2003Contenders

It will be interesting to see what sort of "no huddle" the team uses and how often they use it. The "Sugar Huddle" that the Bengals used under Boomer and Wyche was very different from the hurry-up offense that Kelly ran. The Bengals version was designed to catch defenses napping and it gave their crafty QB an opportunity to audible at the line of scrimmage (Boomer didn't necessarily call his own plays). Based on Turk's history with the Bengals and Jauron's conservative approach (unlikely to allow the offense to essentially run the two minute drill all game long for fear of wearing out his defense), I would suspect that we will more likely see the Bengals old version.

Whether the Bills are right or wrong about Harris -- we will have to wait and see. The Bills wound up taking him right about where he was projected to go (maybe even a round or so later). The real story was Freeman's decline. He was projected by many of the pundits to be a top 5 OLB (2nd or 3rd round draft pick). That he fell all the way to the 5th round may indicate that there was something about him that worried scouts -- just as Everette Brown's falling all the way to #43 seemed to be such a shocker.

No, I think Brandon was pointing out: Look how we take care of the guys that actually show up, play under their existing contract and participate in camp. No player is going to hold this team hostage by holding out. I think it is a good precedent to set. Peters claimed that holding out was his only leverage. Why is that? Because he decided to hold out after only playing the first two years of what was a very generous contract at the time; thus, with three years remaining on his existing contract he did not have the added leverage of the free agency timetable (as Lee had).

I also sense that the Peters situation actually got to the point where bad blood spilled over. I sensed the same thing in Brandon's tone at the pre-draft luncheon (days before the trade). I honestly get the sense that the organization feels betrayed: they took a flier on Peters, stood by him when there wasn't an obvious position available, mentored him, developed him into being one of the better tackles in the league -- and thought they were being proactive in signing him to a pretty good contract that DID have escalators pending a move to LT. The point is: they weren't simply trying to buy low. The 2007 Peters may have outperformed that contract, but I don't think the 2008 version did. My take all along has been that Eugen Parker saw a rookie GM last year and thought he could bully him into coughing up a fat, new contract for his client. When he lost the stare-down contest, it placed him in the position of either getting the biggest contract EVER for his client -- or forcing a trade to maintain face. In the former situation he can claim that his tactics worked after all. In the latter, he can emphasize how reasonable he was being after all -- and that the Bills were low-balling his client. The sad thing is that if Parker had just given his client less self-serving (from the agent's perspective) advice last year, Peters would have shown up to camp, worked his way into shape, performed better for the team AND wound up with a nice, new contract. Instead, he was more interested in forcing him out of town for the reasons I already mentioned. Also, I do also sense that the team (or at least Jauron) never got over Crowell's 24th hour decision to have surgery last year. Note that Dick brought it up again when talking about Ellison.

That's why I think the opener against New England may be a blessing actually. Bill won't have much tape to prepare for what may be a totally new looking offense.

Oh, come on now. I think you are just trying to be contrary. There are seven players that are still on the team from that draft, for crying out loud! Whitner may not have been the best choice at #8, but he's proven to be a versatile and important part of the defense. The guy I honestly hoped and prayed would fall to us was D'brick, but that guy has way under-performed for the Jets. Whitner has been MUCH better than Huff, who many on this board cried about losing to the Raiders one pick before. Vince Young is becoming a joke, and Matt Leinart can't stay on the field. In hind-sight Cutler and Nagata turned out better, but who is to say that either would have been successful in Buffalo? McCargo has been a bust, no doubt. Let's just hope that new coaching may help turn him around. Youboty showed definite glimpses before he got hurt last year. With our luck he'll play lights out this year -- just so that he can sign a ridiculous contract somewhere else next year! Simpson may be on his way out, but he was at least a starter for a couple of years. Hard to ask for more from a 4th rounder. Butler has certainly turned out to be the best pick from that draft. Many (including Jim Kelly) felt that he was our best lineman last year -- yes, better than Mr. Two-Time Pro Bowler Jason Peters. Kyle Williams had proven to be exceptional value for a 5th rounder. If nothing else, he will always be fondly remembered as they guy that finally got Tim Anderson packing. Ellison is a favorite whipping boy around here, but exceptional value for a 6th rounder. This draft certainly did not produce any true stud players, so you can't give it an A. However, it did unearth a number of sturdy players, many of whom have been starters. This was a draft about quantity over quality, which makes it even more ironic that Marv didn't do the wise thing and trade down from the #8 spot to acquire even more picks. The fact that so many of the rookies became instant starters probably says a thing or two about the dearth of talent that Mort's buddy Tom Donahoe left behind. While I applaud Marv for building a consensus approach after all those years of Donahoe's autocratic style, he shouldn't have become so enamored with Whitner, simply because he was a player that everyone in the war room could sign off on. He certainly shouldn't have eschewed trade talks for fear of losing out on Whitner at pick 13, 14 or whatever. I'd give the 2006 draft a solid B.

Well, if the plan really is to move Butler to RT, I would much rather have a quality veteran playing at RG than a rookie (even one with a high ceiling). As it is, we are already projecting a rookie to play LG. So I would not be against this move, provided that it did not cost much in a trade.

Call me crazy, but I actually though Denney played pretty well (in his role) last year.

We also have a bit of a n insider in Fitzpatrick, ho can possibly shed some light.

I couldn't get Mike & Mike this morning in the DC area (980 AM), as the local guys were discussing the Redskins' picks. They had Vinny Cerato on, and he said that the Skins were willing to trade up for Orakpo because they didn't think he would be there at 13. He said one team that he knew was not going to take Orakpo was the Bills because "they don't like Texas players. That's why we have Dockery and Mike Williams." Classic stuff. Wonder if he got the memo that Big Mike weighs more than 400 lbs?

I would classify that as a ho-hum draft. In other words, I wouldn't be upset because both picks are certainly reasonable and fill needs. However, I wouldn't be jumping for joy either. of course, I was excited when the Bills drafted Hardy last year. (Verdict is till out, I know...)

It depends on what they mean by "surprise" pick. Is it a surprise because no one had this player going in the top 10? Or is it a surprise because the player is drafted at a position that does not appear to be a position of need?

Maybe Brady's knee is NOT 100% -- and they want Sanchez. You know, the USC connection with Cassel. Also, that trade would ostensibly mean that they traded Cassel straight up for Sanchez, given that they received a 2nd rounder from the Chiefs for him.

I wouldn't get too worked up over this rumor mongering. The Bills have shown a propensity to move up into the bottom part of the first round -- but they have NEVER (at least in the past 20 years or so) traded to move up INTO the the top 10. This is actually a pretty good year to be picking where they are, given their needs. They should have plenty of options at DE, LB, TE -- and (yes) OT at this spot. In fact, if they really like Smith that much, there is a chance he could still be there at 11 without trading up. Assuming Stafford, Sanchez, Crabtree, Maclin, Raji, and Curry are all gone before 10, if Andre Smith is also gone that means that at least 3 OTs (maybe 4) went in the top 10. In that case, the Bills would have their pick for the best DE in the draft. I just don't see the team valuing Smith more than one of the elite DEs (Orakpo, Ayers, Brown, Jackson, Maybin) PLUS the 28th pick.

You know one thing that I have been thinking about in the past week since the Peters trade? Peters admitted that he came into the season out of shape and that it took him 4 games or so to get back into playing shape. The Bills were 4-0 in those games -- and we know how well they did afterward. Irony? Perhaps. But I suspect that the team was doing unique things in those first few weeks (including Week 1 when Peters didn't play and Week 2 when he played part time) to help compensate for his being out-of-shape or missing. Note also that in those final two games of the regular season when Peters was out, the team had one of their best offensive games against Denver -- and led the way for Jackson to rush for well over 100 yards against the Pats in brutal weather conditions in the season finale. I think the team needs some depth at OT certainly, but I don't know that they need to panic themselves into drafting one in the first round, if the "value" isn't there.

I suspect that if the first 3 picks unfold the way that McShay has them, the Bills would take Casey with the #75 pick in the 3rd round. I would be VERY pleased with that draft, regardless of what happens in rounds 4-7.

If that were really the case, then shame on the other 30 teams for not lining up to better Philly's offer. If the Bills really got so robbed, shouldn't one of the other teams picking in the top 27 have stepped up to the plate?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps this could be strategy on the part of the Bills: go ahead and talk to potential suitors and see if any of them believe that you are worth as much as you think you are. If a re trade is consummated and the Eagles wind up paying him less than, say $11 M per year, we'll know that Peters simply did NOT want to be in Buffalo.

Why do I get the feeling that whoever at OBD that is REALLY responsible for contract negotiations is incapable of dealing with more than one at a time. From the standpoint of the team's own players as well as free agents, it seems like they move at the pace of a snail -- and never in mass. Am I the only one who is NOT sympathetic to Jackson's "plight"? OK, so maybe has to play as an Exclusive Rights Free Agent with the associative salary in 2009. But he has a tremendous opportunity before him with Lynch's 3-game suspension coming up. After this year, the Bills will have to tender him a high dollar offer, if they don't want to lose him in free agency. Moreover, they will have to match any contract offer to maintain his rights. Michael Turner made out pretty well, didn't he?

Yea, the real moron here was the ultra-liberal and hypersensitive girl at USC that KNEW about the inside joke and decided to twist it for her own agenda. Here's the whole story

Matt Millen? I know he crapped the bed in Detroit, but prior to that he was an outstanding analyst.

Larry English

The team is having their draft luncheon today, and I imagine the Bills official site will post a transcript or video of what transpires. Modrak is not one to blow smoke, so we may get a better gauge of how the team has players ranked based on his comments. For example, last year, he referred to McKelvin as a top ten player. The year before that he couldn't say enough nice things about Lynch. I expect that he will break down the strengths and weaknesses of the various DE/OLB that I've seen us projected to take at 11. He may also give us an indication of whether or not the team would seriously contemplate taking a TE (Pettigrew) or OL that high.

Well, to be fair, it was Sam Wyche that banged the drum for drafting JP. Recall that JP held his pre-draft workout on the same day and on the same field as Eli Manning. Wyche and a few other scouts came away from that workout believing that JP had superior physical skills. The book on JP at the time was that he was arguably the most physically gifted QB in the draft, but he was highly erratic and guilty of making some of the most idiotic plays at times. Five years later, the book hasn't changed. He's likely viewed as a coach killer around the league.

I'd be fine with that pick. He fills a position of need and isn't a reach. Here is how I look at it: I view (or, rather project) Cushing to be a major upgrade over Ellison. Is there another player at another position that would appear to be such an upgrade? I have worries about all of the DEs that I keep seeing us take in most mock drafts -- and I really think #11 is too early for Pettigrew. Of course, Chris Brown is the same guy that said that he just had a gut feeling that the Bills wouldn't take Lynch back in 2007. Of course, Brown only tells us what the Bills want him to tell us -- and there is no downside to reporting this information. If the Bills really do see Cushing as a possibility at 11, that is fine, because it is doubtful that he would go in the top 10. I suspect that they have SEVERAL players ranked fairly closely in that 11-20 range, which is why I would love to see them trade down.