Koufax

Great data. Thanks. So I think we can all agree we won't intentionally trade 1st round picks for 2nd or any other full round trade downs, because top players are more likely to come from the higher rounds. Back to the actual discussion, the issue is whether losing and drafting higher would 1) Help us get a franchise QB or 2) Help us be better overall in the next few years. I think our move in the last two weeks from the #1 pick to #4-6 was inevitable (look at the road OT losses against two first place teams), and we weren't going to go 0-16 which is what it likely would have taken to beat the soon-to-be 1-15 Panthers. It felt like it at 0-8, but when the dust settles we aren't going to be looking at just one half of football (2nd vs Bengals) where if we did a little worse we would have gotten a savior. Also, with due respect to Luck, the evidence that has been put forth here shows generally picking #4-6 isn't such a difference from picking #1. We all love the Peyton story, but the Colts were considering Leaf as well, and there are many other #1 busts who were considered locks six months before the draft happens. Also, drafting well is much better than drafting high. There just isn't any way around this. Look at what the Steelers and Patriots have done over the last decade without cracking the top 10, and compare that to what the Lions and Raiders have done. Those are just examples in the extreme, but it is clear that it does not take top picks to build an amazing roster (even their superstar QBs were not picked in the top 10). Now, in every isolated case I would rather have a higher pick than a lower pick, but there is nothing isolated about it. We have guys on this team now who are building what the Bills will be in the next few years, guys who will be part of our 2013 team whether it is in last place or the Super Bowl. And to the development of those guys and the coach and more, I think that turning 0-8 into 4-12 will be more valuable than riding it to an "It-Doesn't-Matter-Anyways" 1-15 (and likely the #2 pick at 1-15). Not more valuable because it is fun to win as a fan, but more valuable to the actual progress of our team into a champion. Rooting for losing because you think it will make you better is not just pretty sad as a sports fan, I also think that realistically it is not a very sound objective. But if Joe_the_6_pack has some extra time to do statistical research, can you get us a list of the 0,1,2 win teams that appeared in a super bowl or conference title game in the following five years? Even Manning's Colts didn't get to a conference championship until the sixth year. Or are you looking towards the 2016 season and beyond? Our best path to the playoffs is finding a way to be a 4-12 or even 5-11 team this year, and rolling that momentum into next year and see what year #2 of a new system and coach can do, as players start understanding the system and start learning how to win. Even in 2001 I don't regret beating the Panthers to miss Peppers and fall to #4 for Mike Williams. What I regret is picking Mike Williams at #4 instead of Dwight Freeney, Albert Hayensworth, or Ed Reed. And maybe Mallett or Locker will fall into our laps at #4-6 and five years from now be the steal of the draft people are talking about. Eli Manning #1, Rivers #4, Big Ben #11. Or maybe Fitz is our guy for now, we draft a QB in a later round or in 2012, and we pick up a defensive beast that changes the character of our front 7. A lot can happen after draft day, so I think we will be fine if Chan and Buddy make good decisions. But right now I just hope we find a way to win one Sunday at a time. Go Bills!

I AM SO SICK OF THIS!!!!! SOME OF YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT!!!!! It seems like most of this thread is Win-To-Enjoy-It vs Lose-For-The-Future. That just isn't the choice. 1) I don't think our chances of getting Luck are very good. He will likely not come out, and it would have been very difficult to catch the 1-15 Panthers. 2) Winning to build a winning tradition and for the value it adds to the 30+ guys coming back matters more than any draft improvement. There are a handful of turn arounds, but aside from Aikman and Manning, very few tied to the #1 pick in the last several decades. 3) As The Dean said, winning correlates much more closely with future winning than anything else. I have posted some numbers about this, but Super Bowl teams don't very often have a bad season in their previous five years or so. 4) GREAT QBs are selected after #1. Everyone is high on Luck right now, and I don't follow college football closely enough to have a strong opinion on the other guys, but there are a lot of drafts that go the way the Eli #1, Rivers #4, Rothlisberger #11 compared to the Peyton #1, Leaf #2. That plus QB busts at #1 doesn't make me sold that we are better off drafting #1. 5) 1-15 seasons (forget 0-16) are very hard on a team, coach, and fan base. 6) Fitz is good enough to not make QB an absolute 1st round need. We need to get a QB of the future in the next couple drafts, but Fitz takes the urgency off, and we can get the best players at each pick to make our team better. GO BILLS! One game at a time, playing to win, and now that we have two wins I can't wait until #3. I see us picking #4 or #5, and we will get a great player there. I'm still rooting for all the other bottom teams to win, but each and every week we should hope this team wins both for our enjoyment now, and for the future of the franchise.

It was already pretty wrapped up. Carolina will finish 1-15 and likely have the tie breaker. I'm happy to have a top five pick, a 300yd/4td QB who can at the least hold us over until the right time to get a QB and keep us from "you have to get one", and a #2 receiver with three tds. And I don't actually mind heading in to my afternoon with a 49pt scoring effort victory either. Maybe I would be disappointed if this was week 17 and Luck had declared, but we are going to have a tough time out-sucking the Panthers.

We will beat some of the following teams, and not all of the following teams: CIN, PIT, MIN, CLE, MIA, NE, NYJ A lot can happen in football games, and you would not have thought we would have been in Overtime with the Ravens. Cincinnati: a bad team playing below their talent, and a lot can happen. Steelers: they got crushed by NE showing vulnerability, but us winning that road game is unlikely Minnesota: With all that is going on for that team, the likely QB change, anything can happen, but stopping Peterson and winning in the dome doesn't seem too likely Cleveland: I guess you are drinking the Kool Aid yourself here. Seems like a fun surprising team that is playing well, but who knows where they will be in a month.... Miami: Their QB situation makes anything possible, and I don't think they were a great team before their injuries. I like our chances here. NE: Nope, barring a miracle or them resting people, and the division is close enough that that won't be happening. I will still watch the game and hope. NYJ: Who knows what the week 17 situation is. We beat the Colts last year because of circumstance. If they are resting people and we are playing well and starting to come together this isn't that unlikely. So you seem pretty sure we won't win two more games by your response. I appreciate your pessimism. It has been a hard decade. But I don't think you should gamble any money you can't lose. I think Sunday will say a lot. If we lose Sunday it will be likely we don't do any better than 3-13, and I think only Carolina and Detroit would have a chance to do that, meaning we would be a top 3 pick. If we win Sunday, we are in position to be a 4-12 or better team, and would push down Cincy, so I think we likely would be picking 4th or lower. I don't see Carolina winning another game (but will root for them), so I see us at 2-3 if we lose to Cincy and 4-6 if we beat them. Fortunately there are a lot of teams that will get to 5-6 wins and stay ahead of us no matter what we do.

I am a BPA guy, so I am tempted to put everything at P3 just out of principle. I would likely put: QB=P2* (definitely need it, but if the right value isn't there, Fitz has shown we can wait another year) LT=P3* (I think Bell has played well enough to target this if value is there DE=P2 OLB=P2 RT=P3 NT=P3 ILB=P3 WR=P3* (I wouldn't pass on a better WR because we needed a RT or NT more, so this has to be at the same level in my mind) TE=P3 CB=P4* (Lower priority, but if a much better football player I would still take one...although hopefully the P4 is enough to keep from taking one in the top five) S=P5* (Lower priority, but I would still take a special safety over a so-so RT) RB/Punter/Kicker=P9 (these are the positions where I would actively pass on a better player to take an inferior player at another position). So that is my BPA take on the values you have put in. Not sure how the math works and if you have to force things lower to avoid getting all DBs. And with my "way too soon and I don't follow college football closely enough" disclaimer, I wouldn't mind Fairley at all.

Draft inferior players for need and you will ensure that you have mediocrity and more needs. Draft the best football players you can and you will have the best football team you can. There are some exceptions to this (franchise QB yes, if BPA is a running back this year, don't do it, and we probably don't need a punter), but for receivers, lines, linebackers, secondary, I think the best player available is the only way to go. When it comes down to a close toss up, I would be happy to take the DE over the DB based on "need". But given that players don't step in immediately and dominate (although top picks should and it would be nice if it happened more often), planning out the later rounds based on need is silly. We needed a nose tackle and picked Troup...but he isn't the one filling our nose tackle need. We needed pass rushing and picked Carrington, but again, not filling that need right now. If better football players were available at either of those picks, we would have been better served getting them, because to build a good team you string together draft after draft of getting the most football production over the 5-6 years you expect to have a guy. If you settle for 80% as good but at a more important position at the moment over and over, you will end up with a lot of 80% as good players on your team, and five years down the road will not be as talented a football team. Okay, that is all the BPA > Need ranting I can do today. I say we just see who the best football player there is available at #3 or wherever we pick, and bring position and what we think we need into it only if there are two or three guys very closely rated on our board.

Yeah, and prior to picking Peyton, in the 14 history of Indianapolis they had six seasons with double digit losses and zero seasons of double digit wins. And it was a small town without much going on. And in two decades before picking up Brett Favre for the 1992 season Green Bay had one double digit winning season and eight double digit loss seasons. And it was a small town without much else going on. If Luck really is that HOF type QB, I don't think trying to stay away from Buffalo makes any sense. He can help elevate whatever team he goes to (and #1 QBs don't usually go to powerhouses). And you can't fault Eli landing with the Giants, but Rivers has ended up with a pretty great situation after Archie thinking San Diego was pretty bleak and to be avoided. But I think he will stay in school and we won't be picking #1 either, so it will likely be a moot point. We obviously don't pass on him if he is available at our pick in 2010 and probably not in 2011 (although going that far in QB projections gets you in to the Claussen/Quinn/Locker future #1 pick territory).

THEY NEED TO GET THE BEST FOOTBALL PLAYERS THEY CAN! Sorry, I just found a Caps Lock key and it seems to have calmed me down. I definitely have an open mind about Fitzy, and while he isn't our HOF QB of the future, he totally takes the pressure off us to get a QB at all costs, and lets us pick the best fit and value of the next draft or two or three and then mentor him. I think Luck is a phenomenal talent and football player, and I pick him anywhere he is available. But if he isn't there, I'm happy to consider along with the top QBs the BPAs at other positions, and get the best players each round to make our roster more talented. The way Fitz has played, it takes off the "QB is a glaring weakness", and allows us to pick the best football player talent each round and in doing so, become a more talented football team. He isn't good enough to pass on a franchise QB if available, but he is good enough to keep us from pretending an also-ran is a franchise QB.

+1. I think he will come out, and I would love to have him, but I also think we will be fine at 2 or 3, and while I certainly hope for some Carolina wins at some point, I think they are the team most likely to finish 1-15. I was happy to see the Cowboys and Niners win today, although I wasn't too worried about them. But I am also very worried about the Lions and Bengals, and can see us picking #4. Right now I'm just happy for the win, and think the benefits of getting the 0-16 monkey off of this team's back outweigh the draft position side.

That decision has not been made, and he is just talking now. That decision will be made months down the road with a lot more information at his disposal, and with some professional advice related to the labor situation, and more. Stay tuned, but I don't think anything said at this point in either direction should carry much weight other than where he would be leaning if making the decision right now.

I think we are getting too focused on "It" just because our last several guys haven't been good QBs. Trent and JP were not good QBs. They had the talent but were never good QBs and failed to become them when in Buffalo. For all the love I have for Flutie, and I am not really interested in finding a Flutie...I'm interested in finding a Rivers/Rothleisberger/Brady/Manning/Rodgers. So while I think just looking for measurables and getting stuck with Losman/Leaf/George is dumb, also over focusing on intangibles isn't a great idea, and college success doesn't always project well either. Let's get a big strong accurate QB with a strong arm and great football sense. Luck to me seems like the obvious choice, but Mallett could be a fit too. Not so sure about anybody else in this draft, but I'm sure there is going to be a surprise or two here as well.

Has he been ruled out for Sunday? Or maybe just needs some ice and some stretching and will practice on Friday? Either way I'm happy to have him on the roster and helping us field more talent in the last 8 games than the first 8. There are probably 15-20 guys in uniform who won't be on our 2011 team, so I don't think that is a requirement. The reasons against Merriman: 1) Don't want Ralph to lose some money (he wouldn't spend it on another player, and he has lots, and there is no cap issue, so I don't see this as valid) 2) You think he will take playing time from someone who might be part of our future and stunt their growth (i.e. Maybin, but I think that is a silly argument, and I would expect he would have a positive impact, if any, on Maybin's development, and we don't have a lot of quality young OLBs) 3) You actually don't think he is talented enough to be on our roster if healthy. I consider this argument pretty laughable. 4) You knew he was going to be hurt and will not be able to help us because of this. Might have something here, although I would consider passing a team physical more important than tweaking something in his first practice in a long time. If he sits out Sunday or beyond, this could start to have some weight. 5) Because he is not going to play for us in 2011, you don't want him around messing up our draft order by making us a better football team. This one I am not going to touch. Because I couldn't without quoting Herm Edwards and bringing up Tim Couch and Jamarcus Russell and that Rivers and Rothlisberger are better than Eli Manning, etc. Get some ice Merriman, and get back on the field soon.

I'm a big fan of good spelling. I think Erik could have been a little nicer about it, but you do seem to be getting a little riled up and pursuing a flame war instead of saying "oops...my bad". But to your point, are you implying that all Elitist Jerks voted for Obama, or that everyone who voted for Obama is an Elitist Jerk? Either one seems pretty silly, but obviously one is sillier than the other. I definitely know Elitist Jerks on both sides of the aisle, and don't really like any of them.

Lions win the OT coin flip, drive down to the Bills 10 yard line. Suh misses a 27 yard field goal. CJ takes it to the house on the next play. Bills 26 Lions 20

Which one is most like Ryan Leaf? I haven't actually seen either play and don't follow college football, so I don't have an opinion on the matter, but with a chance Luck doesn't come out, I don't see why the #1 pick is so much better than the #2 pick or the #3 pick. Obviously I'm rooting for the Cowboys and Panthers to win (but also rooting for the Bills to win). But I am buying in to the Luck is closer to Elway than Edwards hope at the moment.

Yeah. That can only lead to you ending up with Ladanian Tomlinson or Philip Rivers. Trading down from #1 to another top five pick always blows up in your face. As to the original poster, we have to get our first win before we can worry about that, and as dark as the first half of their season was, I don't see the Cowboys being 1-15. The coaching change will get things moving in the right direction and the talent is there. They will finish with 4 or 5 wins.

+1 I don't think Dallas is our competition at all. They have looked bad, but are underperforming and with a new coach should regress to their mean, and going 3-5 over their final 8 games wouldn't be any heroics even without Romo (who could also be back for the final games). I don't see the Lions winning in Irving for starters. I of course am still hoping we finish 4-12 and get the #4 pick (I'd rather have Philip Rivers than Eli Manning ), and am most excited about us getting our first win this week. But the Carolina risk is real: that we knock of Detroit on Sunday and then limp in, we both finish 1-15, they win the tie breaker, they pick Luck, we get somebody else. I remember the last time we both picked in the top 4 and we got a franchise LT and they got some pass rusher who would barely make the roster . So right now my main focus is on the Bills beating Detroit and winning as many games as possible, but I am definitely wishing some wins for Carolina (and the Cowboys, Bengals, Broncos, Niners, and Lions). I want us to win as many games as possible, but I would like the other teams to help make any winning we do not a draft disadvantage

+1 Yep. I'm hoping for Luck and don't see Fitz as our savior, but right now I'm enjoying him taking snaps, leading this team, taking shots down the field, and trying to make his career into Kurt Warner lite. He is mobile, smart, and can make a lot of throws. He still has a chance to be our QB of the future, even though I wouldn't put money on it. Brohm moved from #3 to #2 on the depth chart after week 2. That is an important jump in practice and in the course of a season. No need to charity him any playing time while Fitz is healthy and playing well.

In the spirit of making stats say what you want them to: In the history of the NFL, no 0-16 team has ever had a winning season afterwards (small sample size of 1 and a half Lions seasons ) And of the 1-15 teams in the last 20 years: 2009 Rams: TBD but currently in 1st place the following year 2007 Fish: Division champ following season 2001 Panthers: Super Bowl two years later 2000 Chargers: 3 bad years, 12-4 division champ year four 1996 Jets: 9-7 following year, 12-4 division champ year two 1991 Colts: 9-7 following year, playoffs in 1995 1990 Pats: 3 bad years then playoffs in year 4 So while two of the 7 suffered for three more years, all of them recovered pretty well. I'm really rooting for our first win every week. Only Carolina and Dallas can compete with 1-15, so our first win gets the 0-16 off our back and probably not cost us any draft position. Many 1-15 teams are forgotten like 15-1 teams, but any of us can name the 0-14 team and 0-16 team. I would prefer not to be mentioned in that breath. Luck at #1 with time to learn behind Fitz is a perfect situation if he comes out, but right now it is about getting the guys we have moving in the right direction, because it is very hard to find 53 new players in one off season. I'm still enjoying this season and optimistic about the next couple years. Go Bills!

+1 Right now we have a good chance to have a better roster for next week with a guy with a chip on his shoulder who has been an all pro every year he is healthy and Bills' doctors say is healthy. He has said all the right things, but being disappointed privately that he gets released instead of a long term deal from the playoff franchise he has always played for and gets picked up by an 0-7 team that hasn't been to the playoffs in a decade? Sure, I bet he would have liked more of a Moss-like slide to later in the waiver wire to a team that can do something this year, just like he would have loved to stay in SD. But that didn't happen, and he is ready to help the Bills. Glad to have him and I look forward to seeing him in a Bills jersey next Sunday.

Born in Buffalo. Live in SD. SD > Buffalo. So what? But what's the point in bashing the city? I don't get the article and it isn't nice. Nowhere is as nice as San Diego if you ask me, but does that mean all 300 million Americans should live here and every other place sucks? Besides, maybe it is just how I grew up, but football in the warm sunshine just doesn't seem right. The same could be said about Green Bay too. Who would prefer Green Bay over San Diego? Hmmm...maybe a real football player? Maybe Merriman will love the Bills fans after being left out and cut from the Chargers? Maybe his path will be a little different than TO?

Say what you want about the front office, about your expectations for Merriman, etc. Today our roster got better, and Ralph spent some extra money to make it happen even as we lock on to that #1 pick in the draft

I'm going to put this one in the crazy pile with the people who think we are going to win the Super Bowl this year. "a couple decent years". Try all pro every year from your rookie year until a major knee injury you try to play through (dumbly) instead of getting surgery early, and some other related injuries coming back from that. He is 26, and when he gets healthy will be very good for some team. I doubt that will be this year and that the team will be the Bills, but right now he is better than what we have, and if he does well we can trade him to a contender or just enjoy the part year performance. If he doesn't, he is still an improvement and Ralph is out a few bucks.

As a San Diego resident, other than getting occasional 90s in November (like today), I also have followed the Merriman stuff pretty closely. He clearly has not recently been the player he was, and that is obvious, because if he were he would not be on waivers. The decline some combination of the PEDs, the knee injury he tried to play through, and some other wear and tear. I hope you are not suggesting that he has nothing left in the tank, and is done as a player though. He is 26 years old, and in 2007 was an impressive difference maker for a top playoff team and an all pro for the third time in three years. He missed 2008 with knee surgery, and was hobbled in 2009 by a couple of other injuries and his recovery, and didn't look great so far in 2010 again with some injury issues. But he is so clearly better than what we are starting out there, and there is no reason to think that a 26 year old with only four total NFL seasons of wear and tear is done and over the hill. Maybe he won't get to his PED super star level, but he makes this team better right away, and I'm happy we get him.

Who are you taking #1? If you think that it is so clear cut that the difference between #1 and #4 is so important, than can you tell us who Peyton Manning is this year? I am not a college football guys, so I only know what I read, but historically, there are tremendous players taken at #4-5, and usually some pretty great players at #8-12 even (leaving out our Maybin/Whitner/McKelvin/Lynch stuff). Sometimes there is a #1 who stands above the rest, but if you are going to write a satire post talking concluding that the #1 is crucial, then you are implying that the clarity of the selection compared to #2 or 3 or 4 will be crystal clear, and not that we are in a Manning/Rivers situation.