Cash

My concern is more that I don't think guys like Smith will be able to make plays without a solid foundation around them. The Jets had/have that solid foundation, the Bills don't. I look at this signing a lot like the Spiller pick last year (although not NEARLY as bad - <$4mil/year is a lot easier to swallow than the #9 pick). A lot of the justification in this thread reminds me a lot of the Spiller justification after the draft last year. Gailey designing special offensive packages, the opposing defense having to gameplan for him, etc. I think those things would be true if we had a solid fundamental offense, and could add those packages on top of it, but we don't. So we'll see. Like I said before, I'm curious to hear/see how Gailey plans on using Smith. I'm expecting him to play a larger role than he did with the Jets, otherwise it's hard to justify his contract. If it's any consolation, I think Miami is much dumber for trading for Reggie Bush and (allegedly) promising him that he'll be The Man at RB. Bush is another luxury playmaker like Spiller or Smith. He can add a very dangerous dimension to an otherwise good offense, but I don't see a lot of value unless you already have the good offense. Reggie Bush can take your offense from good to great but not from mediocre to good.

I'm also quite puzzled by this signing. What does Smith do at WR that Parrish doesn't? With Evans, Johnson, Parrish, and maybe Easley, how much time will Smith see at WR? And I'm guessing he's now the full-time KR/PR, but meh. We already had some pretty good return men on the roster, and the new rules limit the impact of good KO returners anyway. And as for the "he'll fill the 3rd QB position" guys, I'm sorry, but what? You can't think that's the primary reason we signed him, right? We're talking what, 5 plays a game with Brad Smith at QB? Maybe? You don't give a guy a 4-year, $15mil deal for 5 gadget plays a game. There has to be some broader plan. It'll be interesting to see what Gailey says about utilizing him when they hold the press conference. I'll hazard to guess that Gailey is planning on rolling 4 or 5 wide as much as he can next year. I guess it's always good to get a good player, but it's hard for me to get excited about another speedy skill position guy when we already have plenty on the roster. I don't think adding another one to the mix will make any impact, but hopefully I'm wrong. But excited about Smith or not, I think we can all agree that for the offense to really get better, we need better O-line and QB play.

It makes some sense in historical context. Originally the #3 QB slot was added in lieu of another inactive slot. So the NFL went from 45 active players on game day to 45 + the #3 QB. The idea being that QB is such an important and specific position that it merits a special emergency backup. On top of that, a lot of teams like to have a "developmental" young guy, so the 4th quarter exception was designed to let a guy like Levi Brown gets some reps in the 4th quarter of a blowout. Of course, in reality, if teams really think their young guy has promise, he's usually either #1 or #2 on the depth chart anyways, and most coaches keep their starters in during blowouts anyway. So the reasoning behind it made some sense, even if it never applied to reality in any meaningful way. I'm glad they just bumped us up to a true 46 active players on game day.

Nice re-signing from the Bills. Nothing to get excited about, but definitely something to be glad about. Florence is 30, so I'm glad they didn't go longer than a 3 year deal. The money seems pretty reasonable.

I'm just glad we're interested. Trying and failing is a lot more noble than sitting at home hoping the stars align (i.e., The Erik Pears Project).

Nix seems obsessed with telling people that he thinks the Bills' no-name players are a lot better than the media/fans think. But they keep losing games and looking bad doing it. Buddy, maybe it's you. Maybe your evaluations are trending a little on the high side. Think about it. Regarding Wilson/Overdorf/Littman, I'm very curious to see 1.) How the Bills get to the salary floor, and 2.) How close to the floor they wind up.

I'm far from panic mode, although I would have preferred if we retained Poz. I'll be concerned if we don't sign someone decent to replace him. Even if Sheppard pans out, you need two starters at that position, and we currently have zero. I'm also a little concerned that all we hear from Nix is that the strategy is to build through the draft, eschew high-priced free agents and the trade market, and spend nearly all of our free agent money on re-signing our own players. But then step 1 is to immediately lose our best LB, who was identified pretty strongly by Nix as someone we wanted back. If step 2 is to lose Florence, I'd have to seriously question the strategy.

Also Dallas won 2 SBs after signing Charles Haley, and another after signing Deion. Respectfully disagree. Brees turned down a 5-year, $50mil offer from the Chargers to sign a 6-year, $60mil contract with the Saints. How is that not a big time free agent? $10mil per year is not the kind of low-tier guy Buddy Nix keeps talking about. Just because spending heavily in free agency often fails (a la the Snyder Redskins) doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to fail. I'm fine with the Bills' stated strategy of spending mostly on re-signing their own homegrown talent (a la Pittsburgh), but can we stop pretending that this is the only way to be successful? Plenty of big-name, big-money free agent signings have worked out just fine -- including Bryce Paup and Ted Washington for the Bills. There's more than one way to win the Super Bowl.

I want to know who these amazing inside linebackers are who make >50% of their tackles at the line of scrimmage or in the backfield. The way people B word about Fletcher Poz, there must be a lot of them. Why don't we just sign a couple of them?

That's what I get for clicking on a PFT link. Florio is basically a guy telling you about something he read on twitter. It would be nice to see some journalism here -- is there any truth to the assertions that the owners slipped in some non-negotiated riders in the deal they voted on? If so, how about finding out what type of things they were?

Absolutely yes. Aside from this year's Grizzlies picks, there hasn't been a salary negotiation for a first-round pick in the NBA since the rookie scale was adopted, but every draftee has an agent. Not to negotiate their salary, but to get them drafted as high as possible in the first place. In a way, the agent gets the rookie a better contract by selling teams on him pre-draft. I don't see that changing, regardless of the rookie salary structure.

+1. Nix has talked up his waiver-wire pickups on the O-line a heck of a lot. Sounds like he thinks Urbik and Pears are the real deal, and we have our top 6 or 7 linemen set going forward. I wouldn't be hugely shocked if we sign an OT to be the unquestioned starter, but I would be surprised. Adding a Cornell Green/Langston Walker type (or maybe a notch cheaper) to "compete for the job" wouldn't surprise me as much.

The owners are like a basketball team that hacks everyone who drives the lane, only takes jumpers on the other end, then blames the refs for the disparity in free throws. It's not that the refs are biased, it's that you keep committing fouls. Likewise, as long as the NFL keeps bringing dubious arguments to court, they'll keep losing cases. It's not like non-Doty judges have exactly been burning up the benches with pro-NFL opinions. Other than the appeal to resume the lockout, what was the last court case (vs. anyone) the NFL won? I honestly can't think of one off the top of my head.

And this is why the NFL needs an antitrust exemption to be able to operate. But it's a limited exemption, which means that in the absence of collective bargaining, workers are allowed to bring antitrust litigation against the NFL. Also, I don't know if the IRS specifically is different, but a number of friends of mine have government jobs in various departments, and none of their application processes involved central application followed by assignment. They all applied for specific jobs in specific offices, just like any other job. Not really sure what you were getting at there. Defending the draft, I guess? I like the draft as much as anyone, and would be furious if it went away, but it would be indefensible in any real business. Imagine if, to work at Target, you had to apply at the headquarters in Minnesota, then were assigned to one of their nation-wide stores with no say in the matter? It's a ridiculous notion. The only way the NFL gets away with it is that they have a monopoly on a job that is extremely desirable. Well, that and the fact that the draft as a TV event makes a good bit of money, some of which comes back to the players.

Probably a couple of days after the lockout ends. They can't sell rookie jerseys until that happens, plus teams always like to debut new unis by having players model them in a little fashion show. Can't do that during a lockout.

The NFLPA disbanded as a labor union, but still exists as a trade association. And no, I'm not sure what a trade association is. I tried reading the wiki, but that just left me more confused.

I sure hope so! One interesting thing is that picks 1-3 could all pan out very well without any of those guys ever making the Pro Bowl. Dareus could theoretically become a Richard Seymour type who makes the Pro Bowl every year, but a more likely (and still very successful) scenario is that he doesn't generate numbers for himself, but wreaks havoc on the offense in ways that help out everyone else. 3-4 ends rarely make the Pro Bowl. For Williams to be a success at #34, he's got to eventually become a solid starter for us at corner. He doesn't necessarily need to get a ton of picks, just provide steady coverage. But the only ways to make the Pro Bowl as a corner are to get a ton of picks, or have a reputation as a "lockdown" corner (e.g., Revis, Asomugha, Bailey). And as for Sheppard, I'm hoping and kind of expecting that he'll be a solid starter for us long-term as well. Remember that 3-4 ILB is not a premium position -- they rarely go high these days, and starters are frequently found late in the draft. So when we take one at the top of the 3rd, and he was something like the 2nd or 3rd ILB drafted, it's fair to expect him to be a starter. But he doesn't need to be a Ray Lewis or Patrick Willis, and those are the only MLB/ILBs that make the Pro Bowl.

Pretty happy overall. Dareus alone makes this draft a win in my book. Very pleased with the Sheppard pick as well, and like everyone else, I'm way over-excited about a guy we got at the end of the 7th round. (Although I was also excited about getting Steve Johnson in the 7th, so it's not like we're ALWAYS wrong.) Drafting 3 DB's (2 pretty high) bummed me out a bit, but I'll live with it. It's not nearly as egregious as the Spiller pick last year. I would've preferred more attention to the O-line, and maybe a bit earlier than the 4th round as well, but at least they took a tackle before the 5th round (first time since Mike Williams). I don't mind the lack of a QB, because I disliked every one in this draft. I wouldn't have minded a pass-rusher in the 2nd or 3rd, but I guess the plan is to see if Merriman can come back (or one of the young guys develops, or Kelsay finds a genie who grants him 3 wishes), and if he doesn't, then make pass-rusher a prime need next year. And I'll admit, that idea has some merit. Moats, Coleman, and Batten (assuming he gets moved back outside) need PT to see if they can play or not, just like Steve Johnson & James Hardy needed PT to see if they could play or not. On the whole, we look to have done a lot less reaching than last year, which is a great sign.

I'll go pick-by-pick: McKelvin - C-. 22 starts in 3 years in not what you're looking for when you draft a CB this high. And he's shown flashes, but hasn't played consistently well either as a starter or a nickel back. Was awesome as a return man 1 year, then horrible last year. Can still turn it around and improve this grade, but right now, it's closer to a D than a C. Remember, he was the first CB drafted that year, and #11 overall. If that guy doesn't become a solid starter for you, he's a bust. Hardy - F. Not much to say here. Chris Ellis - F. Everyone who was riding on the Alex Carrington bandwagon before we drafted Dareus needs to remember that people were equally confident about Ellis after an almost equally non-productive rookie season. Doesn't mean Carrington will bust, too, but sometimes people let their optimism run a little wild. Corner - B-. Has been a pretty solid contributor, but entering year 4, he's not a starter and looks like he never will be. Good, not great, pick. Fine - F. 2 years, 18 games played, 11 starts, 19 catches, 1 TD, now out of football. Was panned by the experts as a major reach at the time, and they were right. The Bills claimed that they loved him because (unlike most of the TEs in that draft) he could both block and catch. Turns out he couldn't do either. Small, slow, and old (25 years old as a rookie) is not a good recipe in the NFL. Bowen - D. Never did anything, but it's not the Bills' fault that he got hurt, and maybe he might have made the team if he didn't get hurt. Omon - F. Even in preseason, the guy looked terrible. Bell - B. Toughest grade for me. He's been our starter at LT for the last 2 years, but mostly just by default. He certainly hasn't been a *good* starter at the position, and he hasn't been able to stay healthy, either. Still, he belongs in the NFL (I think), at least as a backup, and given how raw he was when drafted, he's still got time to become a good starter for a number of years. If a 7th-rounder is still on the team 3 years later, that's automatically a good pick, the question is just how good. Johnson - A+. This is one of the extremely rare 7th-rounders that 1.) I had heard of before the draft, 2.) I specifically thought would/could be successful for us, and 3.) actually was successful for us. So glad he finally got the opportunity this year. Cox - D. Didn't make the team, but has stuck in the NFL as a deep backup, so doesn't get an F.

"CB & S *are* need positions" "You can't fill every hole in one draft" "It's important to go BPA, especially this early" "It's important to go BPA, especially this late" "How can anyone B word about a late rounder?" "It's not like there were impact players available at other positions this late" Those are all valid points, and I think I even left off a couple. But we've heard them all before. My point isn't that any of these picks is a bad pick in and of itself, it's that the Bills (new regime or not) appear to be obsessed with drafting DBs, and IT HASN'T BEEN WORKING. We've had an above-average to elite secondary most of the last 11 years, and missed the playoffs every year. I'd like to see a draft where we take O-linemen at 34, 100, and 206, rather than DBs at those spots.

Epic win. So glad he fell to us. Exactly the guy we need to start turning it around on defense. Did anyone else catch something Nix said about scenarios at #3? "We wanted to take the best player in a position that we needed." So glad to hear that, particularly after the Spiller pick last year, when the rhetoric was more along the lines of "best player regardless of position." In this case, best player regardless of position also happened to fill our biggest need (and help with another major need), but I think that quote of Nix's bodes very well for the rest of the draft. Let's keep it rolling!

Nice! I always liked 99 on a big D-lineman. Dareus will definitely be in the mix when it comes time for me to get a new jersey.

I tend to agree. Ngata is another massive and nimble guy who alternates between the nose and 5-tech (in both cases, Ryan Pickett & Kelly Gregg are big factors in pushing Raji/Ngata to end). I see Dareus as that type of player, but spending more time at DE. If we draft him, I think he starts at LDE from day 1 in the 3-4, and at DT in a 4-3 look. To the OP's point, Kelsay shouldn't factor into this discussion much. If last year was any indication, Kelsay will only play DE in nickel or dime situations - never in a base 3-4 or 4-3. And I'm sure Carrington would be given an opportunity to win the job over Dareus or Edwards, but I imagine the coaching staff would be pretty surprised if Carrington did win it. He's a 3rd-rounder (not exactly guaranteed starter in year 2) who got like 100 total snaps last year. That's not a guy who can just be penciled in to play 40 snaps a game. I would expect Carrington to be part of the D-line rotation, but strictly as a backup. Same thing with Spencer Johnson. I would think Troup would also come off the bench, but with a bit of a bigger role, since he'd be part of probably any goal line package.

Bingo. Dareus is exactly the type of grinder who doesn't put up numbers, but enables the guys around him to put up numbers. Look at successful 3-4 defenses around the league, and you'll find a lot of high picks at DE that don't put up sacks or tackles on their own.

Count me in as one of the many who's psyched about this. These are basically the exact unis I was hoping for the last time we had a change (and I've been pining for them ever since). Now the question becomes, whose jersey do I buy?