Cash

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.)

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.