Koufax

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.

But Dareus only .03 slower than Peterson in the 40...I'm going with a very bad list that is not that accurate in data or results.

I applaud Clayton for doing his job, and covering the teams that matter. You can't accurately cover 32 teams, so take a pass on some that the only people who really care about know more than you anyway. If he wants to tell us about some players he covers that sounds good, although he isn't much of a college guy, so not the right guy to listen to for the draft anyway.

Peterson is not the best player available, and I have my doubts that he is the best CB available. Again a position all about ball skills and instincts not about measureables. If I hear more about his football skills and less about his weight and 40 time I might think about it. If he were really the best player available I would have no problem, but it is nearly impossible for a DB to be the best player available at draft time. Revis #14 Rod Woodson #10 Nnamdi Asomugha #31 Ed Reed #24 Not an ultimate list, but what makes a truly great DB is not always clear at draft time, and I don't see the football skills for Peterson that make him a top 3 player. If I thought Peterson was actually the best player I would have no problem with him. We have added a #2 and a #3 DL last year, added Merriman, and I think while I want improving our front seven is still key, picking a second best option at #3 to do so is dumb. I think we are very fortunate that most of the players I think are in the top 10 BPA are front 7 (along with Green, Peterson, Gabbert). The reason taking Peterson at #3 would be a mistake is that he is not the best player available. He is no guarantee to be an elite corner (or even stay at corner). He doesn't dramatically improve our very good return game. My board right now would be: Dareus Green Quinn Fairley Miller Bowers Peterson Gabbert Amukamara Jones I would be happy with one of the first five and pretty disappointed to take someone after that at #3

Decertification was a strategy in negotiations and the process, neither a desire to not have a union nor a sham.

Mayock is consistently the best at these things, and I fully value his individual player ratings more than my own I have been saying since the week after the championship game that Fairley would drop, and I have been big on Dareus. I hope Dareus lasts until our pick, as I think he has a very high ceiling, and also a very high floor (low risk player). His Miller rating surprises me, because I still think he will be light to be able to make a real impact and move from very good player to a true great, but I'm starting to think I am undervaluing him. Peterson at #3 still seems way to high and on measurables mostly. You hear about his weight and 40 time much more than his ball skills and coverage skills, and I think the later two play a much larger role than the first two in being a difference maker at corner. I would be very disappointed if he were our pick. Gabbert, Green, and Quinn all have their value and could all be considered at #3. I think that is too high for Green and it takes a lot for a WR to really be a top 3 pick, while Gabbert and Quinn are both risks that aren't locks to fit in right and be elite football players, but both have tremendous ceilings.

Peterson is not the best player in the draft on draft day, and I think unlikely to turn in to the best player in the draft over the coming years. If he is it will be purely on ball skills and not 40 speed and weight and leap. Nnamdi and Revis are not the top two measurable guys in the nfl, and are the only two CBs in the league who would be worthy of a top 5. I think that Dareus might be the best football player available at #3, but I'm happy if Buddy thinks someone else based on a lot more insight than I have, and picks that guy...I just really doubt that Peterson is the best in the draft. Being fast and jumping high is normal for a corner, and are not the qualities that separate a good corner from a great corner. And in the current NFL you need to be truly elite at CB to have the impact of a great front seven guy. Can Quinn play LB? Can Newton play in the NFL? Is Miller big enough to be great instead of just very good? Is Fairley going to be big enough to do the same things in the NFL as he did in college? Those are all guys who I would like to have on my team, but I don't think any of them or Peterson is as good a pick as Dareus for us.

There is NOTHING in the measurables that people are in love with that would make Peterson a good pick at #3. If he is a good pick that high, it is purely because of ball skills. Revis and Asomugha are not the top two measurable guys, but to take a corner at #3, he has to play at that level. I just don't see Peterson being the best player available at #3. Quinn has a lot of warning flags and concerns, and I don't think he will e better than Bowers and Dareus, but I think he will be an excellent football player as well. I have him about #5 on my board at the moment, and I'm not taking the #5 guy with the #3 pick.

Why do we need someone who would help us right away? Is 2011 somehow super important and our year to go for it? I'm looking for the guy who would help this team the most over the next 5+ years. I think that is likely Dareus, but if Newton can live up to his potential he could be even more valuable, but the worst case scenario is worse for him. Miller seems safe like Dareus to be a very good player, I just don't think he will be as good a football player as Dareus. So to answer your questions, I would be disappointed but hopeful if we draft Newton, and I would be more disappointed if we drafted Miller who I would love at #8-12 where we are used to, but I don't think will be the most valuable on the board at #3. I don't think Cam is, but he could be.

Different players and different positions have different bust potential. If you think that the chances of Dareus not being a very good starter are the same as Newton not being a very good starter, and all risks are equal, I suggest you stay away from Las Vegas. Every player has a chance to fail to meet expectations, but there are certain things that make that risk higher or lower. Playing QB is a higher bust factor than playing DL, being a one year star is a higher bust factor than being a multi year starter. Playing a scheme drastically different from your NFL team is a higher bust factor than playing the same scheme. None of these things means Dareus will be a guaranteed star and Newton a guaranteed bust. And more importantly, Newton's value if he reaches his ceiling is more than Dareus. The question is what is the likelihood of each outcome, and how much are we willing to risk for a potentially more valuable player. I have not seen enough from Newton to make me want to roll the dice over Dareus, but the coaches may have, and I would love the Newton pick if it works out (but will be keeping my fingers crossed until his first Pro Bowl).

But Aaron Rodgers was a lot closer to our second round pick than our #3, so if you look at QBs picked in the top 5: Bradford Stafford Ryan Russell Vince Young Alex Smith Eli Rivers Palmer Carr Harrington Vick I probably would take my chances on that group if I could trade my #3 for a random member of that list at age 22. But there is definitely some risk element there. I am very happy to pass on Dareus if necessary if Buddy and Chan really think that Cam or Gabbert is the guy we want, but this draft isn't about history as much as it is about one question: What is the likelihood that Chan can turn Cam or Gabbert into a great NFL QB? There is always an element of risk with any player and definitely with QBs. So what do you think the chances are that Newton is considered a great QB in five years (not that he takes five years to do that, but looking at him over a five year period you would call him great)? The same for Gabbert? I think Newton is a higher ceiling (Big Ben) but also a higher risk (Russell). I haven't seen Gabbert play as much, but I would peg him as more likely to be at least very good, but less likely to be great. If either of those guys seems really pretty likely to be great, I am happy picking them. Both have the physical tools to do it. Neither has the pro-style decision making experience be certain, so we are looking at a lot of projection and guessing. I like Nix/Chan making that projection over Donohue, Jauron, etc. Similarly, if Chan has reason to think that Ponder, etc might have a good chance of being a Brees/Kolb/Schaub, I have no problem rolling the dice on that with our second or third round pick where we often settle for Youboty/Parrish/Hardy types So basically I agree with your premise and don't personally see any QB worth of #3, but I really trust Chan is very well suited to making that evaluation, and won't be disappointed if we pick a QB, because it means a huge vote of confidence from him to pass on the non-QBs...as long as Ralph isn't involved in that decision which is the main way it could go awry!

Who are these two kickers, and do you think one of them might slide to #3? Or maybe we should try to trade up to get one of them. I like Lindell, but we all know the NFL has become a kicker's league, and teams without a top notch kicker rarely go deep into the playoffs. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Ralph forces the team to with a punter at #3 instead after Moorman's off year. Usually there is only one franchise kicker in a draft, so we have to make sure we do our homework and try to get the kicking Peyton and not the kicking Leaf. How much do you want for that rock? And I'm in on the Newton/Peterson combination for the original post, so we can take Dareus unless our football guys think enough of Quinn/Bowers/Fairley to pass on Dareus.

I think AJ Green will be a very good to great player for another NFL team. I don't think he will be the best player available when we pick (measure: expected 5 year value over replacement player). Right now I think that player is Dareus, but there are a bunch of guys who could fit. Green could be one of them, but I think he is being ranked slightly higher than his real impact over the next five years will be. I would not hate the pick, but I don't think it will be the best pick we can make, not based on "need" but based on actual ability to help a football team win games.