Koufax

I agree with most of you comments, but "shore up our weak points" sounds like you think the 2011 draft class should drammatically affect the 2011 season and should be chosen based on 2010 needs. I just see that as bad management, both because draft picks tend to contribute more in years 2 through 5 than year 1, and because that usually means getting inferior players because position comes before talent. Other than that, good points, and try to add the most talent to the roster possible (yes, some front 7 most likely) and with fitz we can pick the right QB in 2011 or 2012 and develop him...not force our #3 overall pick and throw that guy to the wolves hoping he is good. All that said, I see some Mallet/Rothlisberger similarities and I hope he gets a careful look by Buddy.

I think 3 is high for a CB, but it is usually high for a DT and I wouldn't have minded Suh. But a CB for us would have to be a game changing superstar. If we think Prince is that, I don't have any issues based on Jauron drafts or our current roster. But I expect we will go in another direction. I just hope we get a great football player, and I like our chances with Buddy and Chan.

Um....we got him for free. I didn't see Ryan on a practice squad. I would say instead: Wow! We got a 93-grade second rounder for nothing! I know he hasn't panned out yet, but good job adding talent to our roster! Fitz stayed healthy, and Brohm probably doesn't have it, but remember that Brohm is on the bench for the same reason that Fitz was on the bench and Trent was the starter: Chan's evaluation in practice. Fitz took the bull by the horns and hasn't missed a snap and has played above expectations, so Brohm didn't get his chance yet, and might never really get it, but he seems like a good kid and a talented kid, so I don't mind him on the roster, and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts some games for us in the next year or two, the way drafts and injuries go. Back to the original post, what it shows is is true again and again, is that draft grades and draft position doesn't always correlate directly with NFL success. Maybe it is a crap shoot and luck, or maybe our talent guy (Nix) and QB guy (Chan) can do a better job than McShay of identifying who can be a great QB, and we can take someone who will outperform their draft grade instead of underperform it.

If you make your assessment based on one game either way, I think you do so in error. That said, I am really happy with Fitz, but know he is not our QB of the future long term, and likely will not win a Super Bowl. As a four time AFC champion (by fan proxy), I am not really interested in anything else as an ultimate goal. I am very happy with Fitz at QB in 2011, and even 2012 if necessary, and starting our next playoff game when we finally make it. I don't see a QB in the draft who will outperform him for next year (although I think we should keep evaluating the guys that are there). If there is someone who Chan likes enough to study under him this year and be our QB of the future, I am happy taking him anywhere from round 1 this draft to round 3 next draft. We will be a better football team next year, and possibly even a good one, but don't have much of a chance at being great. Fitz allows us to be patient with our selection and grooming of our next QB. If we got Luck and he was ready to start in September, great...Fitz is a great backup. If we get the next Rivers or Palmer and they sit a full year, great. If Mallett is our Big Ben, great. If Locker is Chan's project and takes a while to be ready great. What Fitz gives us as a rebuilding team is choices and patience. What we don't have to do is pick someone because we "need" a QB. We can find the right player in the right round in the next draft or two, and not weaken our team by reaching for someone who is not likely to be great.

No. The draft philosophy should be to get the best football players. Using some positional usefulness as a tie breaker on nearly identically rated players is fine, and I'm sure we will have some picks where it isn't clear cut and we have choices without sacrificing BPA, but rookies don't always fill a need before that need morphs into something else. While I hope we don't go RB/CB/Punter in the top three rounds, there are enough positions where we need to get better that we can just try to pick the best football player over and over again. Do this year after year and we will stop having a JV roster. Last time picked Troup because that was one of our big "needs" and we failed to pick our other needs of LT and QB. Troup ended up not being a difference maker right away, and Kyle is our guy (although I am optimistic that Troup will be a good player for us). We have done fine this year at LT and QB, and have been punished with our DEs and LBs which weren't our perceived top needs on draft day. This isn't grocery shopping, this is a draft, and if we stay true to a goal of putting as much talent as possible on our roster we will be better off than any other strategy.

In three pages of disappointing short sighted posts, I will give this one a +1 We don't have to push the BPA stuff to extremes (I hope we don't get one of the two top corners, but that's just me), but what we need is to get great football players and have a little patience. Right now there is a lot of front 7 talk, but it makes me laugh. Yes that is what I think we need most and what I would be most excited about signing in a decent free agent, but: last year everyone said our need was OT and QB, we didn't draft either, and now people don't think OT and QB are necessarily our biggest needs. Things change and with the draft you have to get the best football players you can find, not pick positions of perceived need, because those needs shift before the guys you picked are ready to be stars a lot of the time. So I am happy that a lot of the top talents are front seven guys, because I think that matches up with things, and when BPA and need match up, that is even better. But for a QB, Fitz has proven that we don't need to get a QB. There are very few rookie QBs who will perform at his level, so getting a pretty good QB is not going to make us better in 2011. I think if we get a QB it is because we see a guy who we can envision in a yellow jacket and rings, or a second or third round value pick who Chan things he can develop while Fitz plays. Obviously I would pick Luck, and even trade up for him if Carolina wanted to, but I don't think he is coming out so that won't matter so much. As for Mallett, the focus of this thread, if our football guys think he has a good chance to be a Big Ben or a Bledsoe then we take him. If our talent evaluation and projection is later than him, we skip the "need" to get a QB for that round of this year, and we take the best football player we can. I haven't seen him play enough to really feel comfortable with my own opinions of him, but I do think there is some Big Ben/Bledsoe in Mallett. As much as I would like a Fairley or Bowers, if Mallett grades out, then I am very happy taking a franchise QB who is not the first QB chosen (Rivers, Big Ben, Flacco, Rodgers), but that is a much higher threshold than just being the second best QB in this draft.

Wow, I'm not sure where to start. 1) Fitzpatrick has done a great service to this team. He has taken away the absolute need to get a QB right away. I think that is very valuable. It means we can approach the next two drafts trying to get great football players and make our roster into a more talented one to help build a strong team faster. 2) Fitzpatrick is not our QB of the future, but can be a successful bridge as we build, and help get us to a winning season, a playoff appearance, a playoff win. Very doubtful he is going to be a Super Bowl win. It is fun to cite the defense first Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer wins, but the reality is since the Bills were playing in Super Bowls, those are the only two wins without a stud QB, and those were both with stud defenses. Fitz wants to try to turn into Kurt Warner if he is going to be a winner, not hope that we can win it all with an okay QB. 3) I love the passion behind the "multiple super bowl" comment, but that just isn't the case. We want to build a team that can compete for multiple Super Bowls, but I think we would all take winning one and competing year after year. 4) To whoever said we are 4 and 10, we are not. We were 0-8 last half season. This half season we are 4-2 trying to keep building. Otherwise just say we are 29-49 (the last five years) if you want to pick an arbitrary time frame . I am joking of course, but you really do need to be able to see past 4-10 and see 0-8 and 4-2 and understand the tale of two halves as we continue to build this thing. 4) All that said, if we don't draft a first round QB in the coming draft, we are fine. If we don't draft any QB we are fine. Chan knows what he wants from the position, Fitz gives him the opportunity to pick his guy even if he isn't ready yet, and take a year or two behind Fitz to get ready. So I see us taking a 2nd or 3rd rounder this year or next, unless a great 1st rounder falls to us. Giving up any value (trade the draft for Luck, etc) doesn't make sense for a team that needs to get better at a lot of positions. I am a happier Bills fan right now since any point since we were 5-1 behind Trentative. Next week will be tough, but I'm excited to watch this team get better. We have taken some of the elite to OT, but this is the first time in a long time that we have beaten a playoff contender, a division rival, or had a road win against a solid team (last year's Peyton-less Indy doesn't count). Go Bills!

Not beating out Kyle Williams is not an insult to anybody the way he has been playing. Carrington sure has looked like he has a lot of upside now that he has gotten on the field. I think Troup and Carrington will be good players for us, but that is more hope and faith in Nix than any real evidence. But trading up for a tackle reminds me too much of the McCargo situation. As well as Safford has played, I just don't think giving up two good players for one makes enough sense unless you are really convinced that the guy is worth it. I would rather make two good picks to help our team than reach for one. If you are basing it off of 2010, I think Bell has been good enough compared to Bulaga/Saffold to make taking two high picks on our front 7 away not such a good idea. If you are basing it on 2010-2015 like I think picks should be judged, it is much too soon to know, but I would rather have two good football players than one, so a 2 for 1 trade for a team with a shallow roster like ours better be a home run and not a McCargo.

No, the question should be who do we think is the better football player when we pick. I really like Fairley, but I think there are four or five defensive beasts who could easily end up being the best player when we pick.

If you don't want to build a great football team. If you want to build a great football team get great football players. When it is your pick, see if the LT or the DE or the LB or whoever is the best player. If you think the quality of player is the same, pick the one you need more. But if you reject a better LT for a DE, or a better LB for a LT because of what you think your 2-10 team needs, you aren't going to get the most value over five years of that pick. And if you do that over and over you are going to end up with a mediocre roster instead of a strong roster. And I know Buddy is going to do that (since Spiller was at a position two deep with good players, but it didn't matter since he was considered the most talented guy available). I know that gets us upset after a dozen weeks of a career, but I want this team to be great again and eventually win the Super Bowl they couldn't in the 90s, and the best way to help that cause in the draft is to get the absolute best football players we can each and every pick, and not worry about what positions they play and what we think we need right at that moment. Maybe coming off a 10-6 playoff season down the road it would be okay to focus on short term goals to round out that talented team at the sacrifice of longer term value, but coming off our 2-14 to 6-10 season this year I want the BPA each and every time, and have not heard a single good argument against that.

That's the key. I don't think the Pats beat us at the draft because they have more picks (although the OP opens your eyes for this year). They just draft better.

I am guessing you are drafting based on what you feel our needs are. So I am giving it a thumbs down. Try this one: 1. BPA 2. BPA 3. BPA 4. BPA And I think that will work a little better for our team.

I'm not completely sure, but I'm pretty happy with his performance this year and his upside. Even more than Fitz does for the QB position, he puts us in a position to get the best players available, and only get an LT if he is the best option at that pick. I can see that upgrading our front 7 based on the talent that is out there. I'm pretty happy with our line, just a matter of months after we were beaten up for not picking anybody before the 5th. Get good players unless you have a total and complete void. With Bell we don't have a void (and the same with Fitz), and that puts us in a better position to get better faster by not trying to patch needs. I am an eternal optimist, but I think his upside is really impressive given his growth in his first years of organized football and the circumstances he had coming in to this year that everyone has mentioned.

There are so many things wrong with your first sentence that I realize I probably shouldn't respond. I don't buy the QB issue being the reason Chan hasn't developed Spiller, but as a first year coach with a QB controversy and a new defensive scheme, getting your #3 RB ready isn't job 1. But I don't think coaching neglect is the reason for Spiller's slow learning curve. Danny Woodhead is a much inferior player to CJ. If you don't agree propose a trade and see how fast Bellichick says yes. Your comment is at best a criticism of Chan compared to Bellichick, and not CJ's fault. I have a problem with how CJ has been used and not used enough, and I also haven't been blown away with his 48 carries or 20 receptions and their results. I think he plays less because Fred is good and because he isn't ready to pick up blitzes as well as Fred in our pass happy offense. I agree. Better tackles and a better team make it easier to run, but I don't think our line is the fault of Spiller not getting a yellow jacket this season. Jahvid Best. Hmmm...off to a great start, but he is averaging 3.3 per carry to Spiller's 4.1. And certainly he has gotten more touches as a receiver and a back, but I think that is opportunity and not just ability. And Best came to Buffalo and lit us up to the tune of 17 carries for 35 yards and four catches for four yards. But again, nobody with football knowledge would give up Spiller to get Best. It is just a product of the situation. I am right along with you that Spiller's contribution has been disappointing, but I think he will be fine and we will be very happy to have him a Bill. I guess we have had too many Williams, McCargo, Maybin's in our history for fans to be patient and reasonable. But I am getting impatient with Chan more than CJ. Wasted pick? After 10 games in a going-nowhere rebuilding year? Let's try being a little more rational and use terms like "disappointing performance". You don't draft a player for year 1 contributions. You draft a player based on what you think you can get out of him in 5+ years. I wanted a lot more out of CJ this year, and am not really happy with Chan for not finding a way, but it isn't a wasted pick based on what happens through his first 10 games. Let's run him out of town quick!

Disappointing yes. Stupid pick no. The kid can play and will play. I wish he were getting more touches right now and I'm not clear why he doesn't, but the more he touches the football the more of an impact he will have. I think if Freddie got hurt the weekend after we traded away Marshawn, and Spiller were forced to get most of the catches, his numbers would be fine. EDIT: Also, I'm not clear why nobody compares him to Maurice Jones-Drew in these threads. Just for comparison, through his first 13 weeks (with no two week hammy injury) of playing behind Fred Taylor MJD had 500 yards on 95 carries (although he had some TDs and more receptions), and had 7 games under 50 yards, and 9 games under 10 carries. I'm not comparing the players directly, just finding a reference of smaller back who came in to a situation with an established back in front of him.

The implication is: 1) Using the draft to get the top talented football players and not fill needs. Not taking a reach LT because Kiper says you need an LT, but finding talented building blocks for your team with each pick. 2) Not trading away picks for players 3) Hinting that it will take a few years and not a splashy signing before things are there. 4) Letting drafted players play. But except for trading away picks, I agree with your criticism of the phrase, and not quite sure if Nix really means what I said above.

Really? You would rather have Bulaga? Often doesn't translate? Who are the comparisons? Chris Johnson and Reggio Bush? Who else is getting compared as major success at major college program for a small back with unbelievable speed? Can you let us know who your comparables are who often don't translate? I'm disappointed with his contribution, but I am not clear why his talent makes him "this kind of project". I don't see the player you want to make a difference on this 2010 team and make us a playoff contender (because 2-10 or 7-9 are similar with our long term goals of building a winning team). Certainly not Bulaga. We all agree with Ngata over Whitner and Orakpo/Matthews over Maybin. This strikes me as a very different pick and player and situation. So who from #10 to #32 do you really want instead? Let's leave the five defensive backs out of it, because we know they wouldn't be popular choices. On the RBs obviously no. Maybe they will be better players, but picking Matthews or Best over CJ on draft day would have given people a heart attack. I just don't see any OL / defensive front 7 guys from 10-32 that are such no brainers that we should never have passed up. Chan still has some 'splaining to do with CJ, but plenty of time to do it, and I think he will be a good football player for us.

I'm very disappointed with Spiller's contribution this year, and I find it alarming that he has only rushed 48 times in ten games, and never more than 7 times in a game. We have a very good back in Freddie, and I know Chan is not willing to give charity touches or developmental snaps, but is playing to win each game. But I still think his performance on the touches he has gotten have warranted a few more. I would like to know what the % of times he lines up in the backfield he is handed the ball compares to Freddie. I don't have any basis for this, but I would guess that he gets the ball a higher percentage of the time (given that he is an inferior blocker to Freddie), and defenses can key on him a little more when he is there and cheat run. But without data that could be completely off base. Either way he needs to be a decent blocker to be in the game more in potential pass situations and have an easier time running. I fully expect Chan to be able to make this happen, and find a way to use his talents, and I think his talents fall in the Reggie Bush to Chris Johnson level in terms of the type of player, but I think the Reggie Bush side of things is a little more likely. Remember Bush has averaged under 4.0 running the ball every year except for his 70 carry 2009, so I don't think that is too high a bar. I am not concerned about his ability to be a big playmaker for us, even though I am disappointed on his contribution this year. If he doesn't contribute a lot in year 2 though it would certainly make this a questionable pick. I am confident he will contribute a lot next year and be a key part of our offense for years to come.

Right, and Wisconson's passing game would be approached the same as the Vikings? I know Adrian Peterson got 107 yards and averaged 6.7, but we were also dealing with some talented receivers and NFL QBs. And without Peterson's long run, he was 15 for 64 for just over four yards. And is the single game rushing record holder, HOF talent with 23 100+ rushing games in four years. I do enjoy these threads, but think a lot of people should tune in and watch Saturday and Sunday football. The NFL is a huge leap from college, and the overall level of speed, strength, and quickness is so much higher as well as execution. I don't think any bad NFL vs great NCAA game is even close, and the talk radio "Wisconson would run all over the Bills" is amusing at best. But if we do set up one of these games, can we make sure we play it in Toronto? Canada's lack of capital punishment could come in handy as various Bills players face murder charges. Plus then we might actually win a game in Toronto!

Carolina has to win @Seattle or at home against Arizona to get to 2-14, which would mean us running the table with losses just to lose the 2-14 tie breaker and not get Luck anyway. I still see us at #4 to #6, getting a good player, and I think we should forget about the #1 or Luck any more than we were focusing on who the Rams should take last year (meaning it is fine if you are interested, but it doesn't relate much to the Bills). I am still rooting for the bottom teams to win (and for the Bills to win) so we stay as high as we can, but that 41 yarder against the Browns as time expired on Sunday is the closest we will get to the #1 pick this year. I think we will get a great player anyway, and can find the non-Peyton-Manning-draft-slot QB of the future in this draft or next.

Sign some good role playing free agents, cut some dead weight. Draft the best football player available at each of our seven picks. Don't buy the revolving door of what we are supposed to "need" and expect a rookie to fix it before that isn't our biggest problem anymore. A franchise QB and play maker LB would be my priorities if multiple players are pretty closely graded at our top picks. Continue to play hard every week and progressing in the system and getting better. Lather, rinse, and repeat... but for the record, Spiller, Troup, Carrington, and Easley look like they have the potential to be four very good football players, but you see the limited impact they have on our 2010 team. Don't expect rookies to make a huge difference in year 1, and because of that, don't draft them based on what you think you need most in year 1. Three or four years out your needs have changed, but you are stuck with the reach player instead of the star player. The good news is it is pretty clear that Nix learned something about that while in SD helping build the most talented roster in the NFL, and Chan knows how to coach them. I think we have a lot of potential to do well in 2011, but what I'm most excited about is building a consistent contender who can get us a shot at a ring in the next few years. Just ask Red Sox fans...one ring cures decades of disappointment in a hurry.

Unless of course there is a better football player available who plays offense please! Nobody we pick can turn this team around by himself, but each draft pick can make our roster better and help our chances at catching the very good teams ahead of us in the division. Taking an inferior defensive player over a superior offensive player means that over the next five years this team has a weaker roster because of your perceived need. No thanks. Use every pick available to add as much five-year contribution talent to this roster. So while I really hope that the best player available is a front 7 defensive player because I have many of the same short term observations and emotions as you do, we really need our front office to pick the top talent over and over and over, round after round, year after year. Hopefully Nix spent enough time with the Chargers to realize that is how you build a roster, and drafting for needs ensures you will have more needs.

I like Fairley, and I don't buy the don't take a 3-4 DE that high stuff. I would love if our first pick is a franchise QB or an impact front 7 guy, but I still think that you need to take the best player available pick after pick, year after year to build a team. Needs change faster than players get on the field. Talent is talent, and add as much of it to your team every draft and you will like the outcome. I would of course be disappointed if we take a DB, but realistically if the DB is by far the best player available, I still think it is the right decision. Very few places are draft picks going to make huge impacts as rookies, and you are drafting a 5/6 year contribution. Just say no to inferior players because you need them right now. However it also is true that it is a crap shoot and player grades can be pretty similar, so in that case I don't mind getting the positions we think will help us more (by benching a weaker link on our team for the new guy, we add more immediate value), but I hope with the #5 pick or whatever we get, we pick the best football player available (or one of several similarly good players), evaluating on what he will contribute to the Bills from 2011 through 2016, and not based on what position of ours sucks the most in 2010.

Yes, I very clearly agree with this, and my optimism is tempered in reality. I still hope we get Mallett or somebody we like in this draft, otherwise I hope we do in 2012. A hot month does not make a quarterback. I think what we can agree on, is we knew before he got the starting job that he would take a shot more aggressively, and he has shown since he took over that he is pretty capable at completing a lot of the passes he attempts. So I don't view him as the second coming of Kurt Warner, but I feel comfortable with him taking snaps for the rest of the year, and likely think I would be happy with him being our #1 in 2011 for all 16 games if we don't get a QB we want in the draft, or if we do and we want him to sit and learn.

Except Fiedler's career high for TD% as a starter was 4.8, and Fitz is 6.3 right now. Except that Fiedler's yards per game high as a starter was 205, and Fitz is currently 245. Except that Fiedler was a 1:1 TD:INT guy his whole career and Fitz is currently a 2:1. Except that Fiedler never had a QB rating as high as Fitz's right now. Except that all that happened as Fiedler took over for a team that had made the playoffs and won a playoff game the year before, and not the lowly struggling rebuilding Bills. You could do the same if someone compared Fitz to Kurt Warner. And I don't think either comparison is a good one. But I would actually be quite happy with Fitz putting together a couple 10 win seasons in a row as the team rebuilds and finds and develops their QB in the next two drafts (whether Luck, Mallet, or somebody off our radar screen at the moment). So I'm happy with Fitz being our QB right now, winning games for us, and allowing us not to rush/force the QB draft decision. I don't have any problem if he is our Kitna to Palmer or Brees to Rivers, and I think we do take a franchise QB whenever the opportunity presents itself. But Fitz has shown a lot and has six more games to show how much faith he deserves, and if we want to draft a QB not ready to start in the 2011 draft to learn behind him, or whether we want to wait and draft someone in 2012, or whether we want to spend a top five pick in the next draft, etc. I don't see Fitz being our 2015 QB. But I think we will be a better 2011 team with Fitz + Fairley than Fitz + Mallett/Locker, so our decision on how we get better for 2012 and beyond is a complicated one, and I am glad Fitz has stepped up and made it complicated...because in week 2 it was looking pretty depressing and uncomplicated.