Cash

After listening to Buddy's interview on WGR, I think they see Alonso as the starter at MLB, pure and simple. If I'm right, the question becomes, what do they plan to do for depth? Roll with their band of "our talent's better than a lot of people say it is" nobodies? A Kirk Morrison-esque veteran depth signing?

The more I think about it, the more I think that Dansby's not coming. Maybe that's just pessimism, but if Shep's expendability was contingent on signing Dansby, the Bills probably would've waited till they inked a deal before making the trade. Announcing a trade doesn't help their leverage in contract negotiations with Dansby. I think they've decided that Alonso is their starting MLB. But what I don't have a guess about is what they plan to do depth-wise. Assuming Alonso is the penciled-in starter at Mike, the top backup is... Chris White? Am I missing anyone? I doubt they're planning on rolling into camp 2-deep at MLB. Update: Just took a quick look at the updated roster on buffalobills.com, and FWIW, Chris White's position is listed as "OLB", as are Moats' and Scott's. The remaining LBs on the roster are undrafted FAs from this year or practice squad-type guys from last year, like Greg Lloyd Jr. Most of them, size-wise, fit the profile of OLBs more than MLB/ILBs. I would think that the Bills are definitely planning to add another experienced MLB type or two, but then again, they are apparently planning on replacing Levitre with Colin Brown or David Snow.

He said they'd "keep the dialogue open," but it sounded pretty dead if you read between the lines. Hopefully there was a turnaround?

2010 - Nix's first draft as GM. Hughes went 20 picks after CJ Spiller.

Also, until we hear differently from the Bills, I'll assume that Shep and Hughes don't play the same position in Pettine's D. Which means Hughes is a depth guy (b/c we know they signed Lawson to start at Sam and think big things of Bradham at Will, and Mario is presumably the Jack/rush backer), and one presumed starting spot is now vacant. I didn't really get the sense from the post-draft pressers that they see Alonso as a plug & play full-time starter at Mike, but maybe they do? Or maybe, as many others have mentioned, they had a breakthrough with Dansby? Or maybe... "43 is the MIKE! 43 is the MIKE! Full time!"

Didn't the Bills allegedly love Jerry Hughes when he came out in the draft?

Nice scouting report! I think a lot of the highlights I've watched were from 2011, but I don't remember for sure. I won't say you've fully convinced me, but I've definitely raised my hopes for Woods a bit. Can't wait to see him in action!

Maybe this is just semantics, but for me, Marquise Goodwin is "fast." Robert Woods is "not slow." Maybe it would sound better if I rephrased it as "fast enough?" But I base that on 2 things: 1.) Totally buy what you're saying about his 40 time, but doesn't affect anything for me. Donald Jones was also a 4.4 guy. He wasn't fast. Not slow either, but not fast. He was also about the same size as Woods, interestingly enough. (Hopefully we won't have to endure this coaching staff telling us that Woods is both our "big receiver" and our "deep threat" like the last one did with Jones.) 2.) Watching Woods' highlights, he looks fast enough to play WR in the NFL, and has some elusiveness to him, but he's not what I'd call fast. Fast for a TE or QB, sure, but not fast for a WR. Not crapping on the pick -- Woods was one of the names I said out loud when Kelsay came out to announce it -- I'm just saying that Woods' weakness is a lack of top-tier/elite NFL measurables. But for a WR to last to the 2nd round, there has to be some knock on him. Which is actually kind of what worries me about Justin Hunter (whom I wanted more than Woods): He's 6'4" with a 40" vertical and a 4.36 40 time, and he was a multi-year starter with good production at Tennessee. So why wasn't he a first-rounder? I can pretty well say why Woods wasn't a first-rounder: his size/speed/athleticism combination is underwhelming. But it's good enough, and if he's as good as advertised in every other facet of being a receiver, he should be a nice player for us.

When we took Marqueese in the 3rd, I told my girlfriend that I didn't love the pick, and that I would've rather had Da'Rick Rogers in that spot. And now we got him as an UDFA! I feel like it's an extra second round pick. Love it!!!

Packers draft my boy Charles Johnson in the 7th. Great pick for them. I will be drafting him in fantasy in 2014 almost guaranteed. And we take a TE to finish it off! Never heard of him, but he's got good size/speed/athleticism. Converted WR. Small hands, has apparently had some problems with drops. Seems like a good pick for the 7th round. Now let's get Da'Rick Rodgers as an UDFA!

Wait, nevermind, apparently our long-snapper is already an FSU alum. https://twitter.com/buffalobills/status/328240060308807681

I'm generally not in favor of drafting kickers, especially not as high as the 6th round. There's so much variation in kickers' performances from season to season, you're better off just signing guys as other teams cut them. You have a very good chance of getting a bounceback year. But I guess the Bills feel like the main thing keeping them from the playoffs is not enough Florida State players. I would expect FSU's long-snapper to be signed as an UDFA.

A KICKER? /head explodes

I like this pick. Was hoping for Justin Hunter, and suspect the Bills had him above Woods on their board, but this is a nice consolation prize. My only concern is that Woods is neither big nor fast, which is probably why he was available in the 2nd at all. (Similarly, if Hunter had better hands/route running/etc., his 6'4"/4.4 forty would've put him in the first.) I'm a little wary of another Josh Reed. But there's plenty of guys, like Reggie Wayne or our own Stevie Johnson, who are neither big nor fast who still get it done. On the bright side, Woods looks pretty elusive in his highlight film, everyone says he's a good route runner with great hands, and he's neither small nor slow.

I'm on board with drafting a third WR. We'll probably start 3 and play at least 5 regularly, and WRs play special teams, so it's tough to have too many. Would've loved Shoelace Robinson, think he'll be a stud. And I'd be very happy with Rogers (whom the Bills scouts raved about a little bit) or Charles Johnson. If you haven't heard of Johnson, he's a D-II player from Grand Valley State who's 6'2", 215 lbs, and ran a 4.38 forty at his pro day. If nothing else, he can serve as a hell of a gunner on special teams.

Because Lucas was a territorial pick, and thus not really relevant to the modern draft process? Or maybe just to bias the results? I dunno. I don't think it's relevant to go back farther than the start of the common draft in any case.

Some very good stuff there, thanks for posting!

3rd round is definitely not a "high pick" for a starting QB. I (and most, I think) would argue that 2nd round isn't either. #8 definitely is. My ideal scenario would be a high 2nd-rounder on a QB, who starts most of the season and is either really promising or terrible. Actually the IDEAL scenario is that the rookie is excellent no matter where we draft him, but I'm trying to be realistic and temper my hopes/expectations. If we draft another Gabbert/Locker/Ponder at 8, we're realistically going to give him a chance to succeed for at least 2 years, probably 3. That's a lot of risk, and Geno is the only guy I like enough to take that risk with. So I answered yes to both questions.

Agreed. A very low score can be a red flag. Above a 20-or-so threshold, a higher score is a nice to have, but it doesn't really matter. The other factor is that some agents have copies of the test that they give to their clients in advance of the combine, and some don't. At least, that's what I've read. It's kind of surprising that ALL the agents don't have it at this point, but maybe some just don't think it's important enough or that teams weigh it heavy enough?

But if all incoming rookies were free agents, there would be even more opportunities for weak teams to get their QB. The Browns (to use an example) could have just tried to outbid the Colts/Redskins for Luck/RG3, instead of having to settle for Brandon Weeden. The Bills could've tried to sign Luck instead of having no chance at him. (Not that they would have, but they could have.) And it's unlikely that we'd see another Aaron Rodgers scenario. I doubt any top prospect (even one that slid in the draft like Rodgers or Brady Quinn) would decide to sign with a team that had an entrenched starter in place. Who said anything about keeping a rookie cap? The key would be that instead of being draft-eligible, a player enters the league as an unrestricted free agent, and all teams are free to try to negotiate a contract with them. I don't think Luck would've been willing to sign with Dallas or NE to sit behind Romo or Brady, especially since someone with more cap room could've offered him 3-4 times as much money. Likewise, would Matt Kalil have signed with a team that already had a good LT to be his backup? No chance, because Minnesota or someone else would've outbid that team. I agree that abolishing the draft would in general hurt the Bills, and probably other small market and/or cold weather cities with poor reputations -- Cleveland, Cincinnati and Jacksonville come to mind. Tough to predict how teams like the Packers or Steelers would be affected -- players want to play in big-market, warm cities, but they also want to win. Anyway, the Bills typically have to overpay to get free agents. That probably wouldn't change in the case of the draft. Look at Kelly's quotes from the documentary about the 1983 draft: he cried when the Bills drafted him. There's no way he ever would've voluntarily signed with the Bills for anything but a ludicrous amount of money. Under the current system, the Bills can force a good player to play for them for a few years, during which time the player can realize that he was wrong about Buffalo and it's actually a fine city to live in and team to play for. Under a no-draft system, you would probably see top rookie salaries quickly get back up to Sam Bradford/Jake Long territory. However, teams would be under no obligation to give out those salaries, so in a given year, you might only see 1-2 mega contracts for rookies, rather than 5-6 under the old system. Guys who would've been 2nd or 3rd round picks would also see their salaries jump significantly. Yes, there's way too much money made on the draft for it to go away. Especially when you consider that the draft money is part of the revenue pot that gets split with the players (i.e., establishes the amount of the salary cap), and that the only way to get rid of it would be in collective bargaining. The NFL will never propose getting rid of it, because it's an anti-competitive cost-cutter that also airs on TV to big ratings. The players union could theoretically propose getting rid of it, but why would they? They've all already been through the draft and get no benefit from it going away. In fact, the increased salaries to rookies would just take away money from existing players. Until the players union starts giving votes to college players who aren't in the union, I think the draft is safe.

Agree 100%. Always loved Pat Williams.

Not a fan of two-tone stuff, but even so, the helmet is an upgrade over their boring old helmets. Would prefer all-gold, but whatever. The two-tone jersey isn't horrific, but I still don't like it, especially the teal with black highlights. I don't see why they felt the need to keep teal at all. It has nothing to do with Jaguars or Jacksonville (to my knowledge) and has become way less fashionable since the Jags (and Panthers!) first picked it as a primary color.

It has, but if we could have a 20+ page thread about drafting Johnny Manziel this year, we should be able to get at least 4 pages out of signing Victor Cruz without giving up a draft pick after the RFA window has closed.

I read a great article a year or two ago (that I sadly can't find anymore) that broke down the bye week advantage into home and road splits. What it found was fascinating: home teams coming off a bye essentially weren't helped by it -- they won about 55% of their games, but that's consistent with home-field advantage in general. The big jump was for road teams, who won over half their post-bye games, compared to about 45% normally. The specific numbers are from memory and not necessarily accurate, but the important point was that home-team winning percentage didn't increase after a bye, but road-team winning percentage did. Personally, I don't see any reason why last year's aberrant result would be anything other than a fluke, and I'll be very surprised if it continues. And honestly, it's probably not really aberrant in the true statistical sense. If 54% is the true winning percentage of post-bye teams, the odds of producing a 50% winning percentage in a 26-game sample are pretty good. (It's a 26-game sample instead of 32 because 6 teams played each other when both were coming off a bye: Falcons/Eagles, Bills/Texans, and 49ers/Rams. Those 6 teams had to have a combined .500 record in those games no matter what.) As for Thursday games, we didn't have a lot of data prior to last year, but it seemed as though having an extra 3 days would be a similar but smaller advantage than the bye-week advantage. Maybe it isn't for some reason, but 1 season of 47% win percentage doesn't tell us much. If the true win percentage of post-Thursday teams is something like 51% or 52%, you should expect to see them go a little below .500 sometimes.

1.) Troup didn't look good even before he got hurt. Sometimes bad players' careers are cut short due to injury, too. 2.) They've gotten virtually nothing out of the #34 overall pick after 2 full years. Doesn't matter whether you call him a CB or S, that's worthy of skewering. (Particularly in light of the fact that the team really needs a QB and 2 good ones were picked at #35 and #36.)