Cash

No, no, it's fine. You just get your 2015 edition of Gray's Sports Almanac, look up where all of the Pro Bowlers were picked, and draft them a couple spots earlier. Or Buddy Nix could put on the ol' catsuit and break into the other 31 teams' offices the night before the draft and steal their draft boards. That would work, too. All jokes aside, BobChalmers has a bit of a point here, which is that if you can get a guy at your next pick, you don't need to get him at your current pick. So you should draft the best guy who won't be around at your next pick. The problem, of course, is that it's very hard to know if a guy will be available at your next pick or not. Anyone who gets deep into mock draft stuff knows that beyond the first 2 rounds or so, it becomes incredibly difficult to predict a player's draft position. It's not uncommon to see guys drafted as high as the 4th round who weren't even projected to be drafted (sometimes not even invited to the combine).

Part 4 has been posted, and specifically talks about Boller. Not a bad read.

I don't plan on touching either, because I think both will be overdrafted. If both fell to the 5th round or so, I'd probably draft Fred first, because he was better last year and I like him more.

Big time. Wait, let me rephrase that. Big time. I don't think I've ever had so little confidence in either what the Bills will do, or who will turn out to be good. On the bright side, it means it'll be pretty hard for me to be disappointed. On the down side, it'll also be pretty hard for me to be psyched. If it's Kuechly or a CB, meh. I'll be okay with it, but from a positional standpoint, it's disappointing. If it's a non-Kalil LT, I'll be happy, but very wary, because any of them might fail at LT. If it's Floyd, meh. I'm not too enamored of him. (Full disclosure: if it's Floyd, I'll probably watch a lot of youtube clips of his highlights and come away really excited.) If it's a total wildcard like Tallywhacker or DeCastro or someone, I'll be very surprised in a neutral way. Only drafting Trent Richardson could really upset me.

Buddy's quote is at about the 1:52 mark of the "Nix on Bills Left Tackle Situation" video on buffalobills.com (sorry, can't figure out how to get a direct link right now). It's a bit confusing in some ways. Nix and Whaley (in discussing other positions) really stressed depth, competition, the next guy being able to come in and play w/ very little dropoff, etc. And Nix had his whole spiel about how the only backup OT on the roster is Sam Young, who 1.) has never done anything in the NFL, 2.) is coming off knee surgery, and 3.) is considered a RT only, not a candidate for LT. None of this is news. Given that, it made sense a couple weeks ago when Nix seemed to imply that the team was looking to draft a "start from Day One" LT at #10 and also a developmental tackle in the mid/late rounds. But Nix doesn't have a history of drafting linemen high, especially tackles, and now I'm thinking he won't this time, either. The quote that really sticks with me is, "...I guess I was thinking a big playmaker, which a tackle is not..." which is referring back to his earlier quote, "What we'd like to get is a difference maker, or a playmaker, an impact guy." That was one of his more unguarded moments that I saw, and I think tells us that going LT is not Option 1 at #10 overall. I do think it might be an option if the "playmaker" they want isn't there, in which case they'll talk up how much they love whichever LT they pick and say they wanted him all along, but inside, they'll be disappointed. And yes, I realize Nix started and finished the full statement by saying that a left tackle can be a difference maker, but that sounded like Nix just speaking extemporaneously. Same with the comments about top LT's drafted in the top 8-10 picks: He was just talking in abstract terms about the league/football in general, not talking specifically about the Bills. Which is a good way to answer a question without either lying (which Nix doesn't seem to do) or blatantly showing your hand (which Nix also doesn't do -- there are much more hints and tips with Nix than other GMs, but never any outright admission of who he wants to draft). We'll see what happens in just over a week, but I'll say this in advance: Given all the non-Bell injuries on the O-line last year, I'll be very disappointed if the Bills decide that they need to worry more about McGee & Florence's age and McKelvin's contract situation than about the literal void they have at backup LT. They think they struck gold with a 4th-round OT last year (who was actually declared an RT, not an LT, when he was drafted), and that's awesome. But counting on doing it again is really stupid. Most mid-round picks can't come in and be effective starters as rookies. And the odds are pretty good that Hairston will get hurt at some point. Maybe I'm overreacting and lumping Nix's comments in with a bunch of fans' comments unconsciously -- it seems like I've seen a bunch of posters here who think there's no problem with Hairston and Levitre being our only LT options next year, but are terrified that 7-year NFL starter Kirk Morrison is slated to start at a position that only plays half the defensive snaps. Posters who insist (to the contradiction of Nix) that LTs can easily be found in the later rounds, but on the other hand, a linebacker who reminds people of 5th-round pick Zach Thomas MUST be the pick in the first round. Don't get me wrong -- I have no idea if any of the LTs will be any good, and won't be upset if the Bills go in a different direction; I just don't like the logic some fans are using to justify picking the guy they like. If the Bills think Kuechly or Floyd or one of the CBs or whoever is a true difference maker, then that's all the justification they need, and let's hope they're right.

I tend to agree with you, but don't forget the part where he says that the Bills have only 2 healthy tackles and 1 more coming off an injury, and he wants 2 additional tackles. I got a vibe that they're hoping a solid prospect falls to the 2nd round, and they'll probably grab one in rounds 4-7 whether they get one high or not.

Count me in as well! It does make me wonder: every year, there's a player or position that winds up going much later than we expected. Now, that's usually not OT, because those usually tend to go higher than expected if anything (b/c it's such an important position), but maybe this could be the year? Let's face it, after Kalil, all the OT prospects have some knocks on them. It does remind me a little of 2008(?) when we were debating Malcolm Kelly, Limas Sweed, Devin Thomas, and James Hardy at #11 overall, and all of them wound up being available for us in round 2. And of course, all of them wound up being extremely disappointing. As long as that last part doesn't repeat, I'd be really happy with Martin or Glenn or even Adams falling to us at #41.

Thanks for posting this one, too! I actually enjoyed this one a lot more than the WR one, just b/c there was one useful piece of info -- the Bills consider Cordy Glenn a tackle prospect. Whaley: "For us, a guy with that size, and that type of foot athlete, you try him out at tackle. We believe that he has a chance to play there, and produce there at a high level." For those of you unable to watch the video right now, Whaley's tone was more toward "Have you seen this guy? He's a tackle, duh," than "Well, maybe he might maybe be able to maybe have a chance at tackle someday..."

Thanks for posting! First impression, 10 seconds in: If Whaley is serious about taking over as GM once Nix retires, he'd better straighten out his facial hair situation. No one is going to take you seriously with a mid-90's goatee. Second impression, after watching it: Why do I watch these things? And why am I going to watch all the others that are up on buffalobills.com? Obviously the Bills are going to talk up everyone they're asked about, but very non-specifically, so they don't tip their hand too much. Gah. Post-draft press conferences are really good, but these are excruciating. Well, better get back to watching them.

Here's the full quote: “We need tackles, but we think Chris Hairston can play left tackle for us and win,” said Nix. ”People say Fitz gets the ball out quick, but we run our offense with a lot of empty sets, with five blockers and if they bring six he better get it out. In this offense he has to get it out quick. Chris Hairston might not be the prettiest foot athlete that he can protect the back side. We’ve got Pears and Sam Young is coming off of knee surgery. So we’ve only got three. We’d like to have two more.” Definitely no guarantee of going OT at #10, but this isn't the first time Nix has said they want two more tackles.

1.) The last two first-round picks by the Bills both made pre-draft visits with the Bills. 2.) Therefore, the Bills will pick someone who they DIDN'T bring in for a visit. QED

1. Home or away on 12/23? That's usually the only home game I can make it to. 2. When do we visit the awful Pats? 3. When's the Thursday night game?

I predict the Bills will pick Cordy Glenn Malcolm Floyd? I have no idea.

Obvious troll is obvious.

The Bills allegedly tried to trade back into the first round to grab Thomas in 2010. Wouldn't shock me if they made a similar attempt with Hill. Would shock me if they drafted him at #10.

Just think -- next year we could package Richardson and a third-rounder for a late 1st, and draft a new RB in the top 10! We can't lose!

I'm sorry if I implied I expect to get a value at 9 or 10; I do not. Most drafts have 5ish "elite" prospects, and typically there's not a huge difference between the #10 pick and the #20 pick. The exception is when one of the "elite" prospects doesn't get drafted in the top 5 or whatever. That's when you can get a "value" at #10. Off the top of my head, some "values" that were available at #10 since I've been following the draft: Jevon Kearse, Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart. All guys thought to be in the elite tier of prospects pre-draft and almost universally mocked in the top 5 or so. Like I said, it usually doesn't happen that one of those guys falls to 9 or 10 or so, and when it does, that doesn't guarantee success. A 2012 example of a "value" for the Bills would be one of the following falling to #10: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Blackmon, Claiborne. Throwing Tannehill and/or Richardson into that top tier is debatable. My original point was not to demand that the Bills get a "value" at #9 in 2010 or #10 in 2012, but to compliment you for having an objective and rational assessment of the value of Spiller in 2010. I've seen many Spillerillos on this board going gonzo with this crazy idea that Spiller was some phenomenal value that the Bills just couldn't pass up at #9. Nope, not true. Arguably BPA (as you said in this thread), but not clearly BPA. And that's fine. (Other debatable BPA candidates at the time: Anthony Davis, Earl Thomas, Jason Pierre-Paul, Derrick Morgan, Mike Iupati, Maurkice Pouncey, Bryan Bulaga, Dez Bryant, TIIIIIIIIM TEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW. In hindsight, JPP was the BPA. For the record, I wanted Bulaga, who's turned out solid, but nothing special.) Anyway, I'll shut up now, and you can have the last word if you want. This is the most trouble I've ever gone through just from trying to compliment someone, with the exception of every woman ever. But it was fun looking up the teens and twenties of the 2010 draft again. I tend to agree, mostly on principle. If Kuechly becomes the best player he could possibly be, then it's a very good pick. That's probably not going to happen, though, and I view every 1st-round LB as a lot more likely to become Aaron Curry than Patrick Willis. In the abstract, I'd always prefer to go with a more important/harder to find position in the first round. And I'd also like that position to fill an immediate need, unless you're drafting for an already stacked team. Because most non-elite first-rounders are pretty close in terms of value. We fans love to talk about "just take BPA", but that's pretty meaningless in most cases. Is there really a difference in value between a guy with a 97 rating and a 96 rating? If the latter guy plays a position where you have no proven starter and literally no backup on the roster (i.e., LT this year), isn't it better to take him over a guy who won't get on the field this year? I think everyone can agree that if the choice is between a "need" player with a 3rd-round grade and a "luxury" player with a 1st-round grade, you should take the luxury player. But I say that that's rarely the case. I think that most of the time, the top 4-5 guys available on your board will be very close to each other in terms of overall rating, so you should take the one who fills the biggest need. Now, I don't know what the Bills' board looks like, and I don't have a board this year. But I feel confident in saying that if there's an LT prospect available at #10 who has a similar rating to the other available prospects, then the Bills will draft him. To me, if the Bills draft anything other than an LT at #10, that means that they don't have a strong 1st-round grade on whoever's available.

e

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but we seem to agree that no mocks had Spiller going prior to the Bills pick, and most had him valued somewhere in the early teens. Not a reach at #9, since there was no clear BPA at that point. Also not a value at #9. Getting back to Kuechly, I think I've seen one mock this offseason that had him going to the Panthers, and I think I've seen one or two (excluding Bills fan mocks) with him going to the Bills, but most have him going somewhere in the teens. If he does wind up being the Bills pick, I expect a similar scenario to the Spiller pick, where the best-connected draft gurus move him up to the Bills' pick because they're tipped off by someone close to the Bills. Again, not necessarily a reach, but also not particularly a value. That's fine as long as 1.) your guy pans out, and 2.) you didn't pass up an equal or better value at a more important/needed position who turns out better. #2 was really the crucial problem with the Whitner pick. Whitner pretty much did pan out -- he turned into a solid starter, which is disappointing for a top 10 safety, but all you can really ask of any draft pick. But given that Whitner was taken over Ngata, it's one of the worst picks imaginable. The equivalent scenario this year would probably be something along the lines of drafting Kuechly, who turns into a solid but unspectacular starter, while either Floyd or one of the OTs turns into a dominant All-Pro. (Obviously it would suck if the reverse happened -- Reilly Reiff or whoever turns into a just OK starter, and Kuechly is the next Ray Lewis. But in 2008, most fans considered DT the #1 need entering the draft, with safety as a secondary need. This year, it seems to me like most fans consider OT or WR the primary need, with LB being considered a secondary need.) I don't pretend to have any real idea how any of these guys will turn out, but hopefully whomever we grab will turn into a stud.

These picks will be horrible. 1: Ryan Tannehill QB - Miami Dolphins 2: Michael Floyd WR - Jacksonville Jaguars 3: Courtney Upshaw OLB - New York Jets 4: Lamar Miller RB David DeCastro G - Tennessee Titans 5: Orson Charles TE Luke Kuechly LB - Houston Texans

I want to thank you for injecting some reason into the pro-Spiller argument. I continue to disagree with you, but that's as may be. More importantly, you are lucid enough to not throw around nonsense phrases like "Spiller was by far the BPA". I don't think I ever saw a mock draft with Spiller going prior to the Bills' pick. That doesn't mean he has to be a bad pick or a reach, but it also means he's not some great value that miraculously fell to the Bills. I don't want to re-open the Spiller debate, because what's the point, but again, thanks for having some perspective. With that said, Kuechly seems somewhat similar in a couple of ways. #1, no one has Kuechly coming off the board before the Bills pick, but some of his fans vehemently think that drafting him at #10 represents great value/BPA. #2, non-pass-rush OLB is fairly equivalent to RB in terms of positional value; new-school football nerds and semi-nerds (I'm the latter) preach that you don't draft them high and don't give them big contracts. Now, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with a Kuechly pick as I was with the Spiller pick, because it does seem like he'd be a 3-down LB, which is more valuable than a run-down guy like Sheppard. I'd be really surprised if the Bills took him, though. With Spiller, there were enough leading comments from Nix/Gailey that it wasn't a total shock when the rumors started flying around. But this offseason, we haven't heard a lot about needing a linebacker. Nix did say he wanted to add another one, but in the same breath said, "Kirk Morrison's up and we don't know what's happening with him," which says to me that when Morrison was re-signed, that was the LB addition. Meanwhile, there've been plenty of comments from the coaches/GM about how much they love Sheppard and Barnett. Sheppard is penciled in as the run-down MLB, and Barnett is the every-down WLB/NLB. With Bryan Scott re-signed, there's your other NLB, and Morrison is the run-down SLB. I realize that many fans think that unit needs a major upgrade, but I don't think the coaches feel that way. In fact, I'll be surprised if the Bills draft a LB before they draft a CB. But we shall see.

"Not that bad" and "middle of the road" are not phrases you should be using to try to justify ignoring the offense.

I don't want to put words in Kelly's mouth, but I think the natural counter-argument is to have you (or whomever) go on record with your "sure thing" prospects before each draft. It might take a couple of years, but you'll eventually be wrong about a few. Personally, I think I fall somewhere between the two of you. I don't think there's really any sure thing, but some guys seem like they're very very close. Dareus is a great example. I viewed him as a 0% risk before the draft last year. Which was probably over-optimistic, but not that far off.

This... ...and this. Both great posts. Of the 3 actual NFL players, I would take Fitty, because he has the most impact. Edwards' Arm broke down the importance and limitations of LT splendidly. It is a very important position, but it got way too overrated for a while, because the pass protection as a unit is only as strong as its weakest member. (To say nothing of poor coaching, communication, or cohesion, any of which can lead to unblocked rushers on stunts or blitzes that aren't properly picked up.) It's absolutely crucial to have a decent starter at LT, unless you've got the ultra-rare QB like Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, or Ben Roethlisberger who can singlehandedly mask a bad O-line. But the upgrade from average pass protector to elite pass protector, while still helpful, doesn't provide a huge benefit. Considering Hairston is far from a sure thing at LT, and couldn't stay healthy last year anyway, AND there's no backup, I'd prefer if the Bills drafted an LT in the first round. He might not turn into a stud, but chances are pretty good that he'd be at least a passable starter. So having said all that, I voted for Fitzgerald, but would prefer the Bills not take Floyd. Why? Because I'd be shocked if Floyd ever got as good as Fitzgerald. Fitty and Megatron are the highest-rated, surest-bet WR prospects in the 20 years or so that I've been closely following the draft. In terms of pre-draft rating, Floyd is not in their league, and not even in the league of AJ Green last year. But Floyd is in the league of Julio Jones last year, who was pretty good - not trying to rag on Floyd, just saying he's nowhere near as safe a bet as Fitzgerald was when Fitzgerald was drafted. As for Kuechly, it's clear I'll never convert any LB-lover, so it's probably time to just agree to disagree. I'll give it one more shot though. Kuechly does at least seem to be a 3-down LB, which means picking him is justifiable, and if he develops into an elite (basically Hall of Fame) linebacker then it's a really good pick. Otherwise, meh. I just view LBs about the same as RBs in the modern NFL -- there are a very few elite difference-makers (Ray Lewis in his prime, Adrian Peterson), but everyone else is mostly a product of the system they play in and the players around them. (Key word: MOSTLY. Obviously Michael Turner is better than Bennie Green-Ellis or Danny Woodhead, but both of the latter guys run well and put up good numbers in the Pats' offense. Turner, meanwhile, is a really good player who is eminently replaceable.) For linebackers, there are some exceptions (Tampa-2 requires a really good MLB to be effective, for example), but I feel like in most schemes, and especially in the Miami U/Jimmy Johnson/Wannstache defense, the big resources need to go into the D-line and the linebackers are plug & play. As long as you've got a guy with a decent ability level, you should be fine, so don't break the bank. Put another way: most LBs are only as good as the D-line in front of them, but the converse is not true. The impact of the D-line is largely unaffected by the play of the LBs behind them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Weeden is old enough to remember POGS. I'll pass.