Cash

Dammit. I guess this means there's only a 29% chance that Stevie actually re-signs now. Well, I'll keep my fingers crossed. 29% is better than nothing.

Based on the rest of his list, I don't know if WSS has ever really gotten as far up as Perry's face.

Nah, I'm pretty sure the Bills' looks like this: First Round Grades 1. Quinton Coples 2. ??? Second Round Grades ...

I think Turbosrrgood got Zach Brown mixed up with Zach Brown, which is pretty understandable. I assumed Turbosrrgood got his numbers right and wrote my above reaction based on that, but I've edited my previous post to delete that part. With Dareus and Williams up front, I don't care if our linebackers are a little on the small side, but I still say that you can't draft a part-time player at #10 overall. And with Barnett starting at WLB and nickel LB, the starting SLB will almost definitely be just a part-time player. Truth be told, I think nickel CB is more important than starting SLB.

Ugh. Astro, I love you dearly, and thank you deeply for your work over at draftek, but I strongly disagree. Barnett is already the every-down LB and will continue to be. Last year, the other nickel LB was Bryan Scott, and you don't have any other LB playing in the dime. So whoever we put at the other OLB spot is only going to play like a third of the downs on D. Maybe OLB43 really is our weakest position, but it's so much less important than DE43, it can't come close to justifying a top 10 pick. I see OLB #2 as the least important position in any 4-3 defense. I do agree that the Bills need more quality OLB43's -- probably at least 2, 1 of whom can play on passing downs -- but taking one at #10 overall is just a waste of a draft pick. Give me a good DE or WR or OT or even CB all day. (Having said that, none of the DEs in this draft really excite me, and I'd rather reach for a good player at an unimportant position than draft a future bust at an important position.) [Edited to remove paragraph about how a player is too small based on incorrect info about his size.]

Most likely reasons: 1.) Couldn't afford one - whether because his salary wasn't in the budget, or because Gailey's a low-paid head coach and you can't higher a DC at about the same salary. 2.) Did go after one (or more), but were turned down, because he/they didn't like the situation, didn't want to work for Gailey, didn't want to move, or whatever. 3.) No proven 3-4 guys were available at the time.

I think Upshaw is fairly unlikely. Now that the Bills are confirmed as a 4-3 front going forward, that's a little bias against him, since he projects more as a 3-4 LB than a 4-3 DE. Yes, he's plenty big to play DE in terms of body mass, but we know that Buddy Nix prefers guys around 6'4" with long arms to set the edge in the run game. Upshaw measured in at 6'1.5" with 31" arms. Strike two. There's no strike three yet, but I'd be surprised if Upshaw was the pick. I don't know much about any of these guys yet, but none of them really wow me. I feel like if any of them were all that impressive, he'd be projected Top 5. Maybe it's unfair, but I'm getting a Derrick Harvey vibe from both Coples and Ingram. Looks the part, fills a need, theoretically should be good, but just meh once he gets into the NFL. But I'm no expert.

I'm pretty sure the condition was that Lynch had to run for a TD in over 10 straight games to upgrade the pick to a 5th. Now, Lynch did *score* a TD in 11 straight games, but one of them was a receiving TD only, so we lose out on a technicality. Tough one. Yielded pretty well against the Bills!

When packs of heterophobic gays start beating up straights while shouting "breeder" at them, then you'll have a good argument. What straight person would possibly have their feelings hurt by having breeder shouted at them? What traumatic memories would it bring up? Would the straight person suddenly feel like an outcast? Probably not, since the audience at this public event is probably >90% straight.

Debatable. #1 is definitely Ted Washington. #2 is definitely Bryce Paup (he won AP Defensive Player of the Year, after all). #3 is...Fitzpatrick? Does Plan B free agency count? Then weren't Tasker and Kenneth Davis acquired via Plan B? If that's the case, I'd put Tasker #1 and Davis #4, but I don't think Plan B should count. If it's just true free agency, I'm drawing a blank on who I'd put above Fitz. I guess it would have to be either Spikes or Fletcher. Move Fitzy down to #5. Anyway, a Mario Williams signing would obviously depend on how he played as a Bill, but you'd have to start him out above Spikes - about the same age/experience, but Williams is a bigger star and better player at a more important position than Spikes was when we signed him. Assuming Williams didn't flame out quickly like Paup, he'd be right up there with Big Ted for the top spot. Of course, this is all just wishful thinking, but isn't that what the offseason is for?

Yes and no. No because the Bills went 6-10 last year, haven't made the playoffs in a dozen years, have maybe 4 players casual fans have ever heard of, and will be projected to be also-rans in their division next year. But yes because that resume entering 2012 is still way better than Cleveland or Jacksonville's resume entering 2011, and both of those teams were scheduled for (multiple) night games. Personally, I much prefer afternoon games to night games. I usually watch at bars, and getting home past midnight on a worknight with 5-6 beers in me is not really a winning play.

You definitely won't see any official quotes right now. Williams is still under contract until the new League Year, so any comments by a Bills official would be tampering. Even once free agency opens, you still should expect to see no official quotes (but plenty of leaks) about whom the Bills are interested in until the deal goes through or falls apart. Tyson Clabo wasn't officially discussed by the Bills until after he re-signed with ATL. Walker's blog strikes me as pure "this would make sense" speculation. Schefter's quote given in the buddynixon piece is a little stronger than just speculation, since Schefter is known to have many inside sources around the league. But it's not exactly very strong. Personally, I would cream my jeans if we got Mario Williams, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. He very much does not fit the mold of the Bills' free agent strategy (although I think he's one of the few megabucks players who's worth it -- much rather have him than Vincent Jackson, for example), and the Texans allegedly want him back with a passion. Then again, if the Texans really wanted him back *that* bad, they should've just locked him up with an extension this past year. Anyway, I'll be shocked if the Bills are seriously mentioned as a player for Williams when the time comes, and stunned if they land him.

Ditto. Especially because the elite QB is likely to stay elite for 8-10 years, whereas the elite D probably has more like a 3-4 year shelf life. But obviously you can win with great D and mediocre O. Of course, the ideal scenario is a great offense AND a great defense. I agree that we should be generally concerned with improving the team rather than worrying about where those improvements come from. However, some elements of a team are definitely more important than others. Upgrading the FB/lead blocker position, for example, is a marginal benefit that leads to almost no extra wins.

+1

I remember that. Not sure why Brady was dressed as David Hasselhoff for that coin flip, but I'm sure he had his reasons. Anyway, some good stuff in this thread. I'll chime in to say that breaking QBs down by 1st rounders vs. not 1st rounders isn't very productive. Why? Because only a couple QBs a year are drafted in the first round. Even so, they represent about half of all recent Super Bowl QBs. But what about that other half? 50/50, I like those odds, let's go for a non-1st rounder. Okay, so grab a guy in the 2nd? 4th? Undrafted free agent? Go defense in the 1st, then draft QBs with all remaining picks? Saying a guy not drafted in the 1st had success is meaningless. If you break it down by draft round (I did once), your odds are best with 1st rounders and basically drop a fair amount in every round thereafter, with one exception: The 5th round is especially bad, and the 6th round is especially good (because of Brady, Bulger, and Hasselbeck). I've never broken down undrafted free agents because I don't have near enough time to find a list of all the UDFA QBs in a given time span, but I expect it's extremely low. For every Kurt Warner or Tony Romo, there are probably at least 20-25 guys who were just camp fodder. None of this has a lot to do with Fitz; he is who he is, and in the short term, it's clear that he's the guy, so it's all about making his job easier. But when it comes to finding the next guy, I think it's very useful to know what the odds are. Doesn't mean that taking a stiff in the 1st round suddenly makes him into a great prospect, but if a guy is a consensus 1st-round pick, there's a better chance he'll succeed than if he's a consensus 2nd-round pick.

The quick kick is tactically sound in a close, defensive-oriented/field position game, when your team is near midfield and facing a 3rd and (long enough to be all but unmakeable). I seem to recall Big Ben executing a quick kick a few years ago -- maybe against the Ravens? It was a great move in that situation. One of the advantages of the quick kick is the element of surprise -- with no returner back, you can get 20 yards of extra field position from the ball rolling. Pulling out the quick kick in a blowout is not something one does as part of normal football tactics. Especially since you've now blown your element of surprise if you want to use it in an appropriate situation. (Actually, with the Patriots' current offense and defense, there's never an appropriate time to use a quick kick.) "But now opponents have to prepare for it! It's strategy, not dickishness!" Oh please. You think the Ravens are worried about Brady punting on 3rd and 10? They'll gladly let the ball roll and roll following a Brady punt, as long as it means Brady didn't pass for a first down. Yeah, I'm sure the Ravens are devoting all kinds of practice time to quick kick returns. Probably just going to start lining up the punt return unit on every 3rd and long. Get real. If there was any way to confirm it, I'd bet money that the Ravens spend exactly 0 additional reps in practice preparing for a quick kick.

Carrington played DE in a 4-3 in college. Keep in mind that it's common for 4-3 teams to have bigger DEs like Carrington or Dwan Edwards who either move inside to DT or come off the field entirely on passing downs. (Good example: Justin Tuck) It's also common for all teams to have OLBs who are good pass rushers play DE in a 4-man line on passing downs. As for Okoye, I dunno. He's still plenty young, but I feel like if he was going to break out anywhere, it would be in the Tampa-2 Under that Lovie Smith runs with the Bears. He seems like a natural fit for that Warren Sapp/Tommie Harris role.

Love the question. Here's my five: 1. Rodgers - best QB in the league, plenty of prime years ahead of him. The only QBs currently in his league are all much older, so this one's a no-brainer. 2. Megatron - best WR in the league, very young, physically in a class by himself. There are other elite WRs in the same tier of productivity as Calvin, but he really stands out as the prototypical dominant WR. 3. Revis - given Nnamdi's age, Revis is by far the best CB in the league going forward. CB is a position where there are few true difference makers, but Revis is a big-time difference maker. 4. Jared Allen - maybe not the greatest choice for a pass rusher, given his age, but he was the first guy who popped into my head. I'm actually not even sure how old he is without looking it up, but he's definitely been around a while. I do think he's the most consistently dominant edge defender I've seen over the last few years, but if he's too far past 30, I'd probably have to change this to someone like Aldon Smith, Mario Williams, Bryan Orakpo, etc. I like guys who can play either 3-4 or 4-3 effectively. Clay Mathews would be a major consideration if I knew I was going to run a 3-4. 5. Gronkowski - Could have gone a lot of ways here. Thought about Mangold or an LT, but Rodgers has shown he doesn't need an elite line to succeed, so I'd rather get an elite/game-changing player at a very scarce position. Thought about going with Ngata or Raji, because I love mammoth NTs who are also athletic, and I firmly believe in building a D from the inside out, but given that I've already got Rodgers and Megatron, I figured that if I also bring in an elite TE, it doesn't matter if my D stops the run or not, because we'll always be playing with the lead. Main argument against this pick is that while Gronk had the best year (ever!) this year, it's hard to argue from a skill standpoint that he's appreciably better than Gates, Graham, Vernon Davis, or even Aaron Hernandez, who is significantly faster than Gronk, if not as good a blocker. Still, that's a very short list of game-changers at the TE position, and obviously I'm going to take the one who is coming off the best TE season in NFL history, and in only his 2nd year to boot. For the record, I did seriously consider Marcell Dareus in the fifth spot.

Hahahaha, I had to hop into this thread just to see the immediate reaction to Whitner's boner. Love it.

Just curious, how big do you want your MLB to be? Sheppard is 6'2", 250 lbs. -- seems plenty big to me. I don't have time to look around the league rosters, but I'd guess that's above the median for a starting 4-3 MLB.

Either the Iron Sheik is wearing a Ron Jeremy wig, or Ron Jeremy is wearing an Iron Sheik mustache. This will lead to either the worst porno or best wrestling match of all time.

By Nix's own standards, he should be judged only on wins and losses. "Show me the baby... and the baby is winning." So far, he's done poorly, to the tune of 10 wins and 22 losses. His critics will shut up when the team produces wins, which, according to Mr. Nix, is the only time they should shut up. That's that.

Well played, sirs.

It's cool, I was speaking more in the abstract -- not trying to call you out or anything. Again, I haven't even seen the dude play, so I have no prediction on when he'll be drafted or how he'll do in the NFL. You make a good point about the one positive of his advanced age -- a GM or coach looking for immediate impact is more likely to convince himself and/or his owner that a 28-year-old rookie will be more effective than a 23-year-old one. Personally, I don't know if that's actually true, because while the 28-year-old's physical skills give him an advantage over the youngster, I think experience/repetitions are a bigger factor in development, and if the old guy hasn't played much football, he might be at a disadvantage there. Again, speaking in the abstract, not specifically about Weeden. I don't know much about the guy, but now I'm pretty intrigued to see where he winds up going.

Pretty easily - that drafting strategy has produced records of 4-12 and 6-10. Strategies that lead to terrible records tend to be criticized.