port allegany

I too appreciate the administration of this site and check in often. However, the Chat Room can't be the ONLY way. Can we not have the traditional link AND the chat room and people can choose the one they prefer. I do prefer seeing the comment linkages that you don't get with the chat room. Thanks.

At first glance I would agree with you but in the back of my mind was a conversation I heard on a football show with about 3 or 4 ex-players. They were talking about how important the OL was and how a special a certain OL player (probably a LT but I don't recall) might turn out to be for some team. Then the moderater posed the question, "So if you had a chance to get a great LT or a great RB which would you select?". Immediately and unanimously the players said, "RB". The moderater, and me, was puzzled given the discussion preceding the question where it sounded like the OL was the crucial element for an offense (they all agreed prior that the QB was "IT" and went on). The players all said something to the effect, a great RB makes everybody better; by his very presence and a great play by him could result in points where as the great LT enables great 'skill' players opportunties. So, maybe the Bills see Spiller as the 'great' player that other teams will have to scheme for because he is dangerous with the ball.

I share some of your optimism. I'm hoping for a very competitive 'one year away' type performance. Here's why: 1. I do agree the coaching will be better, particularly on the offense. Gailey has done it at the NFL level and we haven't had someone like that in almost a decade. 2. Gailey has some weapons - Evans, Spiller, Nelson, a couple of RBs, and Parrish - that can be exploited better than in the past. Edwards HAS to play better than last year overall. Remember, he has a good start and then it fell apart. In fact, the entire offense fell apart. 3. The OL is a year older, stronger, and wiser. It can't possibly have as many injuries again or as much inexperience. A new game plan can minimize the protection problems (again, I am counting on Gailey and his experience exceeding Van Pelt, but I feel that's a safe bet). I think that's one of the reasons they got Spiller. And if the Tight Ends improve (both were young with upside last year) that will help Edwards. Remember, Edwards was pretty good with Schouman (spelling?) in the line-up. Obviously, he likes to checkdown but he needs quality to checkdown to. Spiller and the TEs might provide the quality 4. The defense is stouter and stronger. Right now we are projecting a starting line-up without Kelsey, Schobel, or Johnson (DL). Those guys are still on the team (assuming Schobel comes back) so depth will be better. 5. Maybin has talent. Maybe he doesn't have a position in the NFL but if he does it's likely OLB. If it is and he blossoms up to his talent, we just filled another need with a #1 round draft choice. 6. It is a last place schedule against the NFC North. Yes, the AFC West and the NFC West are worst but the NFC North is not that much better.

I'd like a playoff as well but this argument that TCU deserves it more than Texas is just plain wrong. TCU plays a much easier schedule and always plays the underdog role whenever it plays a 'major conference' team. Two years ago (2007), TCU played Texas in the second or third week when both were still undefeated. All the writers were saying how it would be the game that showed how far the second tier programs have come. TCU supposively had its 'best team' in 40 years. The result: it was a rout. The score, 35-13, was much, much closer than the game. Case closed. When Boise St. or TCU plays a 'big boy' when the 'big boy' has something major to lose, they get thumped. When the emotions going into the game are lopsided ("here's our chance to show the world" versus "this isn't the bowl we hoped for"), then TCU and Boise St. do well. They are certainly capable of pulling an upset. But put them into one of the major conferences, and they are 7-5 or 8-4, good but not world beaters.

Great research - thanks. However, it is just a mathematical average and more than a few of these 1st round QBs have been close to a bust (Alex Smith, Brady Quinn, the Oakland #1 QB) or a bust (JP is not on the list, nor is Akai Smith, Ryan Leaf, .... you know the list). While I agree if we get a dynamite, sure thing (at least in the scouts' mind) - then, yes, take him. However, this year all the QBs have significant flaws. If Brohm was coming out of Louisville THIS YEAR, where would he go? 1st or 2nd round probably - let's make him our 'franchise QB' pick this year and see if we can develop him. Why? First, the others actually in the draft aren't significantly better. Second, we have other needs on this team. And third, and most importantly, we really don't have time to develop a QB. It's been 10 years AND the 'core' players are getting older to the point that in 3 years we'll be retooling again (think Evans, Stroud, McGee, Schobel, and even the younger starters will be nearing 30). Our best hope is to find a 'serviceable QB' (not a career back-up but a Pennington-type, an Orten, someone that has started and had some success - not much or they wouldn't be available but some) as a 2 year stop gap and build the rest of the team. And hope Brohm or we hit magic with some 4th rounder but not risk a 1st round bust again. We can't afford losing another 1st round talent, the Top 8 salary cap hit, or, frankly, time.

"minus the Maybin blunder" - how can you give a person a pass for "blundering" on the 11th overall pick? That's a little like "except for that one incidence, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" If you think Maybin was a good pick for future years, then I can see your logic. Personally, I think he will be. But if you truly think it was a 'blunder' and Maybin will be a bust, then why in the world would you want this person picking higher and betting even more money? Just curiious about your thinking here.

Jauron has now had 4 pre-seasons, 4 drafts, 3.25 seasons, etc. to put something together. We fire the OC THIS YEAR, we elevate AVP with not only zero OC experience but almost zero NFL coaching experience. This is the 4th, not 1st, year. We don't have an offense for whatever reason - we just don't have one. The defense can't get off the field and/or melts at crucial times. Folks, this is coaching problems. It may also be GM issues as well. But why retain Dick Jauron? Unless you feel the team will turn it around in the next 12 games, there is no need to continue to work within this framework. As the definition of insanity often attributed Einstein goes, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result." Let's get someone else in here with a different perspective. Maybe they'll play different players. Maybe a different game plan. Anything different at this point might help us down the line. More DJ and more of his coaches, well we know what that gets.

I did not say Curry, Raji, or Crabtree WOULD fall to us but that there seems to be a consensus that these 3 will be very good NFL players and not potential reach like the DE, TE, or the QBs. If you can get a real talent at 11 you should get him and work it out over the next year. To match Crabtree with Evans makes WR a real position of strength. How many teams have 2 'shut down corners." It seemed to work for Arizona this year and the Colts (two #1s in Harrison and Wayne). As it was once said, "football is not about 11 offense players beating 11 defensive players. Football is 11 offensive players attacking ONE defensive weakness." I'm not saying Crabtree or Curry will fall but if they do - grab talent.

On the upside - perhaps Seattle passes on Crabtree and he falls to us. That would give us another 'solid' choice along with Raji and Curry. Everyone else, outside of the OTs, are a bit more risky.

Last night's game was a real low point for me. I've followed the Bills for almost 40 years from multiple states. What did me in was the deja vu element of Super Bowl XXV. Not the 'wide right' but the philosophy of the coaching staff. Just like last night, we had time in the Super Bowl to get closer but decided not to risk it and set up a 47 yard field goal. That's not coaching, that's laying the blame on someone else. A 47 yd field goal isn't a gimmee and it's NOT a risk you should be willing to settle for with a Championship or a season on the line. Both coaches (Levy & Jauron - ironic Levy hired Jauron, isn't it?) showed no confidence in the QB or their players or their ability to call the right play at a clutch moment. Norwood nor Lindell didn't blow it, their coaches froze. They decided to 'pray' instead of 'play'. Very nice people, both of them. Excellent minds. But I'm afraid not quite 'championship' material. They can do a great job of keeping a team together (what Marv did for 4 years was outstanding and Jauron kept the team together last year) but when faced with an equal or superior opponent their philosophies of reaching but not grabbing the moment comes up short. Jauron missed a great opportunity to motivate this team. Let's say he throws a few screens, short passes, maybe a longer strike to seal the game, an endaround, or something beside 3 straight runs and FAILS to advance the ball. He goes back to the locker room and press conference and says, 'hey, I believe in these guys. They didn't get it done tonight but I know these guys will get it done more often than not in the future so I have no problems trying to win this game with these guys. Trent had a poor game - just like all the hall-of-famers did - yet he had us in position to win the game despite the bad start. I wanted the game on HIS shoulders. He's won final drive games before and he will many times in the future. I'm sure others will say, 'you should have let your OUTSTANDING kicker finish the game' but while we do have an OUTSTANDING kicker we also have an outstanding team that will win these game. That I can promise you." He'd be a hero in the locker room. But now what do we have after last night - a QB with a shaky confidence that was REINFORCED not supported by the coaching staff and a kicker that now wears a "Wide Right' necklase. Terrible coaching philosophy by a very good man. Sad all the way around.

I realize this board is a little on the negative side but we're throwing in the towel a little early here. Yes, the Bills lost 3 in a row. But they lost to NE in NE, Miami in Miami (and we have to now admit they are better than anticipated), and the Jets here. If we take care of home field and go 2-1 in the rematches and win some very winnable games in the next few weeks, we'll be right in the thick of it. Can the running game continue to be so bad? Unlikely. Edwards is only a 2yr QB - it's ridiculous to put the team on his shoulders. With a running game, he'll be fine again. The defense just can't get turnovers and, thus, get off the field. We are not that far away. Hang in there - it's a long season and we're 5-4 with an advantageous schedule to play. 10-6 is certainly possible, 9-7 likely (unless we really are the team of the last 3 weeks).

Just curious - why all the love for Albert. While I've read the rare athletic ability, almost every site questions his toughness and dedication. It sound very much like D'Brick from the Jets that we all were hoping to get in that draft. And, dare I say, a lot like Mike Williams. It seems O-lineman need to like to play physical.

BINGO. Could not have said it better.[ quote name=Bagel' date='Apr 12 2008, 07:38 PM' post='1003479] I can think of nine good reasons why Trent chose Stanford. 1. NFL. Stanford is a pipeline to the NFL. In the last 10 years Stanford has had 35 players drafted by the NFL -- second most in the Pac-10 behind USC. Since 2002, Trent's freshman red-shirt season, they have had 26 players drafted. 2. Academics. Stanford is the finest academic institution in the United States. This is not a four year decision. It is a forty year decision. 3. Quarterback U. Stanford has a storied football tradition, producing quarterbacks such as John Elway, Jim Plunkett and John Brodie. An article in 2005 addressing this topic declared that Stanford has produced more pro-quality quarterbacks since 1960 than any other school in the country (Notre Dame, USC, LSU and Florida State rounded out the top five). 4. Location. The Stanford campus is gorgeous and the weather in Palo Alto is sunny and warm nearly year round. It is also only 40 minutes from San Francisco and a few miles from the beach. 5. Coeds. The Stanford women’s volleyball team and swim team. Trust me on this one. 6. Athletics. Overall the Stanford athletic department is dominant, winning the Director’s Cup as the nation’s top Division I athletic program 13 years in a row (and leading again this year). 7. Conference. Stanford plays in the Pac-10, an excellent football conference that is quarterback friendly. 8. Recent History. When Trent was being recruited, Stanford had been to bowl games six of the previous ten seasons (including the Rose Bowl in 1999, Stanford’s twelfth Rose Bowl appearance). 9. Extra Guidance. In addition to the coaching staff, at Stanford Trent could and did seek guidance from Bill Walsh.

29th is too far down. There could easily be a 'run' on WR between 11 and 28 and then we are left with our 5th choice. I like the idea of moving down but we need to get one of our top 3 WR (assuming that the Bills think their top 3 are interchangeable). It' nice to accumulate picks (it not only adds bodies but improves the odds that a player or two will outperform their draft position), but the point is to get the best players.

Those numbers are quite interesting. WR is a very volatile pick - very risky but big upside if you get it right as the good ones last a long while. Given those numbers I say we have to get 1st round quality for the position. If you can trade down in the first round fine. If not, reach. I don't buy the 'look how great _______ is and he lasted until the 5th round' theory. The team that drafted ______ was lucky. If they knew the guy was going to be great they'd drafted him much earlier. A some level this draft is a crap shoot with a little odds in the favor of research. But it is not a science. So if our #1 is WR then pick one high (me, I like Kelly because everyone says he's a great blocker. That's a skill that doesn't go away and it is very hard to learn because it is one of the 'wanna' skills. If you don't 'wanna' do it, you don't really have to.)

A slight variation would be my preference - the Best Player in a Position of Need. In other words, not just the best player because in today's NFL players move so much you have to get them on the field very soon or you may lose your investment with little return. That leads to a Position of Need but I wouldn't reach for one position. If the Bills, say, need a LB, CB, WR, G but not a DE, S, etc. I would pick the best LB, CB, WR, G available regardless of position as long as it is one of these positions. The NFL is about player-makers and the 1st round is your best chance to get a play-maker. Later in the draft I may try to get a specific position or take a chance on an incredible athlete.

Assuming Peterson is available at 12, then giving SD a 2nd and a 3rd for Turner means Turner and Willis (I'm guessing this is the pick people want) is a better draft than Peterson and say the Penn St LB since we should be able to get back into the 1st round if we are willing to part with our #2 and #3. It' pretty close but the only player that everyone seems convinced is a lock-sure difference-making talent is Peterson. Personally, I'd hate to pass on a certain difference maker. What I'm really hoping for is Turner for only a #2 or #3 then I'd jump because we'd get 3 quality players not 2.

I hate the idea of giving up a first rounder, especially next year's. Who says we won't be in the Top 5 or Top 10? In the NFL there are injuries to key people all the time. We're not that good yet where a couple of key injuries (Losman, Evans, etc) could push close games in the 'loss' column. Plus, unless you are just absolutely convinced Turner is the next Jim Brown, why not wait just one year and sign him as a free agent? What's the rush (pardon the pun)? His price shouldn't be much higher given he'll be a year older and right now supposively Tenn and the Bills are 'negotiating' long term. If we wait, we get him in 2008 and this year's #1 that we didn't trade. Three years ago he was just as fast, just as big, and was a 5th round choice - for a few hundred yards as a back-up he's now become expensive in salary and costly in terms of a #1 pick just to get him this year. Seems like an awful lot of risk for a few hundred yards. For a third rounder and a LT contract, I'd probably say 'do it' - maybe even a 2nd rounder but probably not. Certainly not for a 1st rounder. Wait one year - the only risk it seems is if Tennessee decides to pay up. IMHO it's a risk worth taking.

I'd be happy with Willis - sounds like a very good player, a true football player at heart, and he fills a position of real need. But if Peterson is available, you've got to pick him. From what EVERYBODY says, he's a difference maker. I'm trying to think of a RB bust that was considered the best high school back, had instant college success, and all experts say he'll be a special pro (barring injury, of course). Normally, the best high school back doesn't pan out quickly or really ever in college and if they had a solid college career there's some doubt about the player at draft time. But Peterson is like Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson, Reggie Bush - unbroken spectacular success. Take him - think of the impact LT has in San Diego. No decent wide receivers, retread (Brees) or new QB (Rivers) and they never stop scoring points because defenses have to key on him. He just makes everybody look better. Since everyone has said AP is special since high school and no one has taken that back, you have to believe he is that special. Injury prone?? Maybe - but it's not the legs. Is it worth a chance? I say "yes"

While I agree that Tim Anderson hasn't lived up to expectations, they may have been a reason for tendering him a contract. There are no shortage of examples of 'high motor' DT that made legitimate starters in the league but only after a number of years of mediocrity. We drafted Parnell (? - out of Texas, played for SD) and Jeff Wright took a while to bulk up before contributing. Maybe the coaches think Anderson needs to bulk up, get some more experience, and skills but that he may contribute yet. A rotating DT that knows the system, works hard and plays hard may be worth keeping. If they cut him then it will show they don't see changes on the horizon, but if they keep him maybe there's a reason.

We're talking about the 12th pick in the draft - not the overall #1. I would be very happy to have Emmitt Smith for a 8-10 years in our backfield with the 12th pick. In some fashion I agree with you that he isn't the best runner of all-time but wouldn't you like to draft a player with the #12 pick that eventually was a participant in the best runner of all-time argument? It could also be noted that having Emmitt Smith as a running and receiving threat (and a first quality blocker and teammate) made Aikman's job a lot easier. In the end, all I was pointing out is if Peterson is anywhere close to what 'experts' are saying (and what I've watched for 3 years) then he is a special enough player to draft if he falls to #12. This is all academic because he won't fall out of the top 5.

If Peterson gets to us at #12 - PICK HIM and throw a party. It won't happen but if it did - wow! I'm a Texas alumnus and I'm convince this kid is a difference maker. Some may think no back is that much different than the next and they are interchangeable. I tend to agree, except for the couple of 'special' backs (the Emmit Smiths, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbells, and, yes, even Eric Dickersons - since Peterson is most compared to him). Those backs change defenses. I don't know about Lynch so I'd probably pass on him.

I agree with this pick at #12. It a REAL need. We still have last year's #1 (McCargo) at DT along with Tippett (our top FA last year) and a 2nd year man in Kyle Williams so we have DT covered at least. We filled out the OL on Friday. The two big holes left are MLB and CB. It seems the shopping of Spikes means they want Ellison and Crowell to be the OLB of the future. Youbouty was a 3rd (with many experts saying he might slip into the 1st round) last year and while he didn't play much, the coaches saw him for 4 months of practice & in the locker room. If they think he's an eventual #1 corner, then we have him and McGee (with a big contract) looking to man the corners. Plus, the top CBs in this draft have some question marks. What's left (other than depth - admittedly very important)? MLB. Patrick Willis is the consensus top LINEBACKER (not just top Inside Linebacker but top linebacker) in this draft. It's got to be pretty good to get the best linebacker in the draft. How often has the consensus #1 linebacker not panned out to be at least a solid pro? I don't know but it seems top LBs are a pretty safe pick at the worst. It may be boring to have our pick already done, but it seems to be the best pick. Let's just hope Patrick Willis is around at #12.

I could be wrong but let's give Marv a bit of leeway here. Nothing has transpired. Willis is STILL a Bill. All he and his arrogant agent has heard for the last 3 days is Willis is, at best, a 3rd rounder - most likely 4th or later. And it's not the Bills 'positioning' themselves for negotiation, it's the entire NFL establishment. Maybe this will quell the delusions of Willis and the agent that he's "the best back in the NFL". Maybe they will have to recognize and realize that he hasn't PRODUCED enough to warranted anything but a 2nd day pick. So what the harm of Marv sending a signal? Either some team bites and gives us a 2nd rounder that we jump on. Or Willis stops this senseless "best back..." nonsense and stops the holdout talk. Or Willis shuts up (and his agent) and produces one great 'walk year' because they now KNOW his value is much, much lower than they anticipated. He can't just stay healthy to receive the big paycheck. He needs to PRODUCE next year to have any leverage as a free agent. I actually think Marv is doing a good thing letting this discussion float around a while. Maybe Willis will come back with a vengence (self-interested as it will be - but at least he'll try to PRODUCE). It also gives the Bills another year to develop a future RB. I could be wrong but I'm willing to go with Marv on this one.