sllib olaffub

Let's remember our new Offensive Coordinator: Lee. He ran the wildcat at Arkansas with Felix Jones and McFadden - and again in Miami with Ricky Williams and Ronnie Brown. So, we bring in Richardson, who is supposed to be as close to an Adrian Peterson type running back since Adrian Peterson. Why? Well, if we aren't interested, at least teams will have to wonder, if he falls to 10, whether we are, given those circumstances mentioned. Increase trade value?

Really liked the article. Some good info - it's like a chess match the Bills are having in the division. I'm a little concerned about the emphasis on the wildcat - but, if other teams feel as strongly about it - perhaps it does present a lot of problems, preparation wise, for the opposition. What I'm a bit concerned with, though, more than anything, is this: does this mean we're not going to be placing as much of a premium on helping Fitz - and, hopefully, a rookie Qb - develop as a pure passer? As much as the wildcat can be useful, I'd like to think the Bills are more concerned with developing an exceptional passer, if it comes down to more one than the other. I tried to find information on how much success Lee's QB's had while he was their coach, but I found nothing. It seemed they were very mediocre. Maybe the Bills have someone else helping with the throwing motion and mechanics and reads? I assume this means the Bills are keeping Smith as a Qb - he'd be the 3rd QB, and now the 3rd QB can come and go during Sundays. How many QB's will Buffalo keep? I'm guessing 4, now. Fitz, Smith (as a dual QB/WR/KR), Thigpen - only because of the contract, although I hope he goes - and a rookie?

Well, that should be a really big indication that the Bills are going to draft a WR in this year's draft with similar attributes to Roscoe. I read somewhere on this board that there was a WR who is supposed to be about as quick as Roscoe - also small - but a bit thicker. He's a 2-4 round wideout, I believe. My guess is we'll be picking him up if we can. I say this because Gailey has plays designed for him, and he really liked having Roscoe's skill set, and the offense performed great when Roscoe was healthy. He just couldn't stay healthy. Imagine what kind of a year he would have had if he'd of stayed healthy? I'm thinking 7 touchdowns, 1000 yards. So, my guess is we'll be seeing a rookie version of Roscoe this fall.

Not to mention, who knows how good or bad players would have turned out on other teams, in other systems, with or without injuries. Also, there's situations where a player might be very good and drafted or not because a team has too much depth, or, in the case of Spiller, considered good value but a questionable pick due to the Bills already having good RB's. Something I really appreciate about Nix - he doesn't care about what other people are going to say when it comes to the draft. He's got his players rated, and he trusts what he sees and knows - and I think he's a most astute judge of talent. We're going to get value with each of our picks - that is for sure.

I absolutely agree that Buffalo needs an impact, hard hitting, force of a linebacker to go along with it's new D-line. We have 2 linebackers who are quiet and can play - but we don't have a linebacker that is aggressive and can really take over plays, or scare opposing QB's. Clay Mathews comes to mind, or Patrick Willis. We need a force at linebacker to lead this defense, and to really set us up for a complete unit. I tend to think WR is deeper than linebacker in this draft, and so I'd prefer we get our LB in the first and our WR in the second, unless we go OT in the first, in which case LB in the second round, WR in the third. In either case, we could come out of the draft with a defense that is set up to be dominant for years.

It's simply that teams in need of franchise QB's are under a tremendous amount of pressure to select a QB in the draft, if given the chance, if that QB is said to be capable of leading an NFL team. It's so hard to get good QB's in the NFL - so when, this time of year, certain QB's stock rises - due to the fact that perhaps they played with inferior offenses in school, or were not playing as long, but that their measurables amount to something potentially good or great - that is when the teams make these decisions. Sometimes they feel they cannot pass on a chance, or that the risk is worth it.

I would imagine there will be an opportunity for Buffalo to trade when they get to the 10th pick, if they haven't traded up, that is. The question will be whether the trade is considered good enough. I would bet Buddy would love to have a couple extra picks in the 2-4 round range, for leverage and movability purposes. That way he could spend a 2nd on a young QB like Weeden, Cousins, or even a 3rd on Osweiler, and still have the picks in the 2nd and 3rd round to go with a WR and LB. So, I'm guessing if a team offers him a chance to swap 10 for something above 22 or so, he'd take it. But, going too low in round 1 would cause us to lose out on a real playmaker, too - so it's a fine line.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment about QB's and where they end up. I've said this many times before - how many QB's that failed would've succeeded in different systems? Or vice versa? Nevertheless, some QB's are so good they can succeed in most systems, and I think it is time we began investing in a young QB or two. Sure, our team in Buffalo needs to get a lot better. But, Buddy didn't intend on putting the finishing touches to a Super Bowl contender in year three. He saw the talent level of the team, and the types of players here and decided to change it pretty much through and through. He went bigger - and I'm glad about that. I think he's done an excellent job of putting together a roster of big, capable guys - look at the O-linemen he's brought in off the waiver wire, for instance. These guys aren't bad - as one poster here suggested. They're pretty good. I just think Buddy has a vision of what the team can be, and I think he's going to put the QB in place last. I think Fitz - with his contract as it is - is here to get us turned around, and if he proves to be better than we thought, he can finish a modest contract. But, if he keeps on being inconsistent, then by next year, if we draft another O-lineman or two, and another WR, we should have a pretty good offense to insert a young QB into. My biggest concern about this offense isn't who Buddy has been getting to play, it's whether or not Fitz can be consistently good, whether or not we have a QB on the roster to supplant him if he can't, and whether or not Gailey can utilize the talent he has, instead of trying to make the team play out a theoretical system that doesn't exactly work to their strengths. As for that QB - I don't think we need to necessarily get him in the first round. Sure, Cam Newton would have fit Gailey's system to a T, but there are other guys who can fulfill his wishes that are maybe just a little more raw, or a little less physically talented. It's up to Buddy to bring in the right guys. That, to me, will really be the deciding factor with how well Buddy will be remembered here. He needs to find the next franchise QB for the Buffalo Bills, and he has to do it soon.

I was wondering about Streeter, too. Everyone is high on Hill right now (myself included), but you look at body types, and Streeter is a tall WR 6-4, with 4.35 speed, I think. So, that is what we're looking for, especially if he has good hands. I've been considering the 2012 draft, and I have settled on an approach. I don't like to go specific players, so much, because things can change so radically if one guy is chosen out of slot, the whole draft order can go nuts - so, I just look at the talent available, and from there I figure what will be available in rounds 2, 3, and 4 that is rated high enough to have an impact. My philosophy (unless there is a special player who you take no matter what because he's so great) is this: Don't take a WR in the first round if your needs are WR, OLB, CB, and LT when there are so many good WR's that other guys with similar capabilities will be there in RD's 2 and 3, if there is a LB in round 1 that looks equally good, but there's hardly any left in rounds 2 and 3. So, I think, because of the depth of this draft, we go: 1. LB - Keuchly 2. WR (there will be a handful of starter material still there) 3. WR/QB/LT - best available 4. WR/QB/LT - best available 4. WR/QB/LT - best available My thinking is in rounds 3-4 we should be able to land a QB like Weeden or Osweiler, a guy who can come in and be good enough to be a starter, with some coaching, in a year. We don't have to have a franchise QB, but we have to have a guy good enough to win 8-10 games with, someone young, and someone with the potential to be a real starter. Right now we have nobody on this roster but Fitz who should ever start at QB. Between these 2 rounds, 3-4, we should be able to find a Tackle with enough talent to give Hairston competition. And, there seems to be enough good WR's that we might be able to walk away from this draft with 2 new WR's, both starter quality, and just have that position done for the next 3 or 4 years. The thing is, I don't care, really, who we end up with, so long as we get 3 or 4 starters out of this draft. It just keeps getting more and more challenging each year to expect 3 or 4 starters, though, as our depth gets better. Still, with our needs, that should be attainable. I also think the Bills should trade Carrington if they're not going to keep him. The kid is a stud, and if we just let him go I guarantee a team like the Steelers or Jets will scoop him up and have a 8 year starter. All I really want to see from this draft, or am hoping for, is that our 1st round pick be a real playmaker - which is why I went Keuchly - or Floyd would be fine, too, there are just so many WR's that look good in rounds 2 and 3 - because we need another LB, and I'd love to have that unit be a strength, too, and not just passable. I want a LB on our team like Green Bay, or Baltimore, or San Fran has. A mean, tough, nasty leader who is going to be the head of a great defense! And, I really, really want us to find a good young QB to groom. Go Bills!

Hey, I like your thinking with this response. It brings up some worries/concerns of my own. I wondered last year, as the season fell apart, what the cause was of what I was seeing. I knew it had to be either: 1. Defenses had figured us out, and we didn't try to adapt to beat their adaptation. 2. Fitz was injured or regressed, and he was making it look like defenses had figured us out when really he just wasn't making plays that would otherwise turn bad plays into good ones. 3. Our injuries made running our offense hard, and our backups weren't good enough. So - what bothers me about all this is this: If Gailey knew our backups weren't good enough, and that our offense wasn't working, why not try something else? We had two good running backs for most of the season, and at least one - why not go to a run first offense, allowing Fitz to have to make less plays, and maybe keeping that seiving defense off the field? It got to the point where I was wondering if they weren't TRYING to lose games - or, NOT TRYING TO WIN games, if their season for them wasn't more of a long drawn out TRY OUT - on the one side for Wanny, and on the other, to run what Gailey wanted to run, and to see who could do it, thereby telling him who to replace, and also letting them get a better draft pick. I know that is nuts, but Nix and Gailey weren't planning on taking last year's team and calling it a rebuild; they expected a few more years in the plan, and they wanted higher draft picks early, so they could get the kind of guys they need. But, if they weren't in some way okay with losing last season, then it brings up issues any way you slice it. Why didn't Gailey adjust? Why didn't they have a better backup? I mean, what is the sense of having a backup who isn't good enough to backup a QB? COME ON, MAN! Why did they go into a season with so much extra money and without any better help at certain positions (although, who is complaining about the money now? Maybe we just need a longer view, or a little more trust?). So, yeah, I have worries about Gailey and his ability to change, when needed. But, maybe he'll prove to us all that he is a Genius of the highest order, and that he just needed a few more pieces and a little better luck. I have to admit - if he does it without a better QB I will tip my hat to him forever, because that is my biggest worry - Fitzpatrick. I just don't think he has it, and I worry that we won't go after the right QB when we have the chance. We need another QB, just in case, and he ought to be good enough to cause some excitement and hope if he's thrown in.

Yeah, I agree - Floyd looks great. He's big, solid, quick, catches great. So what if he was drinking in college! Kids drink in college. If ever you are going to drink, it is in college. As for Hill, I'm torn. I really like his look, size, speed, etc. Yet, the fact that the offense he played in was so much, as has been stated, run first, he just hasn't done enough to merit a sure vote of confidence. Yet, I'm sold on letting the professionals make these judgements. If I can evaluate anywhere near as the NFL scouts do, we'll see Hill go no later than the Bills pick in the second round. I'm on the record, too, as saying I wouldn't mind the Bills going WR with their first and second picks - Floyd, Hill, and then go LT and LB in the 3rd and 4th rounds. It'd leave us having to really strike gold with those later picks, but it'd also leave us set up, offensively, for the next 4 to 5 years. And, if Fitz can't make it work with those weapons, why another QB will have a beautiful offense to step into (I'm thinking Detroit here - both in firepower, lack of complete O-line, yet still having big offensive production, and also their going DT two years in a row - the stacking up, build to the strengths type philosophy).

Replying to the initial post - the worry that the Bills never do anything all the way, that is to say, we are never bad enough to get the franchise QB in the draft, and never good enough to win the Super Bow, but always end up in the middle, mired by mediocrity. I have been frustrated that Buddy and Chan haven't found a young QB in the past two years. I was frustrated when they signed Fitz to the six year deal, because I thought, at the time, that they were going too quickly with him. Now I see they can still afford to get a young QB - and if they do not, I will continue to be disappointed. Fitz isn't going to lead this team to a Super Bowl. Now, so far this rebuild is going pretty good. It's been a little here and there and I expect it to continue for another few years. As long as they are passing on the QB's because they haven't found the one they want to go all in for, I'm okay with that. So, I guess that is my worry - that they will lose steam with this rebuild and not go for the right QB when the time comes (looks like next year), or not finish this thing. It's not enough to be good; we have to be great, and we have to win it all. But, in the meantime, I've learned to enjoy what Nix is doing - he has a plan and it will take a few years, but he is methodically building a winning team. This year is really going to be fun - it already has been! The draft, then the summer, and then the games - I can't wait. Again, though, I hope they find a way to add excitement to the QB position.

There will be new players, yes - and a good portion of those new players will be very good players, at that! What if Merriman comes back, even 80% of what he used to be? Count him as a real threat, then, if he's lining up next to Mario, Dareus, and Kyle! Mario Williams and Mark Anderson! That is a HUGE Defensive upgrade! You've got Easley - who I think will be a very good reciever for us. Fred Jackson is Fred Jackson. Then you've got a first and second round pick - each of which should be starters and good. Of the twenty two starters on offense and defense, about a third will be new, or off injury - and those are all exceptional!

When these college kids come in for a pre-draft visit, are they allowed to work out? More specifically, do they go through any throwing drills? It would seem easy to find a decent QB or one with potential if Nix could watch them throw. As for getting a QB in the draft - I say it is a must. There are only a few complaints I have about Nix thus far; for the most part I think he's done excellent (especially considering it's his first go round as a GM). One complaint, however, is WASTINT MILLIONS of dollars on players - namely backup QB's - who are so BAD they aren't good enough to go into a game and relieve Fitzpatrick while he's on a 5 game losing streak, looking like the worst QB in football. What is the sense of having those players if they aren't good enough to play? You have to have a second QB that has some promise, that can come in and win a game or two; and, in our case, you have to have a kid developing that can become, or who has the potential to be really good. Fitz is not our long term answer. Whether they draft a kid in the first, or sixth - I don't care (I'd hope it was high enough to get some real talent, i.e., before the 4th round ends...) so long as Nix/Gailey sees what he needs to see in him. By the way, I think the reason we didn't have better backup QB play last year was that they didn't want to create a controversy. Well, the time is now to stop protecting Fitzpatrick. He needs to earn his money.

No one is going to give Buffalo anything. Yes, we went out and were active in aquiring talent to make this defense work - and, I have to believe Dave Wannstedt was the reason for it. He has more name recognition and probably more right to demand and make decisions about personnel than anyone on our management team (funny, our D.C. is bigger than our coach and GM, but they are working together and are really doing a great job of that, I think). Anyway, we now have a D-line that can pressure the opposition's QB's. But, New England is watching it, and they've been working on the problem of the Giants, and how they can't beat that style of game, since 2007. As much as I think a truly dominant Defense can overcome any game-planning, I also believe the Patriots can hand it to us if they want to until we prove that assumption wrong. Now, they already tore us up with their duo of TE's, and with those WR's in the mix, and add a really good RB and that offense will be so, so tough. We've taken steps to get to Brady and make him rush his throws. But, we still have a weak area in one LB spot (maybe two, depending on how good Sheppard turns out) and I'd say at least one of our CB's is suspect. So, to be able to handle the Patriots when we're not getting to Brady, we'll need to be able to cover the TE's and WR's. I say finding a top notch LB is more important than adding another CB - although a top notch CB would be good, too. I just happen to think LB is a bigger weakness for us, and that we ought to make sure we can handle our opponents on more than just one level (D-line). Wannstedt has had a year to plan his move. He must have surveyed the roster, already decided who could play where, and given his list of needs to Nix. If he feels we need a top notch LB to make it work right, or another CB, I'll bet we add something by summer. All said, let's not take New England lightly. I want to watch them crumble under our pressure as badly as anyone - but they aren't going to play to our strengths; rather, they'll be looking to exploit our weaknesses. Wannstedt V.S. Bellicheck is going to be a FUN game to watch!

Yeah - I've learned to merely hope that certain positional needs get met, and trust that Nix and Co. have the skills to know the right players - and, in truth, I feel Buddy has done an excellent job of picking up players via the draft and udfa over the last 2 years. I still have hope for Troupe and Carrington, Moats, Batten, Easley, etc. These guys excite me - and, the draft excites me because with another good 3 or 4 more players (LT, WR, LB, CB) our team could be a competitor, and I think Nix has shown the ability to find starter quality players in even the later rounds. By the way, I was really ticked off when we passed on Claussen - I was sure he was at least worth a 2nd round pick! Kaepernick - I wanted him, too. This year? I'm actually hoping we give Kellen Moore a shot with maybe a 4th, or that really tall QB - Osweiller? maybe? Also, I'm thinking we should go for the Georgia Tech WR, Stephen Hill, over Floyd, if we have the chance. So, there's that.

I had a thought today that was both unrealistic and intruiguing. Say the Bills go WR in the first round - Floyd. What if an amazing WR talent was there in the second, too? They grab another - maybe Sanu - and are able to field 4 WR sets including S. Johnson, Floyd, Sanu, Easley, or one of Nelson, Parrish, or Jones. We'd instantly have one of the best, if not the best, four WR sets in the NFL. Now, I know how crazy that sounds, but what was intruiging about that was if the Bills really think Hairston can cut it at LT, and they believe their defense will cause a lot of turnovers and keep the opposition's point total down - by adding two amazing WR talents and giving themselves such a powerful WR corps - the options on offense would be unbelievable!!! We'd still have Freddy and Spiller! I mean, besides having a top end LT, our skill players on offense would compare to some of the best assembled in recent memory - we'd be like Green Bay or New Orleans, only with better running backs (albeit, worse QB). So, as crazy as it sounded at first to me, the notion of having that much fire power would in some ways offset the loss of getting a top end LT. I think we could manage to find serviceable O-linemen and still have one of the best offenses in the league, and have all the positions locked down for years! I just love all the options we have this year!

If Dave Wannstedt's defenses don't use many blitzes, and count almost entirely on a 4 man rush getting pressure - then I say you can't go wrong making sure you've got two pro-bowl caliber ends, to bookend two pro-bowl caliber tackles! After all, you've got to rest guys, rotate, and there will be injuries. To add a young guy to the mix, one who could take over the right side - it'd be worth it if he were good enough to make that difference. And, to then throw in Mark Anderson, and maybe a healthy Merriman, and that'd be the nastiest D-line to maybe step on a football field in a long, long time. I wouldn't care that it is a position of strength. Indeed, the Giants showed the world how to beat the Patriots, and a consistent rush like the one we'd be capable of would make it tough for any team. As long as we're getting better with these picks, I don't care what position it is. But I would support a Defensive End who is relentless and plays nasty - he'd fit right in.

If F. Jackson wanted to retire a Bill, how long would that be? Realistically, 3 years, tops. Thats in a system where he isn't used all the time, and where there is a runner like Spiller who will get more and more of the reps. Could Fred carry the load, if he had to, for 3 more years? If he did, while maintaining his talent level and without constant injury, then he'd be a real physical phenom. So, I think it is a 3 year deal, worth about 9 million. Thinking this way, he's getting 10 million dollars (including this year's pay) to finish out his career here. That's not chump change. The only problem would be if he were to consider himself "BEST BACK IN THE NFL" type talented now and for the next few years, and wanting to be paid accordingly. It's a bit of tough luck for Fred, because the Bills just couldn't see, or accept - and, I think it is they just couldn't accept an undrafted, former European league or Arena league player could be this good, that overlooked. They couldn't SEE WHAT WAS IN FRONT OF THEM!!! And, he was doing it ALL ALONG! - that Freddy was that good, and they went ahead and drafted Spiller, and then were forced to work him in, and all the while Fred is playing like the best back in Football. Now he's going to get his last contract, and I think he could have a Curtis Martin type, high level of play till the end type career. He hasn't had that many injuries, nor much beating, all things considered. Get it Done!

I'd say the price would be the kicker here on whether or not the move up would be worth it. If you're talking Redskins type forfeiture of picks (something like 3 first rounders?), then NO WAY! Truth is, the Bills need a good LT to solidify that line; and a young one would be great, because then the line could stay and grow together for a number of years. I'd say in that scenario we are looking at ALL THE PIECES in place, let's make a run type ready. However, a good LT can be found in other areas than just the obvious. This is where you must weigh the pros and cons. If trading up to get a pro-bowl caliber LT means giving up on the picks necessary to go get a franchise QB next year, then NO WAY! Because, if we're assembling the team so that we can make a 3 or 4 year run, then I'd say this is Fitz's year to prove he is the QB to make that run with. If he fails or falters, we're going to go all in on a QB next year. So, having picks next year is necessary. In fact, if the Bills are eyeing next year for drafting a QB, then I'd say trading this pick for some picks next year is more likely than settling at 10 for a player they're not entirely sold on. But, to be that good, to where we're ready to insert a QB and go, we do need to figure out the LT position, and we need probably another CB, LB, and WR. So, I'd rather get a good, dependable LT and the other positions, too, and insert a very good QB next year, than get a great LT this year, pass on the chance at getting the WR, LB, or CB this year, and miss out on the picks needed next year for a move to get a franchise QB. In sum, trading up for a LT this year is kind of like going all in with Fitz. I'd rather the alternative, if I had to choose.

Yeah, I mean, look at what Washington had to give up to move up how many spots - 4 or 5 - Three 1st round picks!!!! No way would we be able to move up much at all without having to give up a ton. Frankly, Almost every year there end up being players at various positions - and tackle is always one of them - where there are a few mid to later round guys that end up being really good pros. This year's crop of Tackles in the draft will not yeild only 2 good LT's. It's up to Buffalo's scouts to have done their work and to have found what we need. We should remember - this is the first draft where Nix and Gailey have had their men in place - really, the whole organization has been in place for the first time under Nix - so, this draft will be a display of excellent talent evaluation, I think. I feel like we'll end up getting 3 or 4 starters out of this draft. We're going to get a WR, a LT, a LB, and perhaps a CB, QB, and TE, too. When the dust settles, and the UDFA's have signed, we'll have a rookie at LT, QB, WR, TE, LB, QB - and maybe even D-line. But, as I said, I think we'll have 3 or 4 starters on our roster, come fall, that were drafted this year. A first round LT would start. That's a good question - where would a first round pick NOT START? We're set on the D-line, interior O-line, and two LB's, and all but one secondary spot. So, we could see a Tackle, WR, LB - or very good DE, be selected in the first round. Because, when it comes down to it, that pick will have to be a starter. I think they could end up with a starting LT/WR/LB combo in the first three rounds. I don't think a LT is guaranteed to start unless he's a first rounder, though, because Hairston played well last year at times. I think with a suspect #2 WR spot, and Morrison as our best OLB option, you could see a 2nd round WR like Sanu coming in and starting, and a 3rd round LB being good enough to start, as well (Sam Cowhert was not a first rounder - someone like him, or Shepperd).

That's a legitimate thought. I mean, come cut downs, despite everyone now saying "we need recievers", with the aquisition of two good WR's in the draft, ones we liked, we'd then be saying, "which WR's do we HAVE to cut?" It's a good problem, but still, if we're cutting them, maybe we could use the picks elsewhere?

I agree with some who say number 1, number 2, etc., doesn't mean much. Stevie fulfills a role, and Floyd would, too. I am in favor of the type of system where the recievers are all capable of getting deep, of going up and getting a jump ball, and of cross routes. That way the defense cannot take away one guy and ruin a gameplan. The Bills have been far too reliant on one reciever for a long, long time now. It hasn't been since Molds and Price that we've had a multie threat WR corps. And that wasn't even all that even. Stevie can do many things on the field, and furthermore, he can beat single coverage, even by the best - that is valuable. Double coverage gives him trouble, as it does most recievers. So, if we can get another reciever to draw coverage, or split coverage, that will allow for them to each get honest shots. Still, though, we want a third reciever to really make defenses truly blind - and if we add Floyd, I think that guy would be Easley. If he stays healthy. Floyd, and a capable LT in the early rounds would really make this offense dangerous. We've got the two running backs... This will be a fun year.

As much as people dismiss this pick because of our depth at Guard, I have to assume the Bills have spent so much money on the D-line this offseason because they didn't feel they could address it in the draft. Now, the Bills have also spent the last two drafts going heavy on defense. Sure, we still could use a CB and a really awesome LB, but for the most part, our defense is close to final. On the other hand, our Offense has some polishing to do still: After watching the Nix approach to this team, I'm thinking his philosophy is to strengthen both sides of the ball from the interior of the lines outward. Now, we do have 3 capable guards already. One seems to be able to backup center pretty well, too. However - there is a difference between having one probowl caliber Guard and another good one, and having two probowl caliber guards - AND A CENTER! (not to mention, Levitre's contract is coming up soon, I believe). So, If Nix were to draft DeCastro in the first, and a promising LT in the second or third - we could see a line that is complete, absolutely loaded with talent, FOR THE MOST PART ALMOST COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE!!! (Levitre can play LT, Hairston can play both LT and RT, Wood can play C and Guard, Decastro would be set at Guard) My point is - we'd have depth, if there were an injury anywhere we could move a piece here or there and still have a strong line. It would resolve the lines for good for maybe 5 years. And, I have to believe, with our running backs as good as they are, with our defense now set to be a turnover machine, having a great O-line - Fitz would be given this year to prove he is consistent. IF HE PROVES HE ISN'T - AND WE'VE GIVEN HIM ALL HE COULD ASK FOR IN A LINE - THEN A ROOKIE QB COMING INTO THIS TEAM NEXT YEAR, WITH A YEAR OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THIS KIND OF LINE, NOT TO MENTION ANOTHER OFFSEASON TO PICK UP TE'S OR WR'S - I could easily see this as the plan. And it would be fine with me.

I know this is about as far fetched as any predictions this time of year, but what if Buffalo is planning on trying to trade up? I see 3 distinct possibilities: 1. Buffalo has their sights on a player at 10 - someone they believe strongly in being well worth the pick - a probowl type player, and as we all know from experience, it might not be someone we or the pundits believe is a fit at the 10 spot. 2. Buffalo just goes BPA. Whichever falls to them they take. That might be their philosophy since they are not as weak as they were a few months ago. BPA would ensure a value at 10 without losing that pick on a reach. 3. Buffalo has talked a lot in this past week about now being freed up in the draft. What if the Bills are looking at this draft as we are - that there just aren't that many superstar talents in it; the really talented players will be gone by pick 7 or 8. If they are thinking this - that the positions they'd like to really improve at - CB, QB, LT are all positions where there are players in the draft who could fill the need, but will be gone by 10, AND they are ready to start trying to win NOW - then maybe they see themselves as not having as many holes now, and would be willing to trade up 4 or 5 spots to land a player that will be an impact player for them for years, and who will remove another need. Looking at the roster, the Bills have enough depth on the O-line to start the year, with the exception, IMO, of having a sure-thing LT (Hairston could pan out, but we'll see how much faith they have in him) and a backup C. Recievers - if Easley comes back healthy, we're actually able to go into the season with what we have. I think we could use a sure-thing WR, too, and a backup QB. But, and here is my reasoning - barring injury, we add a truly pro level LT by trading up, and our O-line is now very, very good. We could be a run first team, setting up the pass, and our offense could be top 12, if everyone stays pretty healthy. Defensively, again, if everyone stays healthy, a shutdown corner to go with who we already have, and our D-line - and our defense might be good enough to win us a playoff spot. So - if they are really wanting to leave this draft with a position of need settled, then trading up might be worth it, as we don't have as many needs all around. We have a roster full of mid-round guys who have potential, so adding more of those types might not get us over the hump... Then again, the Bills might just see enough talent in this draft to get starters out of the first few rounds without trades - and I hope that is true!