Cash

Graham probably has some value, exactly equal to whatever round grade another team had on him last year. However, given that he was perceived as a massive reach, there's no guarantee that any other team had a 3rd-round grade on him, or even a 4th or 5th. Trading a 3rd-round pick for a lower pick just 1 year later is an admission of incompetence that no NFL team would make. (Nor should they -- they're better off with the chance of Graham turning things around.) Easley absolutely has no value. Smith probably has no value because of his contract. The Jets or someone would probably sign him if he was cut, but I doubt anyone would be willing to part with a draft pick AND pay him $3.75 million. Honestly, I think just the $3.75 million would be a dealbreaker. If he gets cut, I'll be surprised if anyone puts in a waiver claim.

Wow, nice to see that Screamin' A is still on the cutting edge of hard-hitting journalism. "Guys! Someone texted me! I got a text about Geno Smith! Wanna hear it?" I can't wait for the day when he just reads his Twitter feed live on-air.

That's very clever! Well done!

The gist is that we should expect the Bills to have a "fullback by committee" approach, unless one of the 2 UDFA fullbacks make the team. I.e., using Kyle Williams or another DT (or maybe a backup O-lineman) as a lead blocker in short yardage, and using the TE/H-Back types we have (Gragg, Dickerson) as fullbacks part of the time.

We were still running a 3-4 when he was drafted. Only switched to a 4-3 last year, Sheppard's 2nd year.

Which goes back to KC Joyner's point that LTs are overrated: If the purpose of an elite LT is to neutralize the opponent's best pass rusher, the LT can only do that if the pass rusher lines up across from him and doesn't stunt. (Or if the pass rusher stunts his way.) I don't think we'll ever see an O-lineman who moves around to line up against the opponent's best pass rusher the way Revis moves around to cover the best WR. And if we did, it would still be pretty useless, because defenders are allowed to shift around before the snap, whereas O-linemen have to be set for at least one full second. Also, stunts exist, so you can't guarantee that you'll block the guy lined up across from you.

Yeah, Randy Moss was arguably the most perfect physical freak ever to play WR. He allegedly ran a 4.25 40 into the wind and posted a 47" vertical at his pro day. (Per wikipedia, but they don't cite any sources and I can't find any corroboration online of the "into the wind" part or the vertical jump part. That the 40 time was into the wind I buy, but a 47" vertical seems impossible. Still, he was such a freak I can't discount the possibility.) I don't think Moss was ever overthrown until he went to the Raiders. I remember his rookie year, the Vikings QB's would talk about how they'd have contests in practice to see if anyone could overthrow Moss, and no one was ever able to do it. The guy was so big and so fast, with such amazing hands, coordination, and leaping ability, he was basically the perfect outside receiver. Not a guy who did a lot of damage over the middle, but why would you ever want him running over the middle? Just have him run posts, flys, corners, and fades and huck it up to him all day.

Per the Buffalo News, Hughes played about 55% of the Colts' snaps last year. Per Football Outsiders, he played 56% of the defensive snaps -- 624 defensive snaps, seventh on the team and fourth among LBs. See above. Hughes averaged 39 plays a game last year (624/16), and came up with 4 sacks. It would be a pretty big surprise, and a testament to Pettine, if he turned it around at this point. On the bright side, he's no stranger to special teams, playing 57% of special teams snaps. (269 total, 4th on the team.) You can always use good athletes on special teams.

Makes sense. In terms of the O-line as a unit, it's obvious that sufficient poor play will kill the offense's performance -- i.e., even a great QB will be ineffective, same for a great RB. But it's not clear what (if any) the effects are of improving O-line play above a certain threshold. Once a hole for a RB is open, does it really matter how wide? More important at that point is the talent of the RB himself -- can he make the safety or linebacker miss, and turn a 6-yard gain into a 20-yard gain? We can all agree that the more time in the pocket the QB has, the better. But is there a significant difference between 3 seconds and 5? How about between 5 and 7? If your QB lacks the talent (arm strength/accuracy/touch) to make the throws he needs to make, does it really matter how much time he has? What about a mediocre QB, like Fitz? If he'd had an extra second or two per pass play last year, would he have thrown fewer interceptions?

Buddy's made it pretty clear in interviews that the 2 ILB spots are the Will (Bradham) and Mike (Alonso), and that they want everyone at one spot to be able to play the other. The 2 OLB spots are a little less clear, since Buddy seems to call them Sam (Lawson) and "Rush End" (Mario? Anderson?), but whatever they are, Buddy wants personnel for those positions to be interchangeable as well. In speaking about ILBs/versatility, Buddy mentioned Bradham, Alonso, and Moats. Interesting that 1.) he didn't mention any other backups, which tells me all of them are strong candidates to get cut, and 2.) the new coaching staff also thinks that Moats should be in a position where he can hardly ever do the one thing he does well, which is edge-rush the passer.

My girlfriend wanted to know how 14 teams could try to sign him, but none of them would draft them... I didn't really have an answer for her. You would think that one of them would've thrown a 7th-rounder his way. Especially a team with a relatively good/deep WR corps, who has to expect that he would choose somewhere else as a free agent. There aren't 14 teams with terrible WR corps. Fame. Honey Badger is super high-profile, whereas Rogers is a guy that only draftniks know. (I'd never heard of him till a few months ago, for example.) I believe that super-exposed, high-profile guys always get overdrafted. Tebow, Maurice Clarett, WR Mike Williams all come to mind. I don't think the fame of a prospect does anything for the scouts, but the scouts aren't the ones doing the drafting. It's head coaches, GMs, and in some cases owners, and they're much more likely to be influenced by the media.

Didn't forget Andre Johnson, just don't have him near the top 10 anymore. He's still good, but I'd take any of the guys I named over him, and other than Welker, it would be a slam dunk every time. But his size/speed combination was pretty freakish when he was at his peak -- 6'3", 230 lbs, 4.41 40. I feel like he's lost a step or two since then. Absolutely. It's less likely, but it definitely still happens. Cruz is a particularly great example, because he wasn't even drafted. That would be excellent! I'll hold off till I see it on the field, but let's hope so. You really need 3 good receivers these days, and one or two can be a TE. Stevie's one. Given Chandler's situation, I don't think he can count more than a half. So we need at least 1.5 additional receiving threats at WR or TE. If Woods can step in and be one immediately, I'm confident that some combination of Goodwin, Graham, Rogers, Easley, Dickerson, and Gragg can fill the other 0.5 we need. I don't include Brad Smith because until I hear about him filling a major role, I expect him to be cut. If he wins a starting WR job, or if the new offense features a significant amount of Wildcat (or any subpackage that features Smith), or maybe even if he becomes the primary kick returner, he might stay. But $3.75 million is a lot to pay for a 4th wideout/special teams gunner. Especially when there are young options who need practice/playing time to develop.

It's possible to make a viable argument for drafting Barkley over Goodwin in the 3rd, but this isn't one. You realize that nearly every non-goalline formation has at least 2 WRs starting, right? And that most NFL offenses spend over 50% of the time with at least 3 WRs on the field, and frequently 4? To say the Bills "addressed the WR position" by drafting Woods is like saying a team addressed the O-line by drafting a center. It's technically true, but if the team has needs at both center and tackle, the center they drafted isn't going to help with both. Likewise, the Bills basically needed 2 starters at WR heading into this draft. Stevie Johnson I'll grant you; he's really good. But aside from him, we have no one on the roster who has had proven success at WR in the NFL. You mention Easley, but that's a pipe dream. He couldn't even get on the field over Ruvell Martin last year. Now, I agree that he should have gotten a lot of burn last year, but he didn't. You can't use a 4th-year WR with 0 career catches to say we have a stock of talent at the position. "Hope is not a plan." Easley is a lottery ticket, nothing more. You also mention Spiller and Chandler as receiving threats. Of course, the problem with using Spiller as a WR is that you can't simultaneously use him as a RB. And Chandler can't play WR and TE at the same time, either. In fact, he can't play anything right now, because he's recovering from a major injury. It's unclear how many games he'll be able to play this year, or how effective he'll be when he comes back. Now, your point about a 20% chance of a franchise QB being the better play in the 3rd round -- absolutely and I wholeheartedly agree. But I respectfully disagree that Barkley provides anywhere near that chance. You seem to think there's no scenario where Barkley's arm recovers and he doesn't become a franchise QB. Me personally, I think if his arm's healthy, he's got about a 5-10% chance of being a franchise QB. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I guarantee that it's less than 100%. Luck was the best prospect since Elway, and neither he nor Elway had a 100% chance of becoming a franchise QB if healthy. Anyway, even if I'm right, you could still argue that a 1-3% chance of a franchise QB is more valuable than any WR or Goodwin specifically. And you might be right! I just take exception to the idea that the WR position went from abysmal to "all set" with the addition of one 2nd-round pick.

He just needs 23 sacks this year to meet his projection! Very good question. And it's for exactly that reason that I expect Hughes to make the team as a backup and not do much when he sees the field. If we get anything more than that, it's a great bonus.

That's funny, because I think I put exactly the right amount of stock into height and measurables. I like the pick, and think/hope we got a solid starter out of it, which is great. But if you think about the best WRs in the league, you might get something like: Megatron AJ Green Larry Fitzgerald Dez Bryant Brandon Marshall Julio Jones Percy Harvin Demaryius Thomas All of those guys are physical freaks, mostly of the big & tall variety. (Harvin being the smaller speedster-type, but still a "measurable" freak.) Now, I'm cutting off the list before I get to guys like Victor Cruz, Roddy White, Wes Welker, or Reggie Wayne (or Stevie!), so it's not like you can't be a good WR unless you're a physical freak. My point is just that almost all of the BEST WRs, at least these days, tend to have elite measurables. Doesn't mean Woods will suck or even be mediocre -- we'd all be thrilled with Victor Cruz-like production, right?

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!