grammer_police

Forget about actual career acomplishments, which pick has looked the best ON DRAFT DAY? Honestly, I would say the Mike Williams pick. Obviously it backfired to the extreme, but on draft day it looked like a sure-fire, can't miss, pick who would anchor our line for a decade.

or 3rd string RB's (DR)

I think that if we select either a DE, or an OT, most people on the board will at least be content. Anything else and things could get ugly.

I agree. But with our recent history of reaching, something tells me that Cushing will be a Bill along side poz-achoo

I wonder if we reach for a player again, or if Russ purposefully takes a player that is worth the 11th pick because he's a new GM. (sorry really drunk, don't even know if that statement even made sense)

This is a draft that could define our franchise for years to come

I think the bills select Brian Cushing with their first pick.

The first 3 games are KEY. While yeah, it'll suck not having beast mode out there, I think we would have a better chance of winning ANY game if certain money was used elsewhere - like both lines. Yes, I know that the salary of Rhodes is not going to buy you a superbowl caliber OL, but this signing really irritated me after I constantly see us put more money in positions that are better right now then others.

ok, good point

Since we got Rhodes and Jackson, hows about trading Lynch for a top 5 pick?

True, but anyone could get hurt. Does Jackson have an injury history? I don't remember that being an issue for him. Also, I think that Xavier is better than most people think. Remember how many yards he got in college.

You're right, Rhodes is a good player. In fact, I would probably have him over Fred Taylor, but my argument is that we have more important needs. What's wrong with letting Jackson get 90% of the carries the first few games and draft some kid in the later rounds to back him up?

This thread is about RB's. You responded to the orignial post about proven winners. Well, the way the Fred Jackson ran against NE, on a day that they had a MUST-WIN, meaning that it was essentially a playoff game for them, also on a day that they KNEW we were going to run a whole bunch because of the conditions, I think that Fred Jackson proved that day that he is just as proven as Rhodes is. Granted Rhodes has had many more NFL games than Jackson. Do we need proven winners right now at RB? We are already so deep! We need proven winners at pretty much every other position right now, excluding K,P,Wr, and maybe CB, but we are fine at RB.

So you didn't watch the 2nd Pat's game last year?

I know that Lynch will be gone for a few games. I know that we will need depth at RB. I know that D.Rhodes is a quality verteran, who in case of injuries could start for a while. I also know... In a few games Lynch will be back. Fred Jackson KICKS ASS! If we can't afford luxary items like Parrish( who IMO is extrememly valuable), then why the hell can we afford what will soon become the best THIRD string back in the league? D. Rhodes also wants playing time(can't blame him) but in only a few games we will wont have enough carries for 3 starting caliber RB's. Why didn't we just suck it up and tried to go with Jackson as starter, and maybe Oman or someother cheap player as backup? It will only be for a max 3 games. I really wish we had just given Jackson a fair raise with the money that we spent on Rhodes. Don't get me wrong, I like Rhodes, it's just that RB is already possibly our deepest position!

Kelsay is a leader of this team and IMO he is one of the best players on the team. His contract is right where it should be for a pillar of the D.

Tim, from now on could you censor yourself to the point that the only thing you ever type about the Bills is 100% rosy and positive? I get upset easilly. thanks, armchair gm

amen

It seems like people from Buffalo have some insecurity about letting other people know that they might be cold. I don't have that insecurity. I can easily say that when I lived in Buffalo, almost every morning I had drive to work cold. I'm not saying that it sucked, or that I couldnt handle it. In fact some days I actually kind of liked it. But I WAS cold. And there's nothing "unmanly" about being cold. It is, however, unmanly to avoid a team or a city because of the cold.

To me, the weather conditions at the Ralph is one of the reasons why it's so special. But a lot of players don't view it that way. If I were in charge, I would favor players from cold weather towns vs warm weather towns if I were building the Bills.

excellent point.

Buffalo doesn't deserve SUCH a bad weather reputation that it has, but a 55 cloudy day in Atlanta beats a sunny 25 degree day anywhere. It's rare to find someone who doesn't get sick of the weather after March. btw right now in Buffalo: 28degrees w/ flurries.

It seems like we have a very "warm" weather team. A substantial amount of our players are from warmer climates. I have lived in Buffalo for half my life, and in the South for half my life. I also have moved back and forth a few times, so I think I have a pretty good feel for what some people go through when they have fairly drasitic climate adjustments. My point is this: Other then gameday situations where I think we can all agree that we have not used our cold climate to our advantage, what does the role of crappy depressing weather play on our talent? Is there harder motivation to be great? Do players "love life" as much as they should(confidence levels, willingness to give everything they have) I remember that decent CB Kilwalkee(sp?) Thomas saying that he wanted to play for a southern team a few years ago, and I was surprized how little crap he got for that. Are players too pampered to play in this kind of situation now a days, and how much has that played a part in our futillity the last decade or so? btw I also realize that there have been some very successful cold-weather teams lately(Pitt, NE) so i'm not saying that this is a factor in everyone. (mabey just the pansies like Mike Williams) Mabey we have a lot of "pansies"

I would agree with you 100% that Schobel is not a playmaker. He has probably only been a true difference in a game (fumble, timely sack, etc.) a few times in his career. But like another poster just mentioned, he draws those double teams. Why? Because he's a slightly better than average player, and if you single team him he'l make a play or two per game. I can't wait to see what Stroud can do with a better player in his trench taking a little pressure off.

I'm not sure, but a franchise QB is more important than a superb WR