, and to miss on two of them, isn't a success, no matter how adversarial the circumstances were for those players. Kyle Williams underwent the same schematic and coaching transitions, in both the Gailey and Jauron eras, and was always a fixture in the d-line rotation. And while Carrington has shown considerable flashes (especially on special teams), I think you're expecting less from him (and from the guys that drafted him) than you have a right to. I'm not saying that every one of Nix's picks has been middling or worse, and I'm not saying that turnover and scheme changes aren't part of the problem. I'm saying that when Nix got here, the cupboard was bare and the team needed talent. That was HIS assessment. They didn't need "scheme guys"; they needed talent-- guys that could get on the field and be productive across schemes and packages. And over the past three years, he's had first crack at more prospects than most GMs, and he just hasn't brought in the talent that he (and his philosophies) promised. That doesn't make him a disaster of a GM, but it does open him to some criticism from keyboard jockeys like us.

That said, I don't think your argument is off-base. The Bills' drafts during Nix's tenure haven't yielded the kind of talent he promised, or justified his philosophy that the team would be built through the draft. So to take your argument from a different angle, let's look at each of the Bills' drafts during Nix's run... 2010 Draft 1) C.J. Spiller (starter) (Pro Bowl alternate) (#9) 2) Torrell Troupe 3) Alex Carrington 4) Marcus Easley 5) Ed Wang (not in league) 6) Arthur Moats 7) Danny Batten (not in league) 8) Levi Brown (not in league) 9) Kyle Calloway (not in league) 2011 Draft 1) Marcell Dareus (starter) (only player in top 7 NOT elected to Pro Bowl) (#3) 2) Aaron Williams (starter) 3) Kelvin Sheppard (starter) 4) Da-Norris Searcy (projected starter) 5) Chris Hairston 6) Johnny White (not in league) 7) Chris White 8) Justin Rogers 9) Michael Jasper (not in league) 2012 1) Stephon Gilmore (starter) (#10) 2) Cordy Glenn (starter) 3) T.J. Graham 4) Nigel Bradham (starter) 5) Ron Brooks 6) Zebrie Sanders 7) Tank Carder (not on team) 8) Mark Asper (not on team) 9) John Potter (not in league) That's 27 picks (including a top-10 pick in each draft). 1 Pro Bowl alternate. 7-8 starters (several of whom the team would likely choose to replace with better talent). 9 not on team. 7 not in league. Those fortunes could change. Guys like Ron Brooks and Zebrie Sanders and Alex Carrington might grow into serviceable starters at their positions. Others, like Aaron Williams, might benefit from a move to a new position. But for a team with an empty cupboard looking to build itself through the draft alone (as they were in 2010), it's hard to make a solid case for their draft day performances. In terms of pro personnel, I think we've done well. We've brought in a lot of talent, some of them street free agents and practice squad fodder on other teams, and have seen a lot of productivity from them. But where the draft is concerned, for a team drafting near the top of the order in each and every round, our results have been substandard. It doesn't take this long to rebuild if your front office is drafting well.

Exactly. The front office should get credit (Whaley, in particular, as Director of Pro Personnel) for the free agents they've signed and plugged into the lineup. Chandler and Urbik might have been drafted by other teams, but neither was a viable enough prospect for their original teams to protect them or match the Bills' offer. It's to the front office's credit that they're in Buffalo.

If you're talking about the pirated conversation with the Tampa GM, Buddy and Dominick were floating potential trades. Dominick wanted to move one of their tackles, and Buddy wasn't interested in trading for him. That doesn't mean he'd have no interest in drafting one, especially if a viable top-five prospect slid and represented the best talent available on the board. Agree on both counts. Glenn played admirably last year, and I don't think he creates a need at Tackle, but if the talent evaluators see someone who projects better at the position (a true blue-chip prospect and a potential Pro Bowl-caliber player), then I think we'd be wise to take him and kick Glenn inside to G (where most scouts projected he'd play at the highest level). After the injuries we've suffered along the line these past couple of years, and losing our most durable lineman, I don't think we'd hurt ourselves getting deeper and more talented in the trenches.

Seconded. Count me amoung the few that think that reaching for a QB this year isn't the wisest move. We've seen twice before, with Losman and Edwards, that investing in the development of the wrong QB can force you to pass on drafting the right one the following year. I'm not sure the Vikings got better doing that with Ponder, or the Jags with Gabbert, and we certainly didn't with our aforementioned heirs to the throne. I'd like to see the Bills get their guy, and to be aggressive in doing so, but for a team with this many holes to reach for a QB simply because they don't have another answer and he's the best of what's left, doesn't seem like a recipe for short or long term success to me. I'd have been okay with it before we lost Levitre and Rhineheart and Barnett and Donald Jones and David Nelson, but those guys left us with a lot of holes to fill, and to get better, we've got to replace them with better-than-average draft prospects (and perhaps a few free agents after the June 1st cuts). If their guy isn't around at their pick in the first or second, then let's fortify other positions with more viable prospects. I'd rather they give a rookie QB a solid roster in 2014 than give a mediocre QB a shallow roster in 2013.

A competent draft. Buddy's helmed three drafts now (and assisted in a fourth). In that time, he's drafted 27 players, and exactly one Pro Bowler (an alternate) against 9 players who are no longer on the team, and 7 who are no longer in the league. For a team that is drafting in the top ten every year, and building its roster primarily through the draft, that isn't good enough.