Cash

Luckily LT is a position where no one ever gets hurt, and Hairston specifically has never gotten hurt, so we're rock-solid there. Also luckily no opposing defense was able to shut down our offense by sitting on short routes and daring Fitz to hold on to the ball for more than 2.5 seconds. But mostly I'd like to +1 the avatar/Oktoberfest talk. I was there in 2009, and need to get back.

What an ass. (The caller, not Sanu.)

I don't see Glenn lasting to 41. Particularly since he's a very strong OG prospect in addition to being a high-upside but risky OT prospect.

In Chris Brown's live chat last night, he was asked about Massie, and said that the Bills' top scout considered him a RT only. I doubt they would feed misinformation to their own reporter, so I'd be pretty surprised to see Massie drafted. Always could be a situation where the scout's opinion differs from the GM's, but it seems like the Bills are pretty much on the same page usually. I'm hoping they trade up. It shouldn't take more than one of their 4th rounders, assuming someone's willing to move back. The main reason I'm hoping they trade up is that it means that one of the guys still available has a much higher grade on their board than the others at his position. (My guess is it would be Glenn, but what do I know?) The amateur draftniks tend to be happiest when you get the last prospect in a tier, because they consider them all pretty much equal and whoever drafts last gets the best "value." But I'm not in love with the idea of the Bills seeing essentially no difference between 3-5 very different prospects in Glenn/Martin/Adams/maybe Massie and/or Brown, and just settling for whichever falls to them. I feel like that's not a recipe for success. I'd much prefer that they have a specific one they really like, because they see how his skill set fits into their system in a way that the other players' skill sets don't. A trade up would signify that they see a big difference in fit. Of course, a similar situation happened when the Bills traded up in round 2 to draft Poz over David Harris, but that was a different scouting staff. They also way overpaid, giving up a high 3 to move up a few spots in the 2nd. (Which would've been fine if Poz had turned out as good as David Harris.)

I am surprised that they didn't do the ol' "competition makes everyone better" song and dance. They must think they can get something for McCoy? I doubt they will.

Smart move, especially when the player in question is a CB. Unless he's the next Deion, Nnamdi, or Revis, he's going to get beat from time to time, and no Bills fan will be happy about that.

Revis got toasted in our first game against him. It was a classic "throw it at the rookie" game. He looked a LOT better in the second game, and much, much better still in every game thereafter.

Cordy Glenn's still on the board!

I'm fine with this pick. Big, fast, strong, ath-a-letic, etc. Let's just hope he pans out better than McKelvin. And speaking of whom, here's 2 reasons to like this pick better than the McKelvin pick at the time: 1.) McKelvin was lauded on draft day in large part because of his kick return ability. To which I said, "Who cares? We already have McGee and Parrish." McKelvin turned out to be a pretty decent (if really boneheaded) return man, but who cares about return ability in the first half of the draft? Tell me how good he'll be on regular plays. 2.) I didn't do a lot of pre-draft research except for WRs that year, so I didn't know much about McKelvin or any of the other top corners. I remember finding out that McKelvin was 5'11" after we drafted, and being fairly disappointed. There's a big difference between 6'1" and 5'11". Anyway, let's hope ol' Gilly pans out.

No, I'm pretty sure that He-Man and the Masters of the Universe wasn't on until the 80's.

Yeah, but we hear that about a safety prospect every year. Polamalu and Reed are the only two who have really impacted games at the level you'd like from a top 10 pick. It's a lot more likely that Barron is the next LaRon Landry than the next Ed Reed. And considering that we already have good starters and good depth at both safety proper and LB/SS dime sub, I don't see the point. If they draft Barron and he becomes another Polamalu or Reed, I'll shut up. But he probably won't. He'll probably become a good starter who doesn't make a huge impact on W/L record. That's not much of an upgrade over what we've got now. Same logic as to why Spiller remains a horrible pick. Spiller played well in the second half last year, and looks like a legit player. But to justify a top 10 pick when we already had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch (both of whom had better years than Spiller last year, and way better years in 2010), Spiller needed to come in as a rookie and play like Chris Johnson. To date, he still hasn't.

Didn't she front a rock band as well?

Didn't want Bowe as a free agent, don't want him now that the price has changed from just a big contract to a big contract + the #10 pick.

Brandon Weedon's the only guy who's even eligible for Congress, right? But I don't think he can get elected.

After reading this breakdown, I'd be very comfortable with Wilson as a mid-round pick. The height thing is always gonna be there, but I don't worry about it too much. In the first round, especially the top of the first round, you should stick to guys with no perceived holes in their game: prototypical size, great athleticism, no off-field problems, great college production, great work ethic, etc. But once you get to the later rounds (at all positions, but especially at QB), the only way a guy is going to come through is if he's being overlooked for some reason. And there is definitely a strong bias against short QBs. There's also legit reasons why you want a tall QB, sure. But if Flutie can be a good NFL starter, and Brees can be an elite NFL starter, then someone else in that height range can have success, too*. I don't know if it'll necessarily be Wilson, but someone will, and whoever it is will probably be drafted later than he should because there's a bias against short QBs. In a similar vein, I don't worry about Brock Osweiler being too tall at 6'7". "But there's never been a good QB that tall!" Yeah, because very few humans get to that height in the first place, and the ones that do are mostly unathletic. And then, the miniscule amount who are that tall and athletic enough to play sports at an extremely high level usually go into basketball or volleyball, not football. So the sample size is ridiculously small, and nothing can be drawn from it. Eventually there will be a good QB that tall (for the record, I don't think it'll be Osweiler). And unlike short QBs, where their height really does pose a greater challenge than a 6'5" QB, there's no reason I can think of that a 6'7" or 6'8" guy would be hurt by his height. *I could also count 6'0" Mike Vick here, but I don't think that's fair. His athleticism at the QB position, both in terms of arm and legs, is so far away from any other QB I've seen that he's really in a class by himself.

1. Okay, not bad, let's hope he's as good as advertised. 2. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU... 3. Alright, that's solid, let's hope he's as good as advertised. 4. Wow, that's surprising. Let's hope Why So Serious knows what he's talking about. Now, to the youtubes! 5. (Assuming no trade down) Wow, didn't see that coming. Hope this means they were sandbagging b/c they didn't want his stock to rise, and not that they panicked or got overruled by Ralph. 6. Nice! What'd we pay? Ugh, that's a lot. Oh well, still psyched to get Kalil. 7. MY MIND IS BLOWN

But didn't she win the 1984 gold medal for gymnastics?

"Buddy Nix fills a pressing need..." What need is that, exactly? Upgrading Dime safety from Bryan Scott? Pushing team captain George Wilson to the bench?

Not trying to pick on you, but I hope people aren't confusing direct statements that Nix and Gailey make in interviews and press conferences with anonymous rumors such as this one. First, we don't know where Casserly got his info from -- it could easily be the Vikings claiming that they got an offer from the Bills, in order to entice a bigger offer from someone else. Second, regardless of where it came from, it could easily be a lie. There's a big difference between anonymously leaking misinformation to a reporter and lying right to the camera at a press conference. My recommendation is to ignore everything on Pro Football Talk and stick to verified quotes from Nix and Gailey. Those are ambiguous enough that we can't guarantee who the pick will be, but they give us an idea.

1. Kalil (Mike Lombardi thinks it's realistic, though not likely) 2. Gilmore? 3. Kuechly? I guess? I'm assuming the Bills don't love any of the 2nd-tier OTs enough to make them the pick at #10. If they did, then I guess whichever one(s) they loved would be #2.

The bigger issue is that he shouldn't have had Spiller ranked so high in the first place. He thought he was drafting Chris Johnson, and he was wrong about that. And yes, it was possible to see that at the time.

I think you mean Benoit Benjamin. He was saying he had a better career than Shawn Marion.

Yeah, I headed out a few picks after we took Byrd so I could get to my friend's party across town. Between that shenanigan and the Levitre pick, I missed out on a lot.

I'd take Freeman first, Flacco second, and Fitzpatrick third if I was building for the next 10 years. For next year only, I'd probably flip Flacco and Freeman, and Fitz would be a lot closer to both. Yep, Easterbrook sure loves cherry-picking. So disingenuous, and he's smart enough to know better. But if you look at long-term results, the success rates are highest for first round QBs, then a step down to second round QBs, then a step down to third, then a big step down from there. (Except for the sixth round, which looks like a goldmine thanks to Brady, Hasselbeck, and Bulger.) So it seems like Easterbrook has a valid point. EXCEPT! The supply of QBs is fixed; the only way for more teams to draft QBs in the first round is to take them from the second round or later. This does not improve them as prospects, except in that a first round QB will get more investment and chances from the team, and that probably does improve the chance of success a little bit, but not very much. Bust rates are already very high for first round QBs. This is because of two factors. First, it's really hard to be a good NFL QB, and really hard to project who can become a good NFL QB. Second, it's so important to have a good QB, and so hard to find one, that teams are willing to take big chances to try to find one. This is also why first round Safeties and Guards almost never bust: because the positions aren't as important, and replacements can be found relatively easily, teams aren't willing to spend a first-rounder on a S or G unless he's a can't-miss prospect. So what's my point? Easterbrook's argument is terrible, because teams are already prioritizing QB about as much as possible. Any team that doesn't have an established QB will usually talk themselves into a QB in the first round. And if they don't, it usually means that they have such poor scouting reports on the available QBs that they can't even talk themselves into it. And the scouting reports, while not perfect, are generally pretty good, because QBs get less and less successful as you go deeper into the draft. (Again, with the exception of the 6th round, but I'm certain that that's just sampling error. Give us a couple hundred years to get an appropriate sample size, and the 6th round will drop right back into place.)

Is Mitch Absolon on the show every week, or was he just there promoting his book?