FightClub

Disagree. While I assume JaMarcus would not work hard here like he didn't in Oakland, Trent is so bad that it's still worth a shot. What's the worst that could happen? We cut Russell and end up with Brohm / Fitz / Brown at QB? That's going to happen anyway - why not just cut Trent now and see if Russell can turn over a new leaf? In short, I'd rather have Russell in the 4-QB battle than Trent Edwards.

This unfortunately happens everywhere in the media. Whenever you have a small market team that is not one of the "big few" that the media feels makes the league go round, you get this. Another example for me is the San Diego Padres. They are the team I root for in MLB. Small market team that has the "reputation" (like the Bills) of always being bad. Never mind they've been in the playoffs multiple times in the past five years, winning the division twice. So, I'm listening to local sports radio here in Atlanta and they pass along the news that the Padres have selected John Garland to be their opening day starter. Now, I already know the Padres are going to be competitive this year, having actually followed the various off season moves they've made. But these guys go on to joke and joke about how bad they are going to be, when they can't even name half the roster or pitching staff. Hardy har har. Meanwhile, according to them, the Braves are going to be "tough to beat". Okaaaay. Now that the Padres are about 6 games up on the Braves and leading their division while the Braves are holding a secure spot on last place, these guys won't take my call to ask what they think of the Padres now. Oh, by the way, John Garland, the big joke? He's only 3-2 with a 2.06 ERA. Sorry for the non-Bills vent. Maybe it helps you not feel alone as far as teams getting criticized by media people who don't know what they are talking about.

Now if we can get people to stop typing "should of" and "would of" instead of the correct "should have", "should've", "would have" and "would've". Drives me crazy, especially since we're writing here people, not speaking.

I see I am the only one who has this right. Flame away now, but mark it down for August. This will be the opening day depth chart: 1. Fitz 2. Brown 3. Brohm GONE: Edwards

I still don't understand the idea that Lynch had to be traded because of drafting Spiller. Did the Vikings trade Chester Taylor immediately after drafting Percy Harvin? It's not necessary. A good coach will find a way to use all of these weapons. I contend the plan for Spiller is a lot of routes run out of the backfield and slot to cause mismatches, like Harvin runs. This means we still need 2 backs for "regular" RB duty.

Yeah, yeah. Just like when I told everyone Spiller would be the pick and start getting used to it, lots of posters who have all disappeared now said "Nix and Gailey should be fired if they pick Spiller at #9". Now "Gailey should be fired if he picks Fitz as his starter." Ok, don't jump off the ledge in August when he is named officially, but Fitz is the starter on this team. Won't be for long, they drafted Brown to start eventually, but until he is ready, Fitz will be starting in September. MAYBE Trent makes the team over Brohm, but I sure hope not.

Uh, yeah...except we now have a coach who actually knows offensive football and no way he names Trent the starter of this team or even keeps him on the roster. Expect your depth chart for 2010 to be Fitzpatrick Levi Brown Brohm With Gailey favoring the mobility of the first two over TE and BB. Brohm makes the team as #3 over TE simply because Gailey will recognize that TE has no heart and no one could win with him, and he's no good in the lockerroom. Brown will have the chance to overtake Fitz by mid-season unless Fitz has them headed for the playoffs (doubtful for any QB at this point).

I agree with this. What's more, think of it in Gailey's hands. Lynch doesn't offer him much flexiibility. He's just a back that might break some tackles. Spiller offers a ton of flexibility in the offense. Think Percy Harvin.

Fair enough, I suppose I did post a lot of possibilities at once. I guess what I wanted to say succinctly was that I hope it is the for the Lion's second, even if I am dreaming.

Thanks for reading it though. I only posted it hoping for your opinion on it

Honestly, I can't imagine them doing this though. The guy is 31. They've signed some players that old this off season, so maybe they are going for more of a win-now approach. But, it doesn't seem like Nix's style (building through draft). What I can picture (understanding probably the Lions would not do this) is trying to get hold of that second pick in the 2nd round for Lynch, so they can draft Tebow. This way they still get an OT (or Spiller) in round 1 and also still have their own round 2 pick for something else (NT?). The question is, are the Lions down enough on Kevin Smith to be willing to do that? Having the second pick in the second when you know the Rams drafted Bradford in the first practically guarantees you have your choice of the QB that fell that you like (Tebow or McCoy), unless someone jumps into the Rams spot at the top of the second. So - would you trade Lynch for Tebow? I would, and I have not been a big Tebow guy but have been warming up to the idea, and since Lynch is one more mistake away from not playing at all, seems like a good idea to me.

Totally agree. I am out of the country for this year's draft anyway, but the new format is just ruining a good thing. Same thing will happen to the NCAA Tournament if they expand to 96 teams. The almighty dollar makes these decisions and that will always win out, but it doesn't mean these events are better for it. They will both be worse events due to this change, but will make more money so neither the NFL or NCAA will care. We're going to need a three ring binder to fill out a bracket next year.

We don't need an OT so badly as to take Williams or Davis, even if they are sitting there. No thanks.

Yeah, agree with all of these. Also, the OP is overselling several of those "fits". The one that sticks out to me is Mendenhall. Actually a bit of a disappointment to date, far from a "perfect fit".

Yeah, but that decision-making thing is huge. It's like another poster said - what you have there is JP Losman except without quite the same skill set. You're going to have the same problem having a QB who hops around in the pocket and then gets sacked. Doesn't matter how strong his arm is at that point.

Yeah, generally I agree. I'm not saying I would be in favor of taking a QB in those rounds - just what I think might happen. Nix will only take Tebow or Lefevour if he thinks there is some promise there. At this point, just saying what I expect.

In last year's draft, everyone in the league knew the Bills needed to get a TE. All of the discussion on this board and in the mock drafts had us picking one early - second round, if I recall correctly. The reality was, while the Bills also knew they needed a TE, they didn't love any of the prospects enough to spend a day 1 pick on them, and they also had other priorities (mainly the interior of the o-line and getting a S prospect they were really high on. I won't mention the Maybin pick here). They actually draft 5 players before selecting Shawn Nelson in Round 4, a player who fell into their lap at that point. This year, I think QB will be similar. There are some players they probably like but don't love. In my opinion, these probably include Tebow, McCoy, Skelton, Snead, LeFevour and Z. Robinson. I think what they do is focus on their priorities for at least the first 3 rounds - OT, OLB, speedy playmaker (i.e. waterbug scatback) and / or NT. Then, starting in round 4, they start thinking about who has fallen hard at QB. Maybe Tebow, maybe Lefevour. We'll see. But this is how I expect it to go. I definitely do not expect, with this weak QB class, for Nix to reach in round 1 or round 2 for a QB. I'm not in love with either of these QBs. But if you get then in Round 4 / 5, that works. Just don't waste a second round pick on one of them.

That's stats. Watching the game, Robinson looked most like a future NFL QB. Lefevour, I will admit, looked next best, but mainly because he's a gamer against that level of competition. You could see his arm was not an NFL arm.

Did you watch the Senior Bowl? Zac Robinson was clearly the best QB that day.

Mark it down - it's happening. All those in denial be prepared. That quote looks to me like Gailey was telling the reporter they need another back, then realized "Uh, oh, they might realize we want Spiller" and then added "but, there's a bunch of those guys..." There are a bunch of water bugs, but there's only one Spiller in the draft, and he'll be a Bill after pick 9.

Yeah, I don't know how our front 7 (8?) suddenly got so strong...has been one of the weakest parts of our team for some time now, and the recent FA signings help, but our back 4 is still stronger. Also, got news for the OP - Florence is going to be starting with McGee. This regime is not going to feel responsible for the debacle of a pick that was McKelvin. He'll actually probably be the 4th, or backup, corner, with Reggie Corner getting the nickel job.

Agreed, but just because one player I want is gone doesn't mean I am going to pick a player I don't want. My board for #9 looks something like this: Suh McCoy Okung Bulaga Spiller Bradford Claussen I have posted elsewhere I think Bills will pick Spiller, which is partially based on the probability that the 4 guys on my board before him will be gone (probably at least one of the two immediately after will be gone as well).

Bulaga or Okung. Williams is too much of a question mark to me.

Well said, sir! :doh: This is similar to an argument for Spiller I made on another thread - he is likely Best Player Available at that point. Although in the other thread, most who were on board with Spiller were conditionally on board - "if we move Lynch..." which it seems you feel too. This is where we differ. If we move Lynch, fine, but I don't hinge picking Spiller on moving Lynch. Last year, when the Vikes had AP, Chester Taylor and Harvin, they were all heavily involved. I think the Bills could do the same with Freddie, Lynch and Spiller, especially with someone like Gailey who actually knows how to construct an offense to fit his players.

That's the point right there. Not personally interested in any names on that list. All too old or not good to begin with. The only one I'd consider is the guy the Bills brought in - Kelley Washington - but mostly for special teams help. Mike Furrey might not be a bad slot receiver, but I think they are waiting to see who they draft. If it's Spiller, he's going to see a lot of time in the slot and we wouldn't need a Furrey. Otherwise, it's the draft or coach up the myriad guys on our roster we've already drafted (Hardy, Johnson, and yes, even Parrish - Gailey may even be able to do something with that guy.