Cash

Based on Nix's comments at the draft luncheon, it sounds like the LB starters will be Lawson, Sheppard (for now), and Bradham, with maybe Mark Anderson at a hybrid DE/LB position. I don't think we'll have both Mario & Anderson playing alongside 3 traditional D-lineman in anything but goal line sets. Also, I think it's highly unlikely that Troup plays in front of Branch in any scenario, whether we start a true NT or not.

I found it interesting that Nix was asked "How do you feel about your linebacker position?" and he specifically talked about Lawson and Marcus Dowtin, and specifically mentioned Moats in a follow-up question, but did not mention Sheppard. (To be fair, he didn't mention Bradham until someone specifically asked about Bradham later on, and then he raved about him. So maybe he would've been equally positive about Sheppard if there had been a Sheppard-specific question, but we can't know that.) Furthermore, Nix's initial answer contained phrases like, "We will know more with this group after we get through OTAs" and, "there may be one in the draft that we want to take." Contrast that to his comments regarding pass rushers: "We think we are pretty good there and we think we would be fine even if we did not add one." EDIT: Or Nix's comments on guards: Just tone-wise, he came across as a lot more bullish about pass rushers and guards than he did about linebackers. Sounds to me like the new coaching staff is not nearly as high on Sheppard as the old coaching staff was. Remember, Nix can't go out and say that they need to upgrade that spot prior to upgrading it, both to avoid tipping other teams off and to avoid selling out Sheppard in case they can't get someone better.

Not a big surprise, but definitely news to me - thanks for posting. Anyone got a link? I guess I could probably find one myself via the google if I was really motivated. Very much so. Nix loves talking about how we're better than people think, but it doesn't ever seem to lead to wins. Correct. Re: my comments above, to Nix's credit, he's not 100% incompetent. He clearly is right in his player evaluations some of the time, but his miserable failures at QB and Head Coach have masked his successes elsewhere.

Based on listening to Buddy's LB comments at the draft luncheon, here's my take: Pettine's "base" D is essentially a 3-4/4-3 hybrid where one of the edge defenders sometimes goes in a 3 point stance (4-3, DE), and sometimes stands up (3-4, OLB). Just in terms of the position breakdown, it definitely seemed like our "pass rusher" is either considered a DE or has his own LB position, which is fairly common. I know under the great George Edwards our linebackers were Sam (SOLB), Mike (SILB/MLB), Will (WILB), and Jack (WOLB/designated pass rusher). Nix seemed to think that with Lawson and Bradham we're set at starters for the Sam and Will, respectively. He also basically said we're set for pass rushers, which tells me that when we play a 3-4 look, the other OLB will be one of our DEs. He didn't mention Sheppard at all, which I think is somewhat telling. He did mention the waiver-claim guy we just picked up from the Jets as a "cover guy," so it sounds like his plan is Bradham and either Scott or CoverGuy will be the nickel LBs. He ended one answer by saying: Which sounds to me like he definitely wants/is planning to take a potential replacement for Sheppard early. In terms of Draftek, I think we're looking for a 4-3 MLB/3-4 SILB type to compete with Sheppard. Sounds to me like every other LB position, including nickel/dime backer, is essentially filled.

I don't think 1 win/season is a "slight" advantage, and I don't think the Bills braintrust would see that as slight advantage either. But I think if they were truly close enough to be slightly different, then the more marketable guy gets drafted.

I do agree with that. But keep in mind that the smaller the differences between teams' talent levels, the more important marginal differences become. But that's not a fair comparison. Comparing the 2013 Bills to the 2006 Bills that Jauron first inherited is confusing the issue. A much better comparison for Nix as GM would be the 2009 Bills that got Jauron fired. Remember, this is the team about which Ralph Wilson said, "the cupboard was bare." (Which Nix then contradicted by saying "we're not that far way," but whatever. The point is that if Nix is a good GM, the team should be better now than it was when he was hired.) That team's strength on offense was RB, with a 28-year-old Fred Jackson and a 24-year-old Marshawn Lynch. Quarterback was a bit unsettled, with Ryan Fitzpatrick and Trent Edwards battling for the job. To be fair to you, I'll put aside the gimmick signing of Terrell Owens, and call the WR corps Lee Evans and a bunch of unproven nobodies - including Stevie Johnson. TE was another weak area, but I'd say that after Chandler, none of our current TEs would be a lock for a roster spot over any of our 2009 TEs. The O-line was definitely weaker than the 2012 O-line, but I won't stack it up against the 2013 O-line until we know who the starters are. In 2009, we started shaky-but-not terrible Demetress Bell at LT, Kirk Chambers at RT (yikes), Geoff Hangartner at C (not great, not terrible), and 2 rookies at the guard spots: Andy Levitre and Eric Wood. Both played very well for rookies and showed a lot of promise. On D, the strength was in the secondary. The corners were McGee before he'd gotten too hurt, Drayton Florence back when he could play, and 2nd-year-man Leodis McKelvin. At safety, we had future crayonz All-Pro Donte Whitner and promising rookie Jairus Byrd, with George Wilson filling in very capably off the bench. The linebacking corps was weak once Kawika Mitchell got hurt, with Keith Ellison and Bryan Scott starting next to Paul Pozluszny. Not much depth there, either. Across the D-line, we had a fading-but-still-effective Aaron Schobel, a just-entering-his prime Kyle Williams, former Pro Bowler Marcus Stroud, and Chris "Locker Room" Kelsay. The top backups were Spencer Johnson at DT and rookie Aaron Maybin at DE. Not the greatest, but better than most of us probably remember. Lastly, on special teams, we had the MVPunter, Lindell with more leg strength than now, Roscoe returning punts, and Fred Jackson returning kicks. Anyway, I agree that we're stronger in the trenches now than when Nix was hired, probably even with the loss of Levitre. Nix brought in Urbik, Pears, Hairston, Glenn on O-line and Anderson, M.Williams, Dareus, and Branch on D-line. However, I find it hard to accept that we have more talent overall, because I keep circling around to the fact that we've gone 16-32 under Nix, and that's after replacing a really bad head coach. I refuse to retroactively think that Jauron was any good at winning games. Maybe the answer's something like, "yeah, but Gailey was actually much worse than Jauron, so even though Jauron was bad and the talent has gone up, the record was artificially bad." And I hope that's true, I guess, because I'm sick of watching losing teams. But if Gailey was such a legendarily bad coach, what does that say about the guy who hired him and gave him 3 years on the job? If he was that bad at assessing coach competence during Gailey's hiring process and tenure, why should I expect him to be better now? Furthermore, Nix has been talking about drafting a QB since the lead-up to the 2010 draft, and has reiterated his desire for a "10-12 year starter" prior to every draft, even after signing Fitz to that big extension. And in that time, a number of successful QBs have entered the league through the draft, but the only pick he's made was 7th-rounder Levi Brown. Now, he didn't have much of a shot at Luck or Newton, and it can be argued that the asking price for RG3 was too high. But for whatever reason, Nix took Aaron Williams over 2 QBs who have had success as starters, and TJ Graham over another one. Maybe he loved those QBs but mistakenly thought he could get them all a round later. Maybe he thought all of them were bad fits for Gailey's scheme. I don't know. But I'm not filled with confidence at Nix's ability to evaluate QB prospects. The only thing I can say in his favor is that his 2011 post-draft comments seemed to imply that he'd have taken Cam Newton if he could've. Unlike Luck and RG3, Newton was a controversial prospect with a lot of doubters/red flags, so I'll count that evaluation as a feather in Nix's cap. Other than that, he's batting .000 with a lot of backwards Ks.

I do not. Sorry, but a 16-32 record as GM does not give me much confidence in Buddy Nix's overall competence as an evaluator of talent. Keep in mind that on the day he took the job, he declared that the team "wasn't that far away." The other day, he said that the team "has more talent than you think," which has been a frequent refrain in his time as GM. He's been repeating these kinds of things for 3 years, but the team has been very consistently bad during that time. I don't see what's changed. (Yes, I did hate the Gailey hire, and I do think he cost us games vs. a competent head coach, but if the team is so close/so talented, they should be winning more than 4-6 games per year. Jauron was also a bad coach, but managed to win 7 games in each of his first 3 seasons.) Well, how do you propose to get a good QB then? Wait for the next Drew Brees or Peyton Manning to hit FA following a serious injury? That probably won't happen again very soon, and if it does, the elite QB in question probably won't choose to sign with the Bills. I know it's risky, but (virtually) the only way to get a franchise QB is to draft one. And they bust a lot, even in the 1st round, but your chances of finding one in the 1st round are much higher than in any other round. That's not to say that we automatically have to draft a guy in the first -- who you're drafting matters as much as where he's drafted. If we'd drafted Jimmy Claussen at #9 a couple years ago (as I advocated -- I'm dumb), he wouldn't have magically turned into a better QB prospect, he just would've been a bust. Just because Christian Ponder was drafted at #12 overall didn't make him a first-round prospect, and we shouldn't be surprised when he goes bust.

QB - Geno Smith - Oakland Raiders WR - Cordarrelle Patterson - Cleveland Browns TE - Tyler Eifert - St. Louis Rams OT - Luke Joeckel - Kansas City Chiefs LB - Dion Jordan - Jacksonville Jaguars Last year I got 1 of 5 correct. I think I can be twice as good this year!

So this is the point of the offseason where personnel discussion turns into word definition discussion, eh? Count me in! "Opinion" was fun, but I think it's time to move on to a new word. I suggest "salubrious". In more Kolb-related discussion, is anyone else noticing the preponderance of Kolb-related pieces circulating since he signed? Here's a few: Kevin Kolb dismisses idea he's a QB who gets sacked too much Cards color man: “Kolb is a leader” If Kevin Kolb tells you about new offense, he might have to kill you Talk of up tempo style appeals to Kolb Kolb has performed when given the chance That last one, in particular, is a little disturbing. Why choose to build a blog post around Ron Wolfley's insane idea that Kolb is good -- but only when he has no competition for the job? Yikes. I don't think the Bills will abstain from drafting a QB, nor that they'll hand the job to Kolb scot-free, but it's still disturbing to see ideas like that on the Bills' website. And if you contrast the Kolb coverage with the Tavaris Jackson coverage, it's night and day. The official party line is that these 2 will fight it out for the starting QB position, and if a rookie QB is drafted, that guy will fight it out as well. But this strikes me as similar to the "3-way QB competition" that JP Losman won in 2006 over Kelly Holcomb and Craig Nall, or the one in 2010 that Trent Edwards won over Fitz and Brian Brohm.

Even if you make the Super Bowl as a wildcard, that's only 20 games. Are you counting preseason?

Recommended reading for anyone interested in comp picks: http://bloggingthebeast.com/2013/01/27/2013-nfl-compensatory-pick-projections/ The 2012 predictions go into a little more details about the individual predictions: http://bloggingthebeast.com/2012/02/03/2012-compensatory-pick-projections/ I'm hoping this guy does a 2014 prediction once the FA period is over. Anyway, we're at 2 lost and 2 gained so far. Assuming BillsDaily's front office page is correct, here are our remaining unsigned free agents: Kyle Moore Spencer Johnson Ruvell Martin Corey McIntyre Tyler Thigpen Kirk Morrison Remember that low minimum-salary type deals generally don't count. (According to Spotrac, Rinehart got 1yr/$1.75mil, so he should still count.) It's hard for me to imagine Martin, Morrison, or Thigpen getting enough above the minimum to count in the formula. And frankly, McIntyre's likely to be pretty close as well, but might have a shot at getting a decent-ish contract. That leaves Kyle Moore and Spencer Johnson. On the whole, I tend to doubt that we'll wind up with any comp picks next year. Keep in mind that we still have some more roster-filling to do, and may very well sign a few more FAs (who weren't cut by their teams) to above-minimum deals. Looking at the way the rules are set up, I think this would be my FA gameplan if I were a GM: 1.) Target "unwanted" players whenever possible (cuts, non-tendered RFAs or ERFAs like Donald Jones or David Nelson) 2.) Try to sign guys to minimum-level deals whenever possible. Yeah, every team does that, duh, but I mean being willing to take the last LB left for the minimum instead of needing Manny Lawson for 4 years/$12 mil. The guy you're left with probably won't be as good as the guy you wanted, or maybe will be as good a player but a worse fit for your team, but he'll probably still be pretty good, and you get an extra draft pick in the bargain. 3.) Be aware of the way the matching works. For example, once Houston lost Super Mario last year, he was obviously going to net them a 3rd-rounder UNLESS they failed to have a net loss of free agents. So if you've already lost a guy to a huge deal, be extra careful with your signings. If you don't expect to lose any significant free agents, you can disregard rules 1 and 2 because you're only giving up maybe a 6th or 7th round pick at best.

Doubtful. The #1 priority for comp picks is "a net loss of free agents". We've signed 2 and lost 2. (Kolb and Fitz don't count because they were cut, and I'm pretty sure Jones doesn't count because we declined to tender him.) Unless someone signs C-Mac and we sign no other FAs, the most we can get is a 7th-round pick. If we had signed only 1 FA to cancel out Rinehart, then I think we'd be in line for a 4th or 5th rounder for Levitre.

Yes, and I think his name is Geno Smith. I'm not super confident in that statement, but outside of extremely-rare prospects like Luck or RG3 or Peyton or Elway, you can't be very confident in any prospect's ability to become a franchise QB. Smith's resume is good enough for me to be comfortable with that risk at #8, but no one else's is.

I actually agree with their logic on Cox & Calloway. In the modern/free agency era, most draft picks make the active roster as rookies, or at the very least make the practice squad. Calloway was so bad that he didn't even survive the first wave of cuts. That's bad even for a 7th-rounder. You may have a legit beef on Lankster, although I'm not sure if PFF's methodology only counts contributions for the team who drafted the player. If it does, then I think it's about right, because Lankster didn't stick with the Bills very long.

Decent signing. Glad it's a one year deal, especially since the Bills didn't get a bargain. Branch and Lawson are definitely middle-class NFL salaries, not dumpster dives. I'm still very curious to see how the D shakes out under Pettine, but you can never have too many big men up front. And Branch played 55% of the snaps on an excellent D last year, so we can reasonably be sure he doesn't suck.

I always enjoy reading FO, but always get angry at their arrogance and unwillingness/reluctance to question or evaluate their own methodology. For example, this piece contains the following sentence: If 62.5% of the league is "below average", shouldn't that immediately suggest that you're using the wrong value to determine the average? Now, it's possible that the numbers he's using are fine, and there are legitimate reasons for this: i.e., sometimes draft picks are artificially low, but never artificially high. But that idea isn't explored or even acknowledged in the piece. And since the author's using a statistical analysis to determine the average, rather than an arbitrary definition, there's no obvious reason why the league should be below average as a whole. It suggests to me that his original model for draft efficiency (here) was flawed in a way that overstates expected draft value. It doesn't mean that the author's analysis is completely meaningless, but it's infuriating to me that someone could be so obsessed with analytics and next-level thinking (i.e., "let's show how wrong the conventional wisdom is"), but never question his own methodology.

Yeah, can't really disagree with any of their ratings. Maybe Wood should be a bit higher, but like they point out, he was a first-round pick, and hasn't seen the field as much as you'd want. I enjoyed that read; thanks for passing along.

Right. Our hypothetical QB drafted at #8 this year would get just about what Tannehill got last year, presumably a smidge more. Let's say that after 2013, there's about $9 million left on his contract, all of it guaranteed. Let's also say he looked pretty bad as a rookie in 2013, and Murray/Bridgewater/Boyd/etc. all had great years and look like great prospects. There would definitely be some temptation to pick a QB again in 2014. But would the Bills pull the trigger on a new QB, knowing that they have to pay the 2013 guy another $9 million whether he plays or not, and also knowing that many great QBs had very unimpressive rookie seasons? I think the answer's no. The natural tendency of most decision-makers would be to justify sticking with the 2013, with the rationale that he needs time and commitment to develop, and that the presence of another first-rounder on the roster will shatter 2013's confidence and ruin his career forever. Having said that, it's still not impossible. But it's important to consider that with guaranteed rookie contracts, there is no plausible scenario where a team cuts a top-16 QB (or any player) after 1 or 2 years. They might trade him for peanuts, but they won't take the chance of the player clearing waivers and getting paid to do nothing. Not just for cap implications, but also for the real-world cash outlay to a player no longer on the roster. So for a team to draft QBs in the first round, especially the high first round, they would probably have to have a conscious strategy of developing 2 QBs simultaneously with a notion of keeping 1 as a good backup and maybe trading him for picks before his contract is up. Most current/old school NFL thinkers seem to think that a team CAN'T develop 2 QBs simultaneously, because there aren't enough practice reps available. That's why there was so much surprise when Washington drafted a second QB last year, and also why Mike Lombardi repeatedly blasted Pete Carroll for having a 3-way QB competition between TJax, Flynn, & Wilson last year. Lombardi's argument was that with Wilson a rookie and Flynn only having played essentially 2 NFL games, they both needed as many practice reps as possible to develop, and the Seahawks couldn't afford to split reps/playing time in training camp/preseason as part of a QB competition. He also argued that TJax was still young/developing and also needed practice reps, but that sounded dumb even at the time, so I ignored it. I agreed with the rest of his argument, and was very intrigued by how terribly wrong it turned out to be. Was it just that Russell Wilson is way better than Lombardi realized, or was his logic flawed? Old-school defenders should be quick to point out that Wilson actually was pretty mediocre to bad for the first part of the season, and maybe if he'd gotten the lion's share of the practice reps all along, he'd have developed a few games quicker? Anyway, I wanted to bring up the Lombardi/Seahawks commentary, because Lombardi is now GM of the Browns, and has an interesting decision in front of him. I don't remember him being particularly high or low on Weeden last year, but he has no specific loyalties there. Weeden's contract only pays about $2mil a year, but at least the first 3 years are guaranteed. Lombardi can't feasibly cut Weeden and shell out something like $4mil for an empty roster spot. So he needs to decide whether to roll with Weeden as "the man" or bring in some competition. By his own argument last year, he should commit to Weeden, and make sure the coaching staff gives him as much experience as possible to Weeden's development. But maybe Seattle's success convinced Lombardi that he was wrong, and he'll take a different tack this year? Possible, but if he goes that route, I think it's a lot more likely that he drafts a QB in the 2nd or 3rd "to provide competition", and I would also expect Weeden to quickly get yanked in favor of the rookie in that scenario. I.e., the same situation that happened with Losman & Edwards.

Never should've been drafted as high as he was, but DHB is a real NFL receiver with excellent speed and size. Right now we have 1 real NFL receiver on the roster, 2 if you count Graham. And unless you really stretch and count Easley, we don't have anyone who's both big and fast. Not saying we needed to get DHB per se, but I would've been happy if the Bills had signed him. I would like to see them sign a real NFL receiver or two at some point. We only have 2, maybe 3, draft picks that can be counted on to produce viable players this year. (I.e., starters or regular rotation players, like a #3 receiver for example.) You have to have 5 skill position players on the field on every play. Here are all of our current skill position players: Spiller Jackson Choice Stevie Graham Brad Smith Easley Kevin Elliot Chris Hogan Mike Caussin Lee Smith Joe Sawyer (Chandler isn't on the list yet because he won't be ready to start the season, and there's no guarantee he'll be effective when he comes back anyway) Considering that in most sets, only 1 of the RBs will be on the field, we are in especially rough shape. Four of the non-RBs will need to be starters, and probably an additional 3 will need to be regular rotation players (every team runs some 2-TE and 4-WR sets). I only see guy on the non-RB list that should be a starter in the NFL, and maybe 2-3 additional rotation players at best. So we just need to add 3 extra starters at the skill positions, plus a potential franchise QB, plus a starting LG. At this point, I really think the Bills are planning on bringing in 20-30 UDFAs and winding up with at least a half dozen playing regular snaps, including 1-2 at WR. Which is kind of odd, since the Bills just decided to let go 2 former UDFA WRs in Jones and Nelson.

No problem, just seemed like you were harping on it by quoting yourself. I see that as a really unique situation in a different era that is essentially unrepeatable. (Jerry Jones, Herschel Walker trade, draft picks valued differently, etc.) And I agree with your "more common" statement, if only because it *can't* get less common, having never happened before with 2 consecutive regular drafts. I don't know the particulars of the Steve Walsh situation, but the supplemental draft has always been a different animal than the regular draft. If Andrew Luck had gone into the supplemental draft last year, I think nearly every team in the league would have bid a first-round pick on him, even if it was only for the purpose of trading him. Since you get the player immediately, but don't give up the draft pick until the following year, and since the two draft orders don't correlate, teams behave differently in the supplemental draft than in the regular one. Cleveland's an interesting test case. New owner, new everything, and on top of that, last year's first-round QB is 30 years old. I wouldn't be shocked to see them draft Barkley in the first. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them acquire a QB with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, whether that's via draft or trade. As for Jax, they strongly proved my point last year by making no attempt to draft a QB (in a historically good class) despite the amazingly bad rookie year from Blaine Gabbert AND a new head coach. I have no idea what direction they'll go in this year -- now with a new GM and new new head coach, and a better-but-still-bad 2nd year from Gabbert, they could try to justify giving Gabbert another shot, or could draft Geno Smith at #3. Or trade for Tebow, even though the GM says he doesn't want Tebow. Ponder & Locker are good examples of why it's not wise to draft a QB in the first round just because 2nd-rounders usually don't succeed. If teams start drafting 2nd-round prospects in the first, the already-low success rate of first-rounders will drop even lower. I hadn't heard that about Cincy, but it would certainly turn heads if they drafted a QB in the first 3 rounds. It reminded me immediately of the Bills drafting Trent Edwards in the 3rd round in 2007. That was 3 years after JP Losman was drafted in the first round, but only 1.5 years of Losman starting. Not to mention that Edwards was drafted (by a new coaching staff) immediately after Losman's first full year as a starter (and only good year in the NFL). Heads were certainly turned by that pick, and there were a number of (correct) whispers that Jauron and his Havoc Staff didn't feel that Losman was the answer. That was a good deal of media scrutiny for just a 3rd-round pick. Likewise, there would be a lot of raised eyebrows if Cincy took Manuel (or any QB) in the 2nd or 3rd round this year, but neither situation would compare to something like Miami drafting a QB #1 this year. For a team to be willing to take the media hit of "giving up" on last year's first-round QB just 1 year later, they'd need to have a very strong reason. NFL organizations are typically very risk-averse. Most teams would be too worried about the media hit to make such a bold move. Again, I'm not saying it'll never happen, just that I think it'll be extremely rare. I'll actually retract my earlier statement that it'll be a while, because I didn't realize how prime the Cleveland situation is for them to draft another QB this year. According to this article (and others, this was just the first one a quick google search turned up), the contracts for the first 16 picks (including Tannehill) are fully guaranteed. This doesn't have to be the case -- I remember there being a sticking point last year for draftees in the late teens who were trying to get their deals fully guaranteed, so it's negotiable. This is a cap wrinkle I actually wanted to bring up, because it does impact the discussion of drafting QBs #1 in consecutive years. Most pundits/fans agree pretty much universally that the new rookie salary structure decreases the risk of drafting a QB high, since you're not stuck with a Sam Bradford-level contract for said QB. But when you consider that in the top half of the first round, your QB is getting a 4-year *guaranteed* deal, it alters the thinking a little bit. That salary structure is set up for a bad team to pick their "franchise" QB and commit to him for 3-4 years whether he's good or not. Drafting 2 QBs back-to-back is still somewhat feasible, but going 3 in a row is basically impossible unless a team can trade at least one of them. Teams aren't going to want to carry fully guaranteed contracts on the bench if they can avoid it. It's doable if a QB is riding the pine because he's being groomed to be the starter, and probably also if the team considers him a quality backup, but that's about it. I still say that the default position for rebuilding teams will be what it's been -- draft a QB high, make him the face of the franchise, commit to him for several years until he's proven that he can't do it, then repeat. (Sprinkle in a few games or whole seasons of starting the Holcombs/Fitzes/Kolbs of the world in there as well.) Barley is a strong grain, but too inconsistent for the first round. I'd be happy with it in the 2nd, but I only have first-round grades on Wheat and Rice.

Do you have an example from the last 25 years, or an example that involves the regular draft rather than the supplemental draft? Pointing out this unusual situation many times doesn't turn it into a common situation. I also don't think an isolated example from 1989 bears much relevance to the NFL of today. I continue to maintain that whether teams should or not, it will be some time before a team drafts QBs in the top 10 (or even first round) in consecutive drafts. I also think that if/when it does happen, it'll be one of two situations: Either ownership/GM/coaching staff (or at the very least GM & coaching staff) changed between QB #1 & QB #2, or a successful team with a strong reputation in the media drafts QBs in consecutive years in an "outside the box" attempt to replace a retiring QB. We could see the Patriots try such a move in the 2 years after Brady retires, for example. Actually, with the Patriots' penchant for stockpiling picks, I could even see them going into the Brady-less draft with 2 first rounders, and spending them both on QBs. Would still surprise me, but wouldn't shock me. If the Bills draft a QB at #8 this year, I would be shocked if they drafted a QB in the first round in 2014. My only other contribution to this thread is to say that it's depressing that the 2013 draft hasn't happened yet and I'm already looking forward to the 2014 draft. I think this is the least confidence I've ever had in the Bills' ability to field a winning team.

Where's all this anger coming from? Were you guys molested by an April Fool's prankster?

I'm surprised it's just a 1 year deal. I guess Davis is really optimistic about his recovery process and thinks he'll have a nice year this year. If I'm a team, and my doctors say he'll play this year but not really be himself, I want that 1-year deal because I might get him really cheap next year, and I have no risk in case he's never himself again. As for us not getting him, I'm kinda disappointed, but not really about Davis specifically. He's a good player when healthy, but also a major knucklehead, and there's no guarantee he's able to play this year. Having 2 decent TEs who are injured isn't the same as having 1 who is healthy. I'm more disappointed that the Bills continue to not do anything to improve the 2013 team. Was the plan really to sign Manny Lawson, then sit back and pop the bubbly?

I like the idea of trading down, and I'm comfortable with the idea of trading current picks for future picks (especially since the Bills seem to have little to no interest in improving the 2013 roster). However, giving up #8 for a 2nd-rounder and a future #1 seems like a bit of a stretch. I think even the Chiefs or Jaguars would need to add more in to make it fair. And I also doubt that any team in the top ten would be optimistic enough that adding a second top-10 player in a relatively stud-free draft would justify the risk of giving up next year's first-rounder. I think a more likely scenario would be trading down once or multiple times, then trading your new pick (somewhere in the 20s) to a good team (or at least a team that THINKS it's good) for their 2nd rounder this year and 1st next year. Then you hope that team crashes and burns, but even if it doesn't, you've picked up an extra pick over the 2 year span, and that's not counting whatever you got for trading down from #8.

Nope. Multiply Davis' numbers by 1.8 and you get 180% of his numbers, which I think we can all agree would be a good signing. To get 80% of Davis, you need to multiply by 0.8. But now that you bring it up, I'm more interested in getting 180% of Davis pre-injury. Maybe we can sign him on the cheap?