Koufax

ILB 40 time is not that useful, and not as important as football playing ability. I'm not saying he was the right pick (and I have been vocal on rolling the dice for Mallett so was not happy about the pick), but if he was right or wrong has little to do with his 40 time.

I don't think that we have a lot of huge upgrades to Bell at LT nor is he as bad as people think. I'm open to consideration if something throws itself at us, but elite LT free agents are not great value. I like our interior, although we could add some depth. What I think our biggest free agency priority should be is the best RT we can find. BTW, I heard the last guy on your list was okay, but that ship has sailed. I do think we can find a better free agent RT than find a late round year 1 starter. Free agent priorities (to be shaped by final picks tomorrow): 1) RT 2) Veteran backup QB better than Brohm 3) TE 4) LB & DB depth (depending on who we re-sign)

I am mad that we passed on him, and I think you take a chance with a third rounder on a guy with 1st round upside. BUT it is actually easier for us that he went to the Patriots. If he had gone to the Raiders and fulfilled his potential we would have been reminded of it a lot sooner. Tom Brady is 33 years old, and really enjoys playing football. If that passion is still there and he stays healthy, he can easily play four or five years. So Mallett could end up a free agent before he starts a game, and while he certainly is a valuable potential back in New England in case anything happens to Brady, the Steve Young path is rare, and I expect to see very little Mallett over the next five years, and that will help mask the disappointment of us passing on him for a pretty good LB.

At least with Mallett to the Patriots we won't know if it was a mistake to pass on him for a couple years. If he went to another team and started right away and succeeded it would be more frustrating. Sheppard should easily outperform him this year unless Brady gets hurt , so we can't really hate this pick for a few years until we have forgotten about it mostly. I will admit I kind of wanted Claussen in the second last year, so I will trust Buddy, and love the improvements to our front defense. I hope we can find a good RT somewhere and even if Fitz is our guy, we need a backup veteran now.

Sorry you didn't like him in the Sugar Bowl, but he was too good a talent to pass on in the third round to me. New England just took him, so I guess we will find out. I like us getting three straight good defensive guys, and these three players will help this team, but I don't think we got the BPA in round 3 like we did in round 1.

Where on Buddy's board is Mallett? I sure hope Sheppard is a great player, but I would have rolled the dice on a boom or bust in the third round since he could have a year to sit and learn. Whether he is Drew Bledsoe or Ryan Leaf, I think it would have been a smart pick. 3800 yards, 32 touchdowns and a 64% completion rating in the SEC with a rocket arm is worth the roll of the dice to me. Very disappointed here, but will see what happens.

Carolina doesn't pick him obviously, nor do the Bengals, so unless Elway loves him, he should be there. I know there are a lot of Ryan Leaf comparisons, but we are talking about the third round, and I would have taken Leaf in the third round too (and maybe without the pressure he would have even done okay). I know we will get a good role player by Buddy, but I will be very disappointed if we pass on Mallett.

I would like to see Mallett in the third. I don't know that he gets there, but I would like the pick if he does. He has to get through: San Diego Washington Pittsburgh Green Bay Carolina Cincinnati Denver (and an Oakland trade up) If Washington doesn't take him in a minute, I could see him there...

Nope, just after the first two rounds he probably roughly pulls things off his draft board independent of what teams are thinking or have already picked, and doesn't split hairs on the fifth round.

Best line: I always get nervous when the experts say a cornerback is “the total package, except for his one-on-one coverage ability.” What does that mean?

Very funny stuff. The only thing less useful than a 2010 draft grade right now is a 2011 draft grade. I know everyone is rightly disappointed in Spiller's 2010 season, but I think he is being thrown into the Maybin pile way too soon. Whether this was a good draft or not will be determined in a couple years, when Carrington and Troup and Easley and Moats could all be starting, and Spiller may have learned to pick up the blitz and hit the hole and be an impact player. Not saying that will happen or won't happen, but how good this class is depends on if it does happen or not, not on the 4-12 2010 team's performance.

+2 I tried CTRL-Z several times, but I still see the words in my head. There is no way Luck falls to #32, so I wish the Bengals success with him after they draft him #1 next year.

YES. Winning is always better. Not just for the moral lift to the fans, and players, but in terms of building a winning team and tradition. Winning that game would have done more to get us back to the playoffs and to win a Super Bowl than picking at #3. The draft is way too inexact a science. You list five players who wouldn't have been there at #6? The are pro bowlers and hall of famers in pick 6+ (or 13+) all over the place, and while I wouldn't trade down for free, I would happily trade down for the winning experience against a very good Steelers team and what it would mean to the growth of this team.

Or we can try to get the three best football players we have available to us? Rather than try to play the weld-the-weakest-link-in-our-53-link-chain? I think Buddy understands this better than most of the fans do, and I hope he has good luck and good talent evaluations as he executes this philosophy. Who we pick at #3 or after should have very little to do with who we have on our weak 53 man roster. We are looking for 10 year players ideally, and at the very least five year contributions. Nobody is going to remember what was wrong with the 2010 Bills, and we aren't one player away. So let's get great football players and stop worrying about who needs to be replaced the most out of Kelsey, Bell, Fitzpatrick, or Stroud.

I'm fine with a QB if Chan and Buddy like one, but first round pick QBs Drew Brees and Tom Brady say hi...oh wait. And you could have also pointed out that of the 12 playoff teams, only three had top 3 picks at QB and two had sixth rounders. Clearly there is a trend to succeed with first round star quarterbacks, and I think that we should likely use one of our two first round choices this year (considering our second rounder as a very late first) or our first rounder next year on a QB, but that doesn't lock us in to picking one at #3 if the right guy isn't there. So if Chan and Buddy don't like Newton or Gabbert to a #3 level, I don't think we should reach and rush and take a Joey Harrington. Many more first round QBs were NOT in the playoffs in 2010 than were, so taking a guy because we have to instead of because we think he is going to be the right guy, is just a "dillusional".

But we NEEDED a RB, and we didn't NEED a CB (until the following year). Don't draft need. Draft the guys you think will be the best football players. I think Miller will be a very good football player. I have some doubts if he will be great, so that is why he is not at the top of my board. I think Gabbert could be a great football player and the impact of a great QB is often worth the risk. If he is our pick it means he has Chan's approval, and that is enough for me to be happy. I don't have Gabbert or Newton high on my board, but I will not be unhappy with either pick because of the Chan/Buddy vote of confidence meaning a lot. I think Peterson is overrated based on physical talents, but measurables do not make Revis or Nnamdi the great corners, and I don't think Peterson has the coverage skills to be great at CB. I would be very disappointed with the pick.

I look forward to Buddy getting the best football player available with each pick, and seeing the impact of that unfold over the next five years. I don't expect him to be perfect with his rankings, but I do expect him to be a lot more accurate than the last few guys making the decisions.

QB is the exception to BPA because of the special quality of the position, and the fact that ideally you have one guy take all the snaps for many years. But see the Rodgers Kolb mentions already. I don't think at any point we try to outsmart anybody. I think we have failed to pick the best player often, but that is because of a mistaken big board, and not because of caring about other teams or scouts. Without any personal attack intended, this is the dumbest post I have seen in a while. If a team is good and is one short term need away from being elite, maybe THEY could justify not taking BPA. But a team that is not putting its eggs in the 2011 basket and needs to inject as much talent as possible into any of the 53 roster slots, a team in the top half of the first round with multiple needs should ABSOLUTELY be drafting BPA pick after pick, year after year. Our "needs" change faster than we move from bad to good anyway. +1. Exactly, BPA isn't an exact science, and you shouldn't really be confident that a 90 is better than an 89, but you should be confident that a 90 is better a 80, and if you pick an 80 over a 90, you either have terrible trust in your scouting/ranking ability, or you have such a dumb strategy that you are hurting your team each time you pick. BUT, and an important but, I think that the BPA rankings end up being nowhere close to what Kiper and others put grades on. A Kiper "95" CB is not as valuable to a football team as a "89" DE. Just like a 20 HR catcher is worth more than a 20 HR firstbaseman, I think that the rankings from 1-100 are not weighted correctly to the value of different positions, and so I am certainly not advocating taking Green or Peterson because I don't think either is going to be the BPA as it should be measured.

No but I think Orakpo probably can. And Ngata says hi (he would like to slim down and play lighter but the team won't let him).

Why does New York need three teams but Florida not? And California doesn't need four? I don't follow that logic at all...that would like a Vikings fan telling you to just root for the Jets or drive to Cleveland. I am a huge native Bills fan despite living in San Diego, but I don't get why the Chargers should leave San Diego and how that somehow solidifies the Bills situation. And despite the current stadium situation (which is all local politics and timing), San Diego is the eighth largest city in the USA and has a 3 million person metro area. Cities in the NFL that are not a 3 million metro area: St Louis, Tampa, Baltimore, Denver, pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Green Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas The real issue here from a logical standpoint is Oakland should not have gotten the Raiders, but we know that is an owner and economics and local politics things, and never defined by what actually makes sense. So while I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo, your post is pretty silly.

Is he the best football player who will be available? That's the question to ask. Not whether our roster of 53 can accommodate him. Taking an inferior player at #3 because of the position played would just be a crazy thing to do. If he is not clearly the best player, I am very happy to pick someone else (even though Dareus is my top choice at the moment), but Kyle and Troup don't have much of an impact on my decision. If there is a chance that Gabbert or Miller or Bowers is the same level of player, then fine. Also, I'm not sure about the Kyle issues anyway. I think Dareus would be fine at 3-4 DE and 4-3 DT, so a perfect compliment to Kyle, not the contrary.

+1. 40 time, weight, and vertical will not make him elite. He might be a very good player, but I don't see the coverage and ball skills to make him Revis or Reed.

Why? Why is day 1 what makes or breaks the pick? I personally don't think that Sept 2011 is the most important football for this team, and while I hope for a 10-6 playoff surprise this year, every decision made by the team should be about what will help the most over 3-5 years (I'm not saying year 1 doesn't matter), and on what will make this team a winner. I would love a day 1 contributor, and the defensive guys we are looking at will likely do that, but if Newton is going to be a Pro Bowl type QB, I don't have any problem with him pulling a Carson Palmer and sitting his entire first season while he learns. I personally don't think Newton is that guy, but if the coaches feel otherwise, I am happy with the selection and the wait.

I have liked Dareus a lot from the start, and have been down on Fairley since the week of the championship game where he vaulted to #1 on a lot of lists. I would prefer Dareus, but I think Fairley's stock has gone from too high to too low. I am not sure he will be the best player we can get at #3, but I don't mind him and think he is likely to be a great player and a very good top 10 pick.

Why will he be like Revis? Because he is fast? Because he is big? Because he can jump high? Everything that makes Revis great is related to his coverage and ball skills, not his measurables, and I haven't seen many people focusing on these things when eveluating Peterson. When they do they normally talk about "Stiff Hips" and "Maybe a Safety". He might be the next elite CB like Darrell and Nnamdi, but not based on all the reasons that are getting people excited right now. I don't think he is the best player we can get at #3, so I would be disappointed with the selection. If it really is a tossup, I love a front-7 defensive pick, but at #3 I want the best football player we can get, and if Green or Gabbert is better than the defensive options, I will be very happy with that. And I am on the Spiller bandwagon. Too many people are giving up on him after a season. I think he was the best pick available on draft day, and could very likely still be better on the field than any player taken after him.