Tasker

Complete agreement from me. I'd stick with this thought process all day long. That doesn't mean you take seven 5'9" receviers in a row, but don't get caught into thinking you need a OL in the 2nd, and the guys available aren't worth that pick, etc. My plan would be all things being equal to focus on the lines with the majority of picks, and realistically there are going to be a bunch of picks where it might be a tossup whether a lineman is the best player available, so we can pick a bunch (including maybe #8). But by not taking the guy you think will be the best football player over and over because you have a shopping list of needs, is a great roadmap to mediocrity. I want our fastest path to winning the Super Bowl (or at least building a team that has a really good chance), not the best possible record in 2006.

Bunkley or Ngata could be our pick if we stay at #8, but we need to stick to two rules: don't reach, and don't overfocus on need. Is Ngata a better football player as we project him over the next five years than Davis? I personally don't think so. Is Bunkley or Ngata a better football player? I like Willis as a premier back, and I don't see a QB solution that makes sense (and still like JP), but other than those two positions take the best player. Is Bunkely or Ngata going to be a better player? That doesn't seem to be the focus of this thread, and that seems like a mistake. I hope that the scouts know more little things about Davis and Huff and Ngata and Bunkley than we do, but whether it is them before draft day, or us here wasting time, I still wish people would talk about who they think the best player is. Undersized, oversized, lazy, high motor, are Ngata and Bunkley going to have similar impacts over the next 5 years, or is one better? I am having a tough time seeing Ngata as better than Sam Adams, but I can certainly see Davis as better than anybody we would have cut this off season, and same with Huff. Bunkley interests me because of his motor and strength, as being more versitile and having a higher impact than some expect, but I don't know if that makes him better than Ngata. All four interest me, but I think Bunkley has the best chance of just being average, while Ngata has the best chance of being a bust (but potential upside).

Compared to New England: 2005: James Sanders SS Fresno State 2004: Cedric Cobbs RB Arkansas 2003: Dan Klecko DT Temple 2002: Jarvis Green DE Louisiana State 2001: Jabari Holloway TE Notre Dame 2000: Greg Randall T Michigan State 1999: no pick 1998: Leonta Rheams DT Houston Doesn't seem too steller even up there in championship-ville. The fourth round has the occasional diamond in the rough, but doesn't seem to be the cornerstone of winning franchises.

I like a very line heavy draft, and think we will see it. But we need to use this draft and every coming draft to take the best football players possible looked at from a five year contribution window (or beyond). Other than QB (and possibly RB and punter) which are 1 guy positions in some ways, which don't need depth and don't have to have high turnover, we need to get the best guys. Now that said, there will be a lot of "toss up" picks where we can pick the best DT over the 5'9" receiver without sacrificing the philosophy I'm talking about, but we can't let a clearly better player go to take someone clearly not as good because "we need O-Line and have good linebackers". These short term needs filling need to be done with Free Agency (not ignored). But to win a Super Bowl, we need to draft the best players we can, because needs change over time, but quality drafted players keep suiting up and making you feel happy with your decision.

I still don't get this. I think Sam Adams is a great player and better than Ngata who we have thought about wasting #8 on. With Malurkey gone he could have been happier and had a great year. Maybe I'm missing something, but a big mistake letting him go in my mind.

Isn't it better to trade him than walk away and get nothing? Do we save any cap room, or is it all bonuses and a cut or trade are the same? Woudn't keeping him away from New England have some value? Obviously I want to get the most we can for him (actually, I want to keep him, but I know that isn't happening), but if that is a 5th this year or a 4th next year or a case of beer, try to get the best we can, which is better than nothing if we cut him.

Complete agreement. If we decide that JP is not a QB who can lead us to the Super Bowl, we can move on. But I'm very doubtful that anybody can make that call right now, and we don't have anybody clearly more likely to take us to the Super Bowl than JP right now (including possible picks at #8). So we have the luxury of having an "open battle" in camp that JP wins, and gets 16 starts. If he does well he's our guy, if not everyone can agree that we've had a large enough sample to move on without it being a rash decision. Unless Nall clearly outplays him in camp, I don't see any decision better for this football team than playing JP all year. Not because I love JP, but because I love the Bills and want to win a Super Bowl. It took my Red Sox 86 years to change their history. The Bills can make the right moves, play the right football, and be the small market Super Bowl champ that everyone praises like Green Bay, and get Norwood (Buckner) and the ghosts all forgiven. It might take a couple years, and we have to understand that and make the right decisions to make it happen.

I'm happy with the best option between Nall and JP starting, but given the circumstances and upside, Nall would have to be clearly better to get the nod. If they are about the same or the difference is "perceived as a leader", then you stick with JP for 16 starts as should be the goal. Nothing, and I mean nothing nothing nothing, gets this job to Holcomb. He is a different animal, no upside, and a disaster of mediocrity waiting to happen. If we can get value for JP or any other player that can make our team better overall we consider that deal. If someone who knows more about football than I do is really really sure that JP has no chance of being better than Nall, okay. But the best thing that can happen is still improving this team the best we can at other positions, designing a gameplan around smashmouth football with Willis, and start JP as our best option for 16 games, so next off season we can make a more agressive change of direction at QB if needed, or know that JP is our man.

Don't draft Ngata as a need. Draft him if you think he is a better next-five-years football player than the other options (Davis, Huff, or whoever is available). I know I would rather have Brick or Williams, but they will probably be gone, along with Hawk. If three QBs and Bush join those guys in the top 7, we will have Ngata, Davis, and Huff, along with some reaches. That might make Ngata the best choice, but given injuries and laziness, I would be tempted to say Davis could be the best football player available. I personally would love to be wrong in this evaluation, and to see us get Ngata and exceed my current expectations, because all things equal, I want a lineman. If our scouts and front office evaluate and think Ngata will be a better football player than Davis or Huff over the next five years, I'm very excited to get him. But only because he will be the best football player available, not because we need a DT (why cut Sam Adams?).

No, the idea isn't always to get a direct player that will be better than the one you are getting. The idea is to spend your limited chips in the way that puts you best in position to win football games. How much better Vinitieri is than his replacement could be offset by how much less his replacement costs, and how the team is improved with that money. Nobody is saying he is a loser or his replacement will be better. Just that the money didn't make sense. Whether the Pats are right or not, we will have to wait and see, but I'm guessing that Bellicheck would agree with me more than you, and is smarter than both of us at football evaluations.

I will say it again. We need to take the best talent available in the draft looking for contributions over the next five years. If all things are equal (as they are in later rounds) fill the trenches, but at #8 we need the best football player we can get based on five years, not just next year (anywhere but QB and RB). If that is Hawk, take Hawk. If that is Davis, take Davis. If that is a trench position like Brick, Ngata, or Bunkley, or Williams, take that player, and all the better for addressing a need more directly as well. But we need the guys who are way better than me making those calls, and getting the best guy available. Needs change year after year, and are better filled in free agency. Draft choices have longer impacts, and you need to get the best players, people who will help win the 2010 super bowl, not help get to 8-8 in 2006.

I think the best player in the draft on either side of the ball. I've seen him going anywhere from 2 to 7 recently. We can't trade up to 2, but I would pursue chances to trade up any of the 5-7 teams if it means getting Williams, especially for a team who has other needs or doesn't value him as highly. But I think in the end that would prove too costly, and taking what falls to 8 could be a better overall move, and obviously listening to anybody who wants our pick at 8 enough to make it worth our while to trade down.

Exactly, all the way around. Unfortunately Mario's stock has risen to match his talents. He is the best player in the draft period, and the player everyone will be talking about five years from now. If he is available at 8 somehow he would be a no brainer, but it isn't going to happen. I would gladly give up at least one other pick, and maybe more to trade up and get him, but they won't do that. Our hope is that the three QBs all join Bush in the top seven. That means we get to pick among all but three of the remaining players, and will get a shot at quality. I would love a guy in the trenches, but he can't be a reach. If Ngata or Bunkley or Winston is judged as the best football player available we can pick them (and hopefully that evaluation is made by people who are a lot better at evaluating talent than any of us is). Otherwise we have to take the best player. Free agency for needs, draft for quality players. Remember #8 is supposed to be a key piece of our 2010 Super Bowl team, so drafting the wrong guy just based on what failed the most in 2005 will hurt us in the long run.

No chance we cut him. Bad football move, bad money move, and bad PR move. It just isn't happening. Whether he wins the starting role and gets 16 starts or not is the real question for the team, and I really hope he does.

Abraham? Do you really think that is the best way to spend limited resources? That his value would exceed his cost? If a deal could be worked that would make him a good value, then I'm all for it. As a small market team, but really any team in a salary cap league, our goal is to get value in players, whether a big talent big paycheck or small talent small paycheck. Getting a big name sucks if he costs too much and limits the team in other areas, getting a small talent sucks if he costs more than he is worth too. I am not enough of a football superfan to know if Idonije is worth it or not, but if his value is more than his cost then he makes sense. The "Let's get Petyon Manning and Julius Peppers and Ladaiman Tomlinson and Jonothan Ogden or we are a bunch of losers and Marv should be run out of town" mentality just doesn't work. Let's make deals that improve this team and are good value at every level. Whether some of that is considered "garbage picking" by you doesn't matter. I think a lot of New England's moves in recent years would be considered garbage picking. I'd rather follow that philosophy than the Redskins method you are suggesting. What I really hope is we can get some big talent bigger name values too, but each aquisition needs to make sense as a good value.

Exactly. And when you add a 1st round pick who got jerked around by a bad coach behind a terrible line it is even more true. There is nobody who we can pencil in for this season with a better upside/downside than JP. He is not a guarantee, but he is better chance than any of his replacement options at the moment, and after 16 starts next season we can stay the course or change horses in the off season.

Right, but Mike Williams got a chance to play. We have too much invested in JP (and too many other holes) to try to replace him now with a quick fix for the coming season. Give him 16 starts and decide next off season. Meanwhile build the rest of the team. You would be amazed what no Mularkey, a decent OL, and more Willis could do for JPL, but if we are wrong, we can change course next year, with a stronger team ready to help whoever is next (draft or free agent) take us to the playoffs more quickly.

Ngata off the board in the top seven would be a dream come true. I'm not exciteda bout getting him, so having him go in the top 7 increases our choices at 8. I know Mario Williams isn't going to fall, but choosing between Brick, Hawk, and Davis is a pretty nice scenario (but probably won't happen). We need to get the best impact football player thinking of total value over the next five years. I would love a lineman, but not if ability is inferior. Fill needs in free agency, get the best players you can in the draft.

None of the three excites me. Any or all could be better than Losman, or could be worse. JP clearly has the tools to be as good as any of those guys. Would I rather have Cutler and JP or JP and Vernon Davis? Leinart and JP or JP and Mario Williams? No contest for me. After JP's 16 starts this coming season we can rethink things, and decide if he is or isn't the QB of the future, but if we spend a pick on a QB in this draft we are being silly.

Wow. I couldn't agree more. Free agents step in right away. Drafties often take some time to mature. We need to draft based on expected performance over the next five years. I would rather have a lineman than a tight end for example, but I would much rather draft Vernon Davis than Ngata based on what I know. If players are close I would much rather draft towards the trenches and our needs, especially as the draft moves on. But at #8 I want someone we will look back on and say we were lucky to get him. I don't think Ngata will necessarily be better than Sam Adams. Sign big Sam, and take the best player available in the draft.

Given that Mario and Brick will be off the board, and potentially one of the 3 QBs could mess us up by falling out of the top 7 picks, I would be happy with Bunkley from the little I know. I think he could be a better fit than Ngata who has me worried, and a much better fit than Huff, who doesn't address our line needs, and doesn't shine as a talent enough to warrant picking away from the lines. There is a lot of time before the draft, but with the Brees signing this could make sense. I'm officially giving up on my dreams of Mario Williams being available at #8. The rest of the world seems to have come around to what I've thought for months, so unless we trade up, we are going to have to settle for someone else. Bunkley doesn't get me too excited, but might be our best options. But if Cutler falls this far, I would look for a trade down partner and take a Bunkley a little deeper in the draft while adding another pick. My final take on the dream draft, then I will give it up and return to reality, just like back when I hoped Peppers would fall to #4: 1) TEX - Bush 2) NO - Brick 3) TEN - Leinart 4) NYJ - Cutler 5) GB - Hawk 6) SF - Davis 7) OAK - Young 8) BILLS - Mario Williams

If Mario, Brick, Hawk, and Davis are all gone (and Bush and Leinart), it means Cutler or Young is still available. That means trade down to a team who wants that guy more than we do. I really hope all three QBs are gone, because that ensures us quality at #8. I don't think Huff is good enough, but I would probably rather see him than Ngata at that pick, and I think most other players might be a stretch. I hope we try to get the best players we can out of this draft from a five year contribution perspective, and I hope we keep that philosophy at #8, trading up or down if needed.

Nope. Ngata is a no-brainer for us if he is available, is the best player available, and addresses our needs. I think he will be available (but hope he won't), but highly doubt he will be the best player available, and if we sign Pickett he will not be a need, meaning we can take the best player available out of who is still left, which still depends on how the top 7 picks go.

Answer: make the same decision we would make if none of the three QBs fall...don't draft a QB, and decide between taking the best non QB with a leaning towards the lines or trading down. Our possibilities of value in trading down increase if someone wants a QB, so this could push us towards trading down. But it depends on what is offered for our pick, and we don't make that decision. I think there is quality at 8, but more so if three QBs we don't want are off the board, so in your scenario, trading down could be more valuable if the right offer is made.

Yep, this is much closer to my list than Chicken Wing's list. Mario is a no doubt number best choice for me, and it still could happen. I'd gladly give up a 3rd or something to trade up to increase the likelihood. Only need seven guys to go before him for him to fall, and Bush, three QBs, Brick, Hawk, and Davis add up to seven... I like Vernon, but based on similar talent levels and a position of need, I'd put Brick higher than Davis. Bush is very good, but if he were available (he won't be) I'd trade down. Willis is very very good, and might be a better NFL back over the next five years than Bush (remains to be seen). Hard to tell if JPL is going be the next Favre or Rob Johnson, but I play him 16 times this season while we build the rest of the team, and make a more informed decision on that next off season, so I don't want to draft a QB this year, and would also trade down or trade Leinart. Bunkley, I don't think we have to worry about him dropping, because he isn't a top 7 guy. Could be an interesting fit at 8, but I see him as a little bit of a reach that high. Hawk could be a very good football move, but I don't know enough about him (and like Spikes and Fletcher a lot) to get excited about him slipping.