habes1280
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by habes1280
-
-
Kind of a bummer about Carder. I thought he outperformed McKillop and White in preseason games. Shed blocks reasonably well for a rookie and drove opponents backward on tackles-- unlike others who grabbed and pulled them down for positive yardage. According to his own tweets, he wasn't a great fit in Buffalo, but I think he could have been.
-
[turn the sound off-horrible]
youtube.com/watch?v=tS2-Nw-ph98&feature=topics
Watch either these or Byrd's highlights to the audio from this video...(that was a mouthful).
-
Tank carder
I like Tank Carder, too, especially after seeing that surfing video with the bulldog I posted in an earlier thread.
That said, I think there are better options still on the board, and Carder is a guy that might slide to the 5th (or later), where guys like Bobby Massie, Zebrie Saunders, and Ronnell Lewis likely won't.
All of those three came into the draft with starting-caliber grades. I'm not sure how well Lewis projects as a 4-3 SLB, so for that reason, I'm leaning toward Saunders, then Massie (and possibly even James Brown) with the first of our 4ths, and hoping that Lewis makes it to us with our 2nd. I'd love to have some bona fide depth and competition at tackle, and Saunders/Massie would give us real security at that position for the first time in recent memory. I'm really excited by the prospect of a deep depth chart at tackle (particularly knowing that Glenn could always bump inside to guard, where he might be a more natural fit).
In the 5th, though, I'd love Carder...and his bulldog.
-
I really expect there to be a run on WRs at the beginning of Round 2 and us having the pick of the litter at LTs. I could see us grabbing Martin. He will have this entire year plus next off season to add the bulk and muscle. We will grab a WR in round 3 most likely.
From your lips to God's ears.
That being said, I originally expected our #10 to go to Floyd or Gilmore/Kirkpatrick. The choice was going to be whether we wanted to solidify the Defense or grab an offensive toy. I don't think Buddy will find the WR he wants later in this draft. I really don't expect to find a big WR who is open even when he isn't in a later round.
Buddy has gone on record saying that he would only trade up to grab a player if he felt we were a player away. I think WR is going to be our big hole going into next off season and that is when we will get our great WR. I don't think that the type of player we want will be around later in this draft...
From what I guessed our draft board to be earlier (2CBs, 2OL, LB depth, WR), I think we will grab our LTs our CB and our LB and punt the WR till next off season...
I'm thinking and hoping the same. Tackle is a bigger need than WR, considering how little depth there is behind our current starters, and there are several players with first round grades who have slid into the 2nd. The same can't be said of WRs-- there are still talented guys on the board, but none of the caliber that Buddy Nix has discussed. Hill looks promising, but he's hardly the can't miss difference maker that our offense (and for that matter, ALL offenses) want and need.
Are you as dumb as you sound lmao. Seriously you just named 4 guys you'd like. Of them, Martin or Adams MIGHT project as an LT. And Randle/Hill/David would be better than the others. So we should give up extra picks to move up to grab one of 5 guys (7 if we include the bozos you mentioned) when we most likely could grab one of them at 41, and probably will have our choice of at least 3-5 of them. Wow. Just wow.
Are you tipping back a few? Typing with flared nostrils?
Why the aggression? It would have taken less time to type "I disagree", and it would've given you a few extra seconds to think of better things to do with your time.
-
Ruben Randle
Courtney Upshaw if he is still there.
Another starter is the only criteria I have.
I'd take a LT later in the draft.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you-- we still have too many pressing needs to reach-- but when the #3 LT prospect on most boards slides out of the first, I'd make an aggressive move to land him in the second. Cordy Glenn fits the mold the Bills have created for their OL-- big-bodied, great feet, versatility-- and with the aggressive moves being made to improve the Jets and Pats* front seven, I'd feel a lot more comfortable of the Bills were devoting equal attention to their offensive line.
I like Lavonte David, but I have major issues with Courtney Upshaw. I understand that people make mistakes, but it's hard to overlook the character concerns of a guy that tossed his girlfriend around. An anonymous scout had a similar reaction...
"The more Courtney Upshaw talked (in the interview process), the more I got scared. He has a lot of distractions in his life. There are a lot of concerns there. We need an edge guy, but we wouldn't touch him in the first (round). I'd have hesitations in the second where we're picking, after hearing him talk about grabbing his girlfriend by the hair."
There's plenty we don't know about his circumstances, but there are also plenty of other prospects available who can improve our team and don't bring with them this kind of baggage.
-
Cordy Glenn
Jonathon Martin
Bobbie Massie
Mike Adams
Courtney Upshaw
Lavonte David
Stephen Hill
Reuben Randle
Alshon Jeffrey
That's a nice crop. We'd catch a real break if Cordy Glenn made it to us at #41. It would be great to have a mauler at G or T that could handle the improved Pats* front seven. I think he'd be a huge attitude-changer for the offense. Massive body, great feet, and versatile-- exactly the kind of player that the Bills covet for the OL.
That said, if we missed on him, I'd cry fewer tears if we landed Lavonte David. Position of need, a natural OLB, and a great guy who we'd love to pull for. I can't say the same for Courtney Upshaw...
And while many of you noted that Fleener isn't a position of need (I might disagree-- he's a playmaker and our offense needs more of them), the fact remains that SOME team will be interested in him, and that would bode favorably for our chances at a player like Glenn or David.
-
Don't bother watching, here's how the first ten picks went...
1. IND - Andrew Luck
2. WAS - Robert Griffin III
3. MIN - Morris Claiborne
4. CLE - Trent Richardson
5. JAX - Justin Blackmon (trade w/ TB)
6. STL - Fletcher Cox
7. TB - Luke Kuechly
8. MIA - Ryan Tannehill
9. DAL - Mark Barron (trade w/ CAR)
10. BUF - Matt Kalil
From your lips to God's ears.
-
If anything, putting a team your already familiar with and likely to beat anyway hurts the pats.
Look, this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water, and I think everyone knows that. But having an additional week to rest, recover, and prepare for a divisional foe (even one you are likely to beat), who, if an away game, is only a short commuter flight away is definitely a convenience. If you're confident in your chances, it's an extended holiday-- like having nothing of significance due the Monday after a long weekend. If you're not as confident, it's an added week to gameplan, prepare, and get healthy.
I don't believe for a moment that the NFL has conspired to give the Pats* an edge, it's just a nice break for a team that catches a lot of them.
-
Agree...Vikings have great tradition and should not leave Minneapolis. It is a very good city and they support the team...in fact sorry Buffalo, but it is a much bigger, and nicer city than Buffalo is. If they leave-there is a chance-a good one-they get a team later which puts us in jeopardy once again...
I hate to disagree with this, but I grew up in Minneapolis, and the fanbase for the Vikes waxes and wanes. There's a small but ardent base for the Twins and the Wild, but the larger population is VERY fair-weather. It's a great city, but it's no longer a great NFL city like Green Bay or Buffalo. Fans come out in droves when the team is winning, Purple Pride flags everywhere, but the moment the team goes on a two-game slide, the flags go back in the trunk and attendance dwindles.
Some of this is due to the commuter stadium-- there's no atmosphere on gameday, no parking, and no tailgating like there was at the old Met (now the Mall of America)-- but the team has drifted further and further from the culture and identity of the city. There's a strong tide of indifference and even indignation toward this new stadium. The team is slumping, and a lot of people of people are growing to resent the constant threat of relocation. The deal isn't dead, yet, but it's going to be a tough sell.
Thankfully, like all fair-weather cities, all it will take is one big-splash season to change the entire disposition of the debate.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CskH9ZJGo7s&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4B2EF320AAC142C5
Awesome, thanks for the in-depth feedback!
As we get closer to the draft, I'll probably do a 2nd version as I'm starting to agree with the arguments against taking so many LBs. If nothing else, keeping Chris White on the roster at ILB, and dropping Carder... maybe even taking only 1 CB as well. That gives me some wiggle room to make a couple of "reach" picks at backup QB and/or TE.
I didn't look too closely at your final roster, but would agree that Chris White deserves another look. Apart from that, though, I like your original strategy. We need overall depth, and LBs and CBs are a great place to start-- both are war-torn positions, and if not beset by injuries, both provide solid special teams potential. They are also, historically, great positions to draft in the middle rounds, which is precisely where you took them. A backup QB would be nice, but we can always pluck a journeyman after the first round of roster cuts. I wouldn't choose a developmental guy over any of the players you picked.
And by the way, I loved your Tank Carder pick, and after seeing this video, you'll never again consider dropping him from you mocks.
-
Ehhh, not so sure about that. We have 5 picks in the top 125, and 10 picks total. Last year Buddy turned 5 picks in the top 125 into 4 starters. And Searcy looks promising.
No GM (or fan) ever feels as if their roster is "fully complete". There will always be some holes to fill and guys to upgrade. The good news is that we have far less holes than previous years, and that list has been shortened every year Nix has been in charge. If we could pull off this draft (or something similar/better) then we really dont have many holes left, just upgrades.
Playing along, let's assume we pull off this draft. Where are the biggest holes as you see them?
I don't disagree; our list of need positions has been trimmed considerably under the current leadership. My point was merely that we have four to five major needs, depending on your opinion of our young LBs and whether you think we're set at RT, and so several of those needs are going to be addressed outside the first three rounds. This isn't to say there isn't considerable talent available in those slots, I was just trying to give your mock a break from my (and others') initial reflex after seeing no OL drafted in the top three rounds.
As for your question, I honestly don't know what our major holes would be if we hit on all your picks, but I'll bite anyway. I'd like to see how guys like Chris White on the inside, and Batten and Moats on the outside, look in the 4-3 before I question our depth at LB, particularly with David, Davis, and Carder coming on board. You certainly accounted for our needs at WR and CB, in my opinion.
My biggest concern would likely still be at LT. I'm not sure whether we'd have an anchor at LT in Mosley, Potter, or Datko, but I'd love our depth and competition at RT (and possibly guard). I'd be hopeful, though, which is more than I've been able to say about our OL for several years.
I think Mosley could be a beast at RT, and Potter has experience at both tackle positions, and at guard. Datko, if his injuries are behind him, might actually be the best LT prospect of your draft crop-- a 7th round pick is a pretty small investment for a player of his talent-- I'd be thrilled if we drafted him.
-
Thanks for clicking! Over the weekend I used PFW's draft value chart, and put together a mock draft and my 53-man roster
Draft Disclaimer: I started by identifying our biggest needs as WR, OT, LB, and CB (in no particular order). I then made a 4x4 chart that laid out approximately which players would be available at each position in each round (basically a much smaller version of PFW's chart). I then ran through the different scenarios of addressing all of our needs in different orders. As in, what happens if we go OT-WR-LB-CB vs LB-OT-WR-CB vs CB-LB-WR-OT, etc etc...
Looking at all of the outcomes, I identified what I think is the draft that adds the most talent at each position of need. My final version looks like:
1. Michael Floyd, WR Notre Dame (assuming Blackmon is gone or else he is the pick)
2. Lavonte David, LB Nebraska
3. Casey Hayward, CB Vanderbilt
4a. Brandon Mosley, OT Auburn
4b. Josh Norman, CB Coastal Carolina
5a. Nate Potter, OT Boise St
5b. Demario Davis, LB Arkansas St
6. Tank Carder, LB TCU
7a. Marquis Maze, WR Alabama
7b. Andrew Datko, OT Florida St
While I really like this draft and these players, I'm not necessarily married to anyone specific. If you want to argue we should pick Wagner (OLB) in round 2 instead of David, fine. I'm not going to pretend to have a full scouting report on these guys. I wanted to address some needs of lesser priority, such as backup QB, but when looking at who might be available in the 5th-7th rounds, there just wasnt a QB available that was worth sacrificing a better player for.
[What you think, folks?
I like this mock, actually. A lot of sizzle without sacrificing picks to move up in the order.
I hate admitting this, but even with the free agent bounty, we're still entering the draft with more holes than we have premier picks. And that's not pessimism.
So while I'd have liked to see more attention paid to the offensive line in the early rounds, the board just might not give us that opportunity. I love the Mosley pick in the 4th, but would have been even more excited if we'd have fortified the line with another lineman later in the round-- someone like James Brown (assuming he slips a bit).
-
There's really no logical downside to Gilmore-- he might actually be the safest pick at #10, if he even slides that far. What he seems to represent, though, through no fault of his own, is a trend that's grown tired at One Bill's Drive: drafting talented, highly-productive defensive backs in the first round that fail to change the identity of the defense. Everyone knows that this took place under the old regime(s), but I speak for more than just myself when I say that I know what it's like to have a talented defensive backfield, and it never seemed enough to change the defensive culture, let alone the culture of the entire team. Talent among the front seven on defense, or along the offensive line, isn't more important than the defensive backfield, but it's novel, and would represent a significant change in direction from the previous era.
I think that's what inflects people's perception on free agency and the draft. They want to believe that something is changing, and a deep, penetrating defensive line, aggressive, talented LBs, and a strong offensive line all provide the appearance of change much more dramatically than another top-flight defensive back.
I'm not saying this is the right approach to take-- and it's NO reason not to draft Gilmore, but it might be a reason why some are shying away from him, and hoping for guys like Kuchely, Ingram, Upshaw, or the best available LT. We've been in this hole for a long time, and we want to believe our path for climbing out of it isn't the same path that's failed us before.
-
I really like www.draftcountdown.com
Seconded. He's been a little unreliable with his updates these past couple of years-- disappears for long stretches and hasn't completed his evaluations in a timely way (or in 2010, at all). But when he's around, he's outstanding.
-
I would argue that this team's biggest need is for difference makers. I'd break these players down into three categories.
1. Players who can be productive despite being double teamed. Bruce Smith could get sacks despite double teams. Jerry Rice could catch passes despite double teams.
2. Players who can single-handedly take care of category 1 difference makers. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could single cover Rice, and keep him under control.
3. Players who play at the level as the first two types, but at positions which don't lend themselves to being category 1 or 2 difference makers. Barry Sanders and Joe Montana fall into this category.
Other than at defensive line, how many difference makers can you think of on this team? Only one player comes to my mind: Fred Jackson. It's very difficult to acquire more than one difference maker a year. So it's not like the goal of acquiring this kind of player can be put off for now with a reasonable expectation that lost ground can be made up for later. If the team is to become a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl within the next three to four years, the time to start adding difference makers is now. Adding a difference maker at LT would be an excellent start!
I take your point, and agree that, beyond Fred Jackson, there weren't consistent game-changers on last year's roster. I also agree that Kalil is the consensus choice to be the "difference making" LT of this year's class. If, by your logic, we could engineer a trade to secure one game-changing player at any position, I agree it should be at LT, and I agree it should be Kalil. I don't, however, think that staying at 10 precludes the Bills from drafting a difference making player, it just wouldn't be Kalil (and if a game-changer was what they were after, it wouldn't be a LT, either). That doesn't mean they couldn't fill that need at #10 with a high-production player, or in rounds 2-4, with a high-promise one. It just wouldn't be the consensus #1 LT in this year's crop. Your example of Fred Jackson is a telling one (Kyle Williams and Stevie Johnson are two others): marquee players can be had outside the first round.
As for depth, I have not suggested the Bills trade away their picks in rounds 4 - 7. Even if trading away some of those picks did become necessary to secure Kalil, it would be worth it.
This is where you start to lose me. I'm not sure I understand the logic. Moving from 10 to 3 is a steep jump at a steep price. According to the trade value chart, it would cost at least a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 5th (assuming we didn't mortgage next year's picks). And losing nearly half of your draft picks would come at a cost of drafting players that can and should improve our talent and depth.
I understand that you're excited about Kalil. I'd love to see him here, too. But not at this price, especially when the predictive measures for left tackles is about as reliable as the one for marquee quarterbacks. We might get the #3 LT at pick 10, or the #5 LT in Round 2, who becomes a better, more difference-making player for the Bills than the pundits' darling; and we'd still be able to draft a full class of promising young talent.
The remainder of those picks can be used to increase depth. Also, the Bills can obtain depth via UDFAs as well as free agents. Adding large numbers of backup-quality players to a roster is relatively easy, as Parcells showed by replacing most of the Dolphins' roster during his first year as GM.
I'd love to share your optimism, but fleshing out the depth chart with quality free agent signings hasn't been that easy.
By the way, while I disagree with you, I love the conversation and appreciate your enthusiasm. Ultimately, we both want the same thing, we just have different ideas of how best to get there.
-
I know many posters flounce at this, but I don't think Kalil is worth mortgaging this year's, or next year's, top-echelon picks. I'm certainly an advocate of drafting offensive lineman (I think one could argue question marks at both tackle positions, as well as depth in the interior), but I think beyond a few positions (OT, WR, LB, etc) the Bills' greatest "need" is depth. We've seen our team-- in each of the last several years-- undone by injuries and a shallow depth chart. Drafting players to fill holes in the starting roster is always ideal, but not at the expense of the remaining players who will work in rotational roles or round out the depth chart.
The OT class this year is fairly deep-- four potential first rounders, and several interesting candidates at the 2-4th round level (at the latter edge of that range, a guy like Brandon Mosely looks interesting)-- so there's little need to bundle picks to move to the head of the class. The well-developed teams can afford to draft players one at a time, packaging entire day's of picks for single prospects, but despite a promising offseason, we're still a developing team. Beyond strong draft picks, we need strong draft CLASSES to really turn the corner.
Just my two cents.
-
I agree with several previous posters, and think that this signing shouldn't change our draft approach all that much. I've always been a proponent of going with an OT, but it's a pretty deep OT class this year, and even with Super Mario inked, Ingram and Upshaw would still look awfully good in a Bills blue. With the switch to an even front, adding another DT would make a lot of sense, as well-- but our defensive line has been a problem for so long that maybe I'm being overly eager. I'd love Claiborne, but the consensus seems to be that he won't make it out of the top 5, let alone make the slide all the way down to 10.
-
According to Graham's sources, Pats set to trade or release Merriweather. Crazy.
-
Ed Wang just released, per Tim Graham.
-
what's funny is that we tried to re-sign almost all of those guys-- PW, AW, Greer, Fletcher, and Poz. Even Peters was more of a contract issue, and Clements would have broken the bank.
Baltimore is good because they draft really well and hang onto their own great guys. I don't recall their trades and FA signings being all that great--trading for Boldin (sub-par year last year), and McGahee (sub-par career) weren't very successful.
Unless I'm completely misremembering things, Pat Williams was willing to take less money to stay in Buffalo, and the front office was disinterested. I don't remember the succeeding GM (Marv Levy) making a serious effort to retain Fletcher, either. Both would have come back for a reasonable salary, and played for a losing franchise, because they believed in the team and they believed in the city.
I take no issue with losing Clements, Winfield, or even Greer-- we lost bidding wars to richer teams in each case-- but I think the point being made throughout this thread is that there WERE, in fact, talented players who wanted to stay, and it's those guys we were remiss to let go. New front offices seldom have loyalty to the stalwarts acquired by previous regimes. They want to put their own signature(s) on the team. I understand and accept that, but when you continue to lose seasoned talent and build anew, or to sacrifice proven talent and leadership in the quest for a new direction and identity, you are, as the Baltimore poster suggested, doing the wrong thing.
-
The problem with building through the draft is that you have to draft good players. Which we haven't done.
You might be right. It might also be that we've thrown them into the fire before they were ready (because we were dead-set against bringing in veteran talent from other franchises).
"If the Bills had always taken this approach, we never would have had Ted Washington, Chris Spielman, Bryce Paup or Takeo Spikes, just to name a few."
Again, I completely agree. Picking up a quality free agent or two to fill holes doesn't mean you aren't building through the draft-- grabbing an ILB, for example, doesn't mean that we don't still have Kelvin Sheppard and Chris White, it just means we'll have a better chance at production from that position, even if Kelvin Sheppard and Chris White aren't ready to produce.
We have no production and no depth at TE right now-- it's a position we couldn't address in the draft. So how are we to believe that we're better off without grabbing a more bona fide prospect than an undrafted rookie free agent with an injury history? How would acquiring a free agent TE hamper the development of the TE's we currently have on the roster? It just ensures that we'll be able to field a more competitive team while our young guys work their way through their learning curves.
-
I have nothing against Nix, nor do I have anything against his philosophies-- they are a breath of fresh air after the turnstyle Donahoe years.
What troubles me is how unwilling he seems to be to adapt or adjust to the unforeseen and the unexpected. I think this is what bothers a lot of fans-- it isn't impatience, but a natural response to a plan that seems to be sliding off course, with no effort whatsoever from the leadership to course correct. To say we are going to build a solid nexus through the draft, and then draft a class of only modest contributors, is disappointing. To take a perennial 7-9 team and drop them to 4-12 with no significant personnel losses is also disappointing. But to confidently boast about all of the things you're NOT going to do, and all the strategies you're NOT going to change in light of these disappointments is inexcusable.
No one is expecting the front office to open their proverbial wallets too widely, or overextend on inflated contracts for over-valued free agents. What it seems that many fans want is just a bit of self-reflection, and an effort to offset miscalculations with slightly different approaches. That seems reasonable and reactive. No one expected C.J. Spiller or Torrell Troup or Alex Carrington to play so small a role last season. And while they can (and likely will) improve, it isn't unreasonable to admit that the team is still missing some important pieces-- despite your efforts-- and so the front office is going to continue its rebuilding through alternative means. No one expected for Paul Posluzny to leave for a lucrative contract on the first day of free agency, but now that he has, it isn't weak-minded to admit that, with the injuries to Danny Batten, and the crop of rookie backers you drafted a few months ago but haven't yet met, you don't know what you have behind him. Bringing in a veteran ILB isn't going to impede the development of Chris White or Kelvin Sheppard, just as bringing in a veteran DT or DE isn't going to hamper Torrell Troup or Marcel Dareus, respectively; it's just going to allow them to develop at their own pace, and keep the team competitive in the event that they're not ready for a significant role in 2011. It just confirms for the fans that the front office is doing the best that they can to make the Bills a better team.
Leaning back in one's chair and telling the fans "I tole ya befoe. We gonna build through the draft. And we gonna keep our own guys" just doesn't hold water when your last draft has yet to show signs of real life (though it still might) and you just lost your highest priority free agent on the first day of free agency (even if he was wildly overpaid). It doesn't leave the perception that they're doing their best; it looks like they think they are a step ahead in a game they are losing.
There's a lot of room for me to be wrong, here, and I hope that I am.
-
Packers are an excellent model, but they do what buffalo refuses to do, ocasionally paying a stud free agent. Minus Charles Woodson the pack never would ne in the SB.
Their previous SB title was based on trading for Favre and making one of the biggest FA splashes ever, signing Reggie White.
I fully agree. I don't understand where it is written that teams who build through the draft must systematically avoid ANY and ALL significant free agent signings.
The teams that have been mentioned-- Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Diego-- have all built their foundations through the draft, yes; but that doesn't mean that they've slept through free agency, or refused to sign starting-caliber free agents to fill holes in their starting lineups.
In addition to Woodson, Favre and White, the Packers outbid the Bills in 2006 for Ryan Pickett, and makes a practice of filling needs with quality free agent signings. The Steelers signed James Farrior, Will Allen, and have re-signed guys like Randle-El and Larry Foote after stints with other teams. Even stellar draft classes yield a bust or two. Players hold out, get injured, prove ill-fitting in certain systems, clash with coaches and front offices-- in sum, not everyone fills the role for which they were intended/drafted, and some of those players were drafted to fill starting positions. In those cases, I don't understand why drafting a free agent with a history of success at the professional level hampers the nucleus acquired via the draft.
What's more, Buddy and the front office seem to take no issue in signing a free agent off another team's practice squad and plugging him/her into the Bills' starting lineup. His issue seems to be signing players with proven credentials that might cost money. I'm not for reaches, and I'm not for signing a bushel of marquee free agents every offseason at top dollar. But when we leave the draft with holes to fill, and create more holes by losing our own free agents, I'm not in favor of conceding seasons by fielding a team that the front office and coaching staff know is short-suited. This is a new front office and a new coaching staff, and I expect this evolution to take some time, but when your team finishes 4-12 and in the bottom 6 teams in offensive and defensive metrics, and when your previous draft class made only nominal contriutions, then your stated philosophies can and should be adjusted-- if only to fill new holes (with the loss of Posluzny) or improve positions you couldn't address in the draft. That isn't asking all that much.
-
Okay, we all know the relative value of analyses like these, so to obviate the impulses of many to write "let's wait 'til they don their gear before we test their mettle", or better, "it takes 3-5 years to get the measure of a man" or "4-6 games to measure the state of a franchise" or "6-8 weeks to craft a new cliche on the absurdity of draft grades", I'll simply say that I know that these kinds of evaluations are premature, but I've little better to do with my time, and nothing better to read (or nothing better that I WILL read), so give me a break...or at least flame creatively.
Anyhow, this guy's been pretty on-point these past few years-- his mocks have been fairly consistent and his evaluations are thoughtful, at a minimum. His obsession with grabbing mid-tier quarterbacks who project as backups leaves a little to be desired, but he's otherwise pretty good.
Bills cut list - 08/31/12
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
"Preciate everything the Bills have done for me thus far, wasn't the right fit, best of luck to the team and the organization #godbless"
https://twitter.com/tankcarder
Given that statement, I'm not sure that he's a likely addition to the practice squad-- and that's if he clears waivers, which is also doubtful.