bobobonators

i agree. my post implied that best player available = projected, by the coaches/organization.

best player available simply means drafting the most talented football player irrespective of your team needs...this makes the most sense when a team has so many needs, that it becomes pointless to try and focus on a specific position and ignoring the others. hence, draft the best player available. the examples you use don't apply to football. if you have a medical condition, of course you go to the specialist that can best remedy your condition...a football team has numerous elements/problems that can't be addressed by a single player, no matter how good they are. So in other words, just focus on the best player available, regardless of position (within reason of course), without limiting your search to the best player within a specific position.

o'hara had a 5oclock shadow...=/

Fairley, Dareus, Bowers. One of those three will be available. I'd be fine with any, in that order too. I'll wait until the combine to see more of Quinn as well. The only pick that I would be a little "eh" on would be AJ Green, though I realize he's an amazing talent.

With all due respect, the patriots haven't drafted once in the top 5 in the last decade. The closest they came was in 2001 when they picked 6th overall, and they didn't trade down, they drafted Seymour. It's a lot easier to trade down when youre picking 20th than it is when you're picking 3rd. Also the talent drop off from the top 5 to 20 as compared from 20 to 30, etc. should not be understated. I would stand pat at #3 and just pick the best player we feeel is there.

it's tough man..it's a no-brainer if Fairley is there, but i'm also big on Dareus and though he might not be that sexy of a pick, I think he'll be extremely successful in the NFL. I agree w/you as well that Bowers is best suited for a 4-3...but in actuality we ran a lot of 4-3 last year as well so who knows. Also, if Quinn WOWS everyone in the interviews and in the combine, I would have no problem taking him at #3 either. we'll have a better idea as the combine approaches.

i want to correct myself, i keep stating that Fitz has played 14 games whereas he only played 13 games. So that's 3,000 yds, 23td and 15int in 13 games. The yds/game and td/game are both vastly better than Sanchez; and the int/game is 1.15. Fitz is +8 in td/int whereas Sanchez is +4. Had fitz played as many games as Sanchez this season, he would've completely DESTROYED Sanchez in every significant statistical category. W/L don't have much bearing on this discussion when the two players we're discussing are on teams that are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of talent. A W/L debate could be incoorporated into a discussion between Manning or Brady or other elite QB's who play on talented teams b/c the teams in those cases all have somewhat even talent levels. So to keep saying that Sanchez is "clutch" or taht he has more wins/losses, and therefore better than Fitz, is misguided.

If you think that Sanchez could play QB for the Bills, and throw for 3,000yds, with 23tds in 14 games you are sadly mistaken because sanchez couldn't even put up that production playing for the Jets, a team that is lightyears ahead of the bills in talent. So yes, lets continue talking about STATS. As for all of these INT's you keep mentioning, Fitz accounted for 19 total turnovers whereas Sanchez accounted for 18 total turnovers. That's 1.35 turnovers for Fitz a game compared to 1.125 for Sanchez. You're right, the +.20 turnovers/game for Fitz compared to Sanchez is exactly the reason why the bills still don't have their franchise QB.

lmao..stats are for losers? OK. The question was Sanchez vs. Fitz, not Jets vs. Bills. You're arguing two different things, but you're too blind to realize the difference. You just said yourself how the jets are so much more superior to the bills, but yet then go on to use W/L as your argument b/c "stats are for losers." Of course. I won't even bother trying to distinguish how your argument is illogical.

Thank you. You said it yourself. But yet Fitz still had better stats than Sanchez this season. Cheers. I'm sure you weren't raving about Sanchez during the first half when he overthrew half of his receivers..the difference between a TEAM like the Jets and the Bills is that the Jets were able to shut down the pats while Sanchez struggled, whereas the Bills D would've given up 21 points during that same period. No second chances for Fitz. Again, Fitz had much better stats than Sanchez in 2010. Concrete fact. End of story.

lol.

I love Fairley (as a player) and could really care less about his meanstreak, and in fact, almost welcome it in buffalo. As per the other post, the reason why I may appear to be overly concerned over that single statement is taht neither you or I know what's going on in fairley'ss head...and when someone says such a statement it gives us some insight as to what they may be thinking. At #3, I don't want even an INKLING of negativity from the player. The bills simply can't afford to miss again with such a high selection.

Don't be cute. The thread and question is simple enough: Sanchez vs. Fitz. How are you going to measure that? With stats. For those who are against stats in this case (the pro-Sanchez group, b/c if we were to use stats, then surely Sanchez would easily lose), they argue win/losses and "clutchness." Well, if you're going to use that argument, then one HAS to also take into account who has the better players around them..and in that case, it's without a doubt, Sanchez, who has the MUCH better supporting cast. To have a clutch moment requires more than one player. Was SJ's drop clutch against PITT? Was Nelson's fumble against the Ravens clutch? How about Lindell's missed FG to win the game? The question is simple. Lets not deviate by going into the subjective.

Keep telling yourself that. Your "clutch" argument is all relative and highly subjective. What happened in each of those "clutch" games for the events to transpire in the way they did? You have to break down every single play of every single game in order for you to even begin to have an argument that's capable of being valid. Also, Sanchez had 18 total turnovers (conveniently not mentioned)..again LIGHTYEARS better i suppose.

Put Sanchez on the Bills and lets see how great he looks. Fitz put up better numbers than Sanchez on a much worse team, with 2 games less. Enough said. Fitz is on a team where he knows he has to push the envelope and make things happen. Sanchez is on a team where he knows all he has to do is not turn the ball over and hand it off, and they'll have a really good shot at winning. There's a big difference in mindsets. Fitz: 3000 yds, 23td, 15int, 81.8 rating (w/2 fewer games) on a team with so much talent it's drafting at #3. Sanchez: 3291yds, 17td, 13int, 75.3 rating with two elite WR's, one HOF running back, all-pro O-line, and a top 5 defense. Ya, sanchez is LIGHTYEARS ahead...

LOL..a little carried away? Did you read the rest of his post?

i believe he's saying that too. F him if that's the case. I'd be just as happy w/Bowers or Dareus.

LMFAO!...you call 1 second of yelling towards "the jets sidelines" (which in all seriousness it's really inconclusive who he was actually yelling at from that angle) after a TD taunting?..lol.

indeed...the draft is absolutely wide open..the only sure thing would've been Luck at #1, but now who knows..only the combine will help make things clearer. Fairley could EASILY be there at 3 when we pick.

it's not a comparison of moss to keyshawn, but rather that AJ is a hybrid of both...the speed of Moss, with Keyshawn's ability to go over the middle i would definitely want defense at #3 (dareus/bowers/fairley...heck, maybe even Quinn)...i'm just curious as to how people would welcome the possibility (and probably a decent one at that) of the bills taking AJ at 3. he's an amazing talent without a doubt. Evans would probably be traded for a 5th rounder somewhere.

lol..stopp!! you're making me blush..

Would you like it though? I've seen comparison to Moss and Keyshawn thrown around re: AJ.

Stay at 3, without a doubt. If our pick were in the 6-10 range, i'd be more inclined to trade down. But at 3, we're primed to get some SERIOUS talent. hold our ground!