Crows57

If the Bills thought Poz was a mid-first round pick did they 'overpay'? Said another way, if they traded up to pick 25 instead of 34 and gave up that same 3rd rounder and selected Poz did they get a bargain? People are so freakin married to an outdated draft chart it drives me nuts.

False. Brown at least would know to put a question mark after writing, 'true or false'.

I'll be surprised if Fitzpatrick signed for anything less than $2 million/year for 3 years. He signed on the first day - it's not going to be for peanuts. I mean, look at what Orlovsky got ($9 million for 3 years) to clearly be a backup. Fitzpatrick will be closer to $3 million than $1 million. Edwards signed a contract for a 3rd round pick after he was drafted. He'll get his money when he becomes a free agent, or after this year when the Bills try to keep him from being a free agent. It's pretty irrelevant that Edwards will make less than Fitzpatrick - it's just the way the draft/FA system works and Edwards, his agent and the Bills realize this.

No, if the Bills sign Coles they have 2 WRs.

It was a bad signing, but the money is irrelevant now. He's on a 2 year contract for how much now? Are you signing anyone better for that money? Probably not, but that doesn't fit the article so turn a blind eye to it!

But when you have to have more power on a kick you decrease your accuracy. Think golf.

For his career Lindell is: 15-25 from over 50 yards (60%) 47-72 from 40-49 yards (65%) 130-141 from 39 or less (92%) I would think you'd want to try to move the ball into an under 40 yard range to go from a 3 out of 5 chance to a near certainty. I also seem to remember the announcers saying early in the game Lindell has a 40something consecutive made streak on kicks under 40. I suppose that running the ball can still put you in the position to get under 40 yards, and forces Cleveland to use time outs, but it's still too conservative given the spot on the field and the time left. Cleveland did a nice job calling time outs which almost goaded the Bills into running.

The Bills made two really bad moves trying to get a QB. Because of that they should try to make a similar move to acquire a TE? Seriously, does that make sense to anyone? Those trades for Bledsoe and Losman set the team back, arguably for years. They're a large part of why TD is in charge of the Bills anymore. So let's do it again! Now, I think you can argue that the Bills should have traded for Gonzalez for a 2 and a 5 (I wouldn't but you could). But to use the logic that the Bills made two bold moves that blew up in their face as a reason to do isn't a very good argument. Of course, I wouldn't expect much more out of Dicesare than that.

Bills predicted to loose 31-9? Does that mean they'll have stretched better??

I'll be satisfied if the Bills maximize their top 75 picks. The draft is to some degree a crapshoot so the more you shoot the less likely you'll end up with a crappy draft. They seem to have potential partners in KC, Detroit, and Carolina for the 11th spot. That'd allow them to move down, pick up a 3rd or 4th rounder. I'd be willing to do it twice. In past drafts it seems like the Bills were fine with taking someone higher than others viewed them. At the top I'd keep sliding down and maximizing top 3 round picks. Let players fall to you and take as many as you can. It might be fine to end up with Whitner and McCargo, but if the Bills traded down a bit for Whitner, and didn't move up for McCargo they'd have two more picks, and possibly still both of those players (and given their production if they weren't on the team it wouldn't be that much of a difference). Having said that, I have no issue putting a 3 and 5 together to move up to a late 2 or early 3 if the right player is there. I won't pretend to know the players that are the best fit, but the more you can get the better. I think the draft has shown that the #11 isn't necessary better than #20 (or anywhere in between) so why not pick up more assets later.

I agree in general; I think the Bills need to take someone that'll play on the front 7 or on the OL. It's funny, the major complaint with TD is that he ignored the lines to take skill players (Williams being the exception and he was a bust). Now all most people want in the first three rounds are a WR, TE, and CB. I guess I missed where the Bills were a dominant run team, stopped the run really well and had a great pass rush.

Branden Albert Jordy Nelson Chevis Jackson

I have a hunch that a combination of being slow and whining about it will cause him to drop well into the 2nd round. I suspect the Bills would take a different WR in the 2nd if Kelly was there then (and they didn't take one in the first). I like Nelson myself.

The history of *1* draft?

Pat Kirwan is the only football guy on the radio worth listening too (and it's too bad he's on during the day). I listened to Sirius with he and Gil Brandt the whole time the draft was on with ESPN on mute. Much, much better.

Seems like the time to address the OL. It wouldn't surprise me to see two of the next three picks used there. I'll take a stab at Kevin Boothe.

It's nice to see that BB.com has no issue with publishing subscriber material on their site for free. Polian was on Sirius and FWIW said that he liked the Bills first two picks (of course, he's not really that unbiased).

Maybe it's just me, but Dicarse's column today about how the new labor deal is bad for the Bills was a pretty poor column. The only specific in the column was that: And not only was that the only specific, it was deceptive. It's $20 million over TWO years. Why not just say $10 million year? What are the specifics of the revenue sharing plan? What constitutes laughable, bare bones revenue sharing? $10 million in the NFL is hardly worth getting worked up over. The Bills revenues will almost certainly increase that much just from normal NFL shared revenues (TV, etc..) It's too bad the Bills can't sign a player like Larry Tripplett or Robert Royal because they don't have the liquidity that the big revenue teams have (whether these were wise signings is another issue). And another lack of specifics: What's the amount of the bonus cap? Is it that high that it doesn't matter? Regardless of the labor deal the Bills would be more profitable in another city. Bottom line to me - the new deal is the same as the old deal except there's a larger percentage going to the players. The Bills will have enough resources to compete. Could the deal have been better for them? Sure, but it's not prohibiting anything. Much like that column. One deceptive specific and one second hand quote pulled off the internet.

30-2 vote yes. Ralph was one of the nos per ESPNnews. Cincy was the other no vote.

Translation - Moulds isn't interested in playing for the Bills any more. I can't say it's a big surprise after the events at the end of the year, but it was common to hear him mention how many different OCs and QBs he's been with and I'm sure he's not excited to play on a team that appears to be headed nowhere fast with a green or journeyman QB.

My initial reaction to Levy being hired was apathy. What can an 80 year old man who’s more of less been out of the game for close to ten years have to offer the Bills as GM? Thinking about it a little more I can see this working. Among Levy’s strengths are leadership, communication, and delegation – fine traits to have in a GM. If you surround yourself with the right people they’re probably the most important traits to have. I think the big concern with Levy is personnel matters. First, he has no real scouting background, and second, is an 80 year old man capable of putting in the necessary time to do the job? Well, this is where the delegation part comes into play. From the sounds of it Tom Modrak will have a larger say in personnel. If he were named the GM I would not have had any strong objections. But instead Modrak will focus on the personnel matters which is his strength and not on the administrative side of being a GM which he doesn’t seem to have an interest in. This is a good thing to me. Of course, the concern with this is that Modrak has been around for the past few years and there’s an apparent lack of talent on the team. I don’t think we’ll ever get a great feel for how much of that is TD’s fault and how much is Modrak’s fault, but Modrak did fine with the Eagles when he was in charge there (of course TD did a fine job in Pittsburgh). The part that I’m not crazy about is that Wilson is choosing Levy in large part because he’s comfortable with him. There was no league wide search for a GM so Wilson really has no idea if he would be the best candidate. The other consideration is age – how long can Levy reasonably be able to do the job, and is there a succession plan in place? So overall, on a 1-10 scale with 1 being ‘Ugh’ and 10 being ‘Who-hoo!’ I’m probably at a 6 or 7 (and I’d say most people here are in the 2-3 range). I’m not sure it’s the best move, but I can definitely see how it could work out well. But that’s just dependent on Levy having good people surrounding him.

I keep repeatedly seeing the same mistake on both telecasts and in print. People refer to turnover differential as 'turnover ratio'. For example, the Bills have 15 takeaways and 7 giveaways. Their turnover differential is +8, which you'll commonly see as 'turnover ratio'. A ratio is a comparison of two numbers, x/y. Their turnover ratio is really 2.1 (15/7) which is something that I don't think anyone has ever intentionally used.

Yes, you spelled it wrong. It's spelled 'Mitch Frerotte'

This looks similar to John Clayton's article at ESPN.com at the moment. Football Outsider's rankings do a great job of mixing in everything to give what I think are the best rankings. If you're not familiar with it it's explained here. I'm not so sure about their evaluation of individual players given that so much of football is based on what your teammates are doing, but I think their team offensive, defensive and ST rankings are years ahead of what any tradition outlet does. The Bills ranked 1st in 2004 in team defense by their metrics. Certainly ranking defenses by yards allowed is silly, but tons of football analysts will still use it. Going on a tangent, have you ever realized how little sense it makes to rank baseball defenses by ERA (runs allowed), but then rank hitters by batting average instead of runs (not that runs are the be all end all)? Point being, what's given in the media as analysis is at most times simply awful and catering to the LCD.

How high, specifically, would you go to sign Clements? Recent signings: Bailey - 7 for $63, $18 bonus McAlister - 7 for $55, $17.5 Surtain - 7 for $51, $14 Lucas - 6 for $36, $13 I'll start out - 6 years, $42 million, $15 up front. (I'm not saying that's what it'll take, but how high I'd go)