habes1280

Understandable response, and you're probably right, but I won't be one of them. This is just a rumor that made news because of the Shanahan/Elway possibilities. There was never any mention of the Bills, and no confirmation that the Redskins are stirring this particular pot. I just think it introduces an interesting scenario-- and that is, do we believe that drafting a lottery pick is of the utmost importance, or do we think it better to use this pick to move back and fortify later rounds and future drafts. Nix has been a little duplicitous on this-- on one end, he says that the Bills will build primarily through the draft over free agency, and on another, he seems against working the board to increase his number of selections. Given the number of needs the team has had going into each of the last two offseasons, and the needs they are likely to have going into the NEXT offseason, I thought I'd turn it over to the fans-- who have suffered exponentially longer than Nix or Gailey, and might be less patient and less inclined to trade away attractive picks this year, for more attractive picks in the years ahead-- and see what the collective temperature was.

Sorry if this is posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it in a search. Rumors are gaining steam that Washington is looking to move into the top couple of spots to grab a franchise QB. For the Bills, this presents an interesting trade scenario. (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/39321/could-elway-shanahan-be-trade-partners) On the positive side, a trade like this would likely land the Bills Washington's 1st and 2nd Round pick (#10 and #41), AND, because Washington doesn't have a 3rd or 4th rounder, NEXT YEAR'S 1st round pick. So the Bills could grab an additional pick in the top 41 this year WITHOUT moving out of the top-10, and gain an additional 1st Rounder next year (when, if the projections deliver on their promise, the QB class will be significantly better). On the negative end, if the draft goes as many are anticipating, the majority of blue-chip defensive prospects could be gone by the 10th pick. NFL Draft Countdown, a solid mock by any standard, has Dareus, Peterson, Miller, Bowers, Amukamara, Fairley, and Watt, all taken in the first nine selections. So what do y'all think? Would it be worth foregoing players like Newton and Gabbert, Miller and Peterson, Fairley and, possibly, Watt (and drafting in their place a player like Cam Jordan, Aldon Smith, Tyrone Smith, Robert Quinn, or even A.J. Green-- who could slide), for the additional second rounder this year, and a first round pick in 2012? I'm curious to hear your opinions.

So you believe in Maybin's ability to make the transition to TE, you just aren't sure whether he can catch, run routes, or block?

Completely agree. The Bills have holes at nearly every major position on both sides of the ball (except, according to Nix, at DT). I'm all for drafting marquee prospects to fill the gaps in our defense, but the draft board doesn't always leave predictable openings, and you have to react to the talent the board leaves you. Like it or not, the Bills DO have glaring needs at TE and OT, and both of those positions would help accelerate and protect the development of a rookie QB (or whatever QB, rookie or veteran, we happen to field this season). And like it or not, there are players who will slide to the middle rounds who could still make an impact as either starters, rotational players, or as depth-line contributors on offense OR defense. Barring trades, the Bills have nine picks in this year's draft. They could conceivably draft offense in rounds 1-3 and STILL draft 6 defensive players and have a "defense-heavy" draft. I don't know that a draft like this is likely, but I concur with the previous poster-- if the Bills feel they are getting the #1 QB and TE of this year's class, and complimenting both with a starting caliber OT, it would be hard to argue the logic of these first three picks.

More evidence that the best quarterback in a given draft class isn't necessarily the best (or even a viable) option for a team in need. What makes me nervous is that the Bills braintrust will draft one anyway (and at #3). Buddy has already stated explicitly that DT isn't a position of need (???), and that things are looking promising-to-favorable at DE, and that they are looking for a long-term answer at QB. Pick #3 is a great place to draft one, but my issue is: 2011 doesn't look like a great YEAR to draft one. It's true that each year offers some surprises, and the QB position is no exception, but the guys at the top of the heap this year look like longshots, and the #3 pick in the draft is not the place to draft a longshot, no matter how high his upside might be. I wish it were different, and there were some consensus blue-chip prospects at QB, but that isn't the case, and I'd hate to draft a guy this year (as we did with J.P. Losman in 2004) that not only doesn't deliver, but keeps us from drafting a more promising player in an upcoming draft (as happened with Aaron Rodgers, who would have fallen to us in 2005). I could be way off on Cam and Blaine. I could be way off on Buddy-- but if history is any indication, Buddy's not one for misdirection in the weeks leading up to the draft, and he seems to be steering popular opinion away from the D-line and toward a possible QB. (Am I right in remembering that the only D-linemen we brought in for a visit was Bowers (who by most reports is ideally suited to play DE in a 4-3)? No Quinn (who, yes, would likely shift to OLB). No Dareus (who is scheme-versatile and could play either DT or DE in either alignment). No Fairley. No Watt. But both Gabbert AND Newton?)

I don't think this is awful, but I don't think it's terrible for Bills fans to scoff at this, either. I think the source of a lot of frustration is that this is NOT a good team; yet despite having crying needs at nearly every major position, Buddy hasn't exactly taken a leave-no-stone-unturned approach to turning this thing around. Rushing to the podium last year without waiting for last-minute trade offers is one example, going to bed at the start of free agency is another. What's more, he's been exceptionally confident in this approach, laughing at those who suggested that the Bills be aggressive in the early hours of free agency, or others who thought that the Bills might have been wise to play the board on draft day (how foolish!). And while the long-term yield of this approach is still being written, the short term shows some definite mis-cues. The front office couldn't have forecasted Brad Butler's retirement, but Cornell Green failed to even be a stop-gap, and was not the best that the free agent class had to offer. On the whole, the rookie class of '10 looked promising, especially their un-drafted players, but it's NOT overstating things to say that picks 1-3 were underwhelming in their first year, and did less than the front office, led by Buddy, anticipated ("with our top picks we want players that can come in right away and produce"). Not the kind of results that earn a guy an across-the-board benefit-of-the-doubt status among fans. At this point, I think everyone would simply appreciate SOMEONE saying "We're going to wait and see what's out there. We'll listen to all offers, and explore all possibilities," instead of hearing of all the things that they WON'T do, and WON'T consider. I personally think that Buddy is simply saying that they want a premiere player, one of the best prospects in the college class, and that additional picks aren't worth losing a guy they think is a franchise player. But I understand those fans that are bristling a bit by the way he's saying it.

I take your point, and appreciate the research, but I never said the Bills defense was never effective. I said they weren't reliable. Not from one game to the next, not from one season to the next. There was seldom a time in recent memory when, if our defense was on the field with two minutes left protecting a five point lead, ANY of us could draw a confident breath (ask The Senator's cardiologist). That's not to say they never succeeded, it's saying that they failed more often than they should have, and too often for our team to win games that they could have. Our defense DID take over a few games, just as the cornerbacks I mentioned made some outstanding plays and had some fantastic seasons, but neither did enough to dominate (or even execute) on a CONSISTENT basis. Statistics tell a different story, I know, but they don't always tell the right story. The 2004 defense that you mention-- which, you are right, was leaps and bounds better than many of the defenses that followed-- still gave up 32 points to a Dolphins offense that was averaging barely 17 per game, and still got dominated at the point of attack by Steelers depth players in a game that cost us a wildcard slot. Reliable defenses don't do that. The 2009 defense overachieved and played with heart, but gave up 27 point or more FIVE times (and 38 against the Dolphins, 31 against the Falcons and Texans, and 41 in a blowout loss against the Titans-- where, admittedly, 14 points came from pick-sixes). More often than not, the Bills have beaten the odds in reverse-- and instead of making plays when the chips were stacked against them, flubbed games when the odds were in their favor (ask Pitt in 2004, Dallas in 2007, or New England in 2009). Not all of this is on the defense and I'm not saying the defense is the biggest part of the problem; I'm saying they haven't been part of the solution, either. I'd just like whomever the Bills draft at #3 to be an important part of the solution, and someone that can contribute on more than just passing downs, that's all.

With respect, we've tried this approach and it hasn't worked. Between Antoine Winfield, Nate Clements, Terrence McGee, Jabari Greer, et al, we've had good-to-marquee players at CB for nearly the last decade, often with quality depth behind them; yet we haven't managed to build a reliable DEFENSE, let along a reliable franchise. Whatever their impact on other teams, steady-to-Pro Bowl play from CBs hasn't yielded much for our Bills (though for a little while, wicked return and coverage teams were nearly winning games by themselves, so your "return guy" comment, however tongue in cheek, does still carry water). I'll only have minor cardiac arrest if the Bills draft away from the lines in the first round (I've already made the necessary arrangements-- found someone to administer the chest massage, charge the defibrillator paddles, so on-- so don't worry about me. I'll be fine). What I don't want is for them to draft a situational player, or a guy that has to stretch to fit the demands of this particular defense. I'd just like a player who is a natural fit, and has already enjoyed a measure of success, at a position he'll be playing here. And I'd like that position to be one that's on the field in the majority of packages, and capable of making a play on the majority of downs-- in other words, something other than a situational pass rusher who struggles against the run (or in space, or in coverage, or with most pass-rush techniques), or a change of pace scatback who doesn't have a place (or the trust of his coordinator/head coach) in standard sets and packages. It's for these reasons that I'm in favor of Dareus at #3, and it's for these reasons that I wouldn't scoff at J.J. Watt (with or without a trade down). Both are natural 3-4 5-techniques that can move inside in a pinch and DON'T have to gain or lose a pound, or learn a new position, to make an EVERY DOWN contribution straight away. Both have a frame they could still grow into; both have shown game-changing ability; and both have played big in big programs and against premiere competition. That said, I suppose I agree with you. I fully expect the Bills to draft Patrick Peterson. And I expect to cry real tears.

Some mocks don't have Watt making it out of the top-10, so it seems a stretch, to say the least, that he makes it out of the first round entirely. It wouldn't happen without a trade-down, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Bills grab Watt with their first pick. A big kid (6-6 290) from a big program who has shown the ability to take over games, not to mention an ideal fit for the 5-technique in an odd front, there's a lot to like about him in Buffalo. My choice would still be Marcell Dareus at #3 (even if Fairley is on the board), but if a trade-down presented itself, I don't think it would be a huge step down to draft J.J. Watt in the middle of the round.

"Good bubble."

Whatever his other claims may be, Root seriously misremembers Benson's relationship with the city of New Orleans after Katrina; while he came around in the end, it wasn't before refusing to play home games in Baton Rouge, a courtship with the mayor of San Antonio, the firing of his executive vice president in the wake of his public statements advocating the team's importance to the city, and an aggressive intervention from the NFL commissioner and an "owner's committee" designed to "advise" Benson on the future of the Saints. Benson's loyalty to the city was neither immediate nor absolute.

Seconded.

Hi, Tim, and many thanks for your contributions. With tempered expectations in the GM and coaching searches being all the rage here in Buffalo, would fans be outreaching the franchise's possibilities in hoping for Gettleman as the GM-to-be? Are projects like the re-build in Buffalo as un-attractive to executives as they are (or might be) to potential coaching candidates, or are they opportunities to truly assert their authority and imagination over a franchise with little proven leadership/success in the executive ranks, and no organizational "direction" to maintain or abide? With little recognizable talent, direction, or identity, is Buffalo an ideal place to plant one's signature, or is it a disaster area to be avoided?

I'm inclined to agree. This is just thread spinning and an effort to endear himself to the Bears faithful. Their offer was hardly generous-- slightly better than the veteran minimum (and likely some incentives) for a chance to compete for a starting spot-- and these types of questions always gear players toward lemon-into-lemonade answers. Even with the addition of Cutler, the Bears are no lock to win the division-- to be sure, they're no lock for second place-- let alone playoff favorites. I don't see this as a bash of the Bills at all, but an effort by Pisa to make sure fans know that he garnered serious attention and better offers elsewhere, but it that CHICAGO was where he really wanted to be. That doesn't make it so.

He turned down a 6 year, $36 million offer to stay in Seattle (and the rumor is that negotations still aren't entirely dead), so I'm guessing that he might be well out of the Bills' range. Then again, the climate for free agent negotiations might change this late in free agency, with teams focused on the drafting and signing of their draft classes, and a smaller dowry of disposable cap-cash to draw from; perhaps the Bills could make a competitive bid. All the same, on paper, it looks like a suitable answer to a sizeable question-mark in our front seven, one that's unlikely to be sufficiently addressed this late in the draft (at least with a non-developmental prospect). The front office seems to have their collective dander up over draft weekend, so perhaps they make a non-standard move and throw out an offer. Inking a deal like this would certainly free them up considerably on Day Two, and rapidly accelerate their make-over of last year's defense. EDIT: This all changes, of course, if he is facing a suspension.

Tackle at 11 seems to be an exceptionally improbable pick in light of (and not despite) the trade of Peters. Most evaluations of the Bills' value in that trade are being deferred until after draft day-- drafting a LT with the 11th pick concedes that the Bills essentially avoided a headache by moving down 17 picks. Using their own pick to replace what they lost to Philly, and Philly's pick to address the needs they had before the trade, admits to more than the front office is willing to, I'd guess. The best scenario, in that case, would be that the Bills would draft a Pro Bowl tackle with their original pick, instead of a potential Pro Bowler at a glaring position of need before they ever consummated the trade of Peters (a DE, TE, OLB, to name a few). I just can't imagine a young, unestablished front office opening themselves up to that kind of criticism. At this point in their careers, no one's going to give them the benefit of the doubt when they make dubious decisions-- they need to look like they know what they're doing. I'm not advocating this approach. To be sure, I have no opinion of drafting an offensive tackle at #11; but I think that the front office (particularly Russ Brandon, whose hiring raised some eyebrows) will be overly self-conscious, at this point, and make an effort to keep up appearances-- for the sake of his own reputation, if nothing else.

I might be alone here, but for all of the naysaying directed toward our D-line and pass rush, our backfield, particularly at corner, was woefully thin last year. I admire their grit, and they certainly out-played any and all expectations, but until we develop our talent pool this off-season, I just don't see how we could let any unchecked talent slip out the door-- even for future draft picks. We have a significant amount of time invested in Youboty, who has undoubtedly under-performed to this point, but he's playing out a relatively inexpensive contract and is, at the very least, a valuable reserve/special teams contributor. Until we know for certain that he's buried on the depth chart or not a match for our system, I don't see how we could get rid of him. Let him compete-- why trade him now when his value is negligible (it's not going to drop any lower than it is right now)? He's a young player of undetermined potential, which is exactly what he'll be if he has a mediocre training camp, and significantly LESS than he'll be if he climbs the depth chart.

Recently: Pat Williams, and it's not even close. Losing our Ohio State prodigies at corner hurt, but Winfield was forecasting his free agency from the time we drafted him, and it's hard to blame Clements for signing a record-setting contract in San Francisco, but it's hard to lose good players (and community fixtures) who want to be here. Those are the players you have to keep, the guys you believe in the program and have a stake in the legacy-- the Rueben Browns and Pat Williamses who (if memory serves) offered to sign for smaller sums to stay in Buffalo, and, for all the lambasting he got at the end of his tenure, guys like Eric Moulds, who signed for only a fraction of what he could have on the open market (this, the same year that Randy Moss drove up the market value for WR's with his mega-contract with the Vikes). That was what we lost during the Donahoe era: the players who knew something special was happening in Buffalo, and just wanted to be on board. Those were the players that made it easy to pull for our Bills each Sunday, regardless of their struggles. The John Holoceks, the Rueben Browns, the Pat Williamses. I miss that lot, and so does the franchise (and its lockerroom)-- that nucleus of players who connect our past with our future, who learned from the great ones and will teach our future stars. Some of this is nostalgic blustering, I know, and went out the door with the not-so-new free agent climate of today's NFL; but when you've got a player who is willing to take less, and can give more than some rising star from another franchise, you've got to keep him, and we didn't.

22 reps for a LB is a reasonable sum, and shouldn't effect his draft status. Quinn's 24 reps for a QB is absolutely unheard of-- and he POWERED through those reps-- so he sets the bar a little high. A LOT of people had fewer reps than Brady Quinn.

And he actually updated his mock from 3/15 to 3/17 just to change the Bills pick (from Hall to Lynch-- and its ripple effect on Green Bay and a few others). His information is hardly "inside", but his intuition is hard to dispute. His final updates are remarkably accurate, but he'll bandy all over the place these final few weeks. In sum, it's interesting that he would re-write his mock two days after his last update just to be on-record on the Bills taking Lynch, but hardly a sign of things to come-- don't be surprised if his changes are radical in the weeks ahead.

It will be interesting to see what this does to Adrian Peterson's prospects. Assuming Cleveland is indeed the first team in the draft order with eyes on him (Detroit, at #2, has certainly made MORE dubious draft-day decisions), Arizona and Washington (at #5 and 6) are shored at the position, the Vikings have pressing needs elsewhere-- Houston, at pick 8, could be where he lands; or Atlanta at 10. Short of an aggressive and unnatural move by a franchise already owning a reasonable feature-back, it could be a precipitous drop for him. If Houston soils itself (which it enjoys doing on draft day) it's really just left to Atlanta before he lands in our lap at #12. I'm not a huge proponent of drafting a RB with a high first-round pick, it's just curious how Lewis's signing (a relatively insignificant move) alters the complexion of the draft-- and could potentially cost Peterson, through no fault of his own, millions of dollars in guarantees.

Scott Wright pens a respectable draft page-- www.nfldraftcountdown.com-- and had Nance as his #1 of 50 undrafted rookie free agents. Addendum...did Matt Bernstein go undrafted?

I said similar in an earlier thread suggesting that the pool of qualified o-lineman had been exhausted by mid-round five. Eslinger would have been a viable candidate for Center in a zone blocking scheme (which, I believe, we do employ), and Fowler has seen enough time at guard to make the transition. All things told, Philly's draft looks awfully close to the mocks we've seen for Buffalo, here and elsewhere. I'll admit I was partial to Bunkley, and when we traded back up, to Justice. As the year progresses, it will certainly be easy to track how our roster would fare, had our posters gotten their wish. 1 14 Bunkley, Brodrick DT 6-3 307 Florida State 2 39 Justice, Winston OT 6-6 320 Southern California 3 71 Gocong, Chris DE 6-2 264 Cal Poly 4 99 Jean-Gilles, Max G 6-4 356 Georgia 4 109 Avant, Jason WR 6-0 213 Michigan 5 147 Bloom, Jeremy WR 5-9 172 Colorado 5 168 Gaither, Omar OLB 6-1 233 Tennessee 6 204 Ramsey, LaJuan DT 6-2 296 Southern California

Eslinger is still on the board-- the consensus #2 center in this year's class, and REAL value in the 5th round.