2003Contenders

The way I see it, barring something really crazy happening, the following 7 players are definitely coming off the board before our pick (in whatever order): J Long, G Dorsey, V Gholston, C Long, S Ellis, D McFadden, M Ryan. That would mean that only 3 other players will come off the board, meaning that the Bills probably have their next 4 rated to ensure that they don't reach at that position. Of course, none of us know what kind of draft grades they have assigned to players, so it is only our own best guess how they have them ranked. Modrak admitted that McKelvin was a top 10 player, so he obviously would appear on that last of 4. The question is: who are the other 3? I would submit, perhaps Rivers, Albert, and Harvey are the other three.

I believe that Trent's mature demeanor would allow for him to handle a competition (granted, one tilted in his own favor) from JP for the starting job. So I wish people would stop whining about how a competition somehow compromises his position as a leader for this team. The Brady/Manning argument is just silly. Of course, these guys also have to play at their peak level to fend off competitors for their starting job. It's just that they are so good that no other competitor ever gets close. JP has skills, but I just don't believe that he is ever going to be consistent enough over the long haul to be a good starting QB in the NFL. Obviously, there isn't a high demand for him around the league, and if he does leave, he won't be finding a starting gig elsewhere either. The sooner he comes to peace with his destiny, the sooner he will realize that there is a place for him with the Bills -- and that he can make plenty of money (some of the top backups are making $3 M per year now), keep his nice house -- and even become a fan favorite. After all, Frank Reich (and to a certain extent AVP) remain beloved figures in Buffalo.

The problem is that we have enough needs where we really can't afford to be giving 2nd round picks away.

'Tis true. The slow 40 time is actually good news, as it means that it will cost less to get him. The funny thing is that it is probably his childish outburst that cost him more than the slow 40 time. And that may even knock him off the Bills' radar altogether.

All four of the SBs hurt, but (for me) the one that hurt the most was XXVII (the first one against Dallas). I really thought we were a team of destiny that year after The Comeback and cleaning up on the road against the Steelers and Dolphins. The game itself was unwatchable with all of the turnovers, Kelly getting hurt -- and the ridiculous final score. That game was really an embarrassment.

Here's a funny thought. What if Kelly does actually run a superb 40 time, like, say, in the 4.4 range. He MAY not even be there at #11 in that scenario. Not saying I would panic about that, though. If he goes before #11 then someone else will fall to us at 11.

Agreed. He seems to fit the Bills MO: good character, highly productive college player and a not-so-flashy sort. In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if they took him EVEN if Harvey were still on the board.

Picking DRC at #11 does not fit the Bills' recent MO, given his relative lack of production. This regime seems to be more impressed with players who have produced quite a bit at the college level. DRC's stock didn't shine until the week of the Senior Bowl.

Actually, that does not appear to be the way it down. According to Marv, the Bills had both Poz and David Harris ranked ahead of Willis. Marv can be coy, but it isn't like him to outright lie. Also, Chris Brown, who was in the war room, said that the 49ers tried to talk the Bills into moving up one spot if they were interested in Willis. The Bills said thanks but no thanks and chuckled when the 49ers drafted Willis themselves. Now, we can argue all we want about whether or not the front office was correct in their assessments. After all, Willis was indeed a beast as a rookie last season. However, based on what we have heard from reliable sources, it does not appear that the Bills would have drafted Patrick Willis at #12 if he has still been there.

The Bills were right to look elsewhere. The bottom line is that a 1-year deal means exactly that -- a 1-year deal. Either Johnson sucks and we don't want him back for a longer term -- or he plays well, becomes a free agent again -- and signs to the highest bidder. The team is looking for continuity.

Well, he did have to pee the first time, you know.

Maybe he saw "The Comeback Game" on the NFL Network last night and realized that being Frank Reich isn't such a bad thing.

Can he play Center?

Actually that is who PFW compared him to in their Pre-Draft write-up last year. They had him rated the highest of any of the publications (3rd behind Russell and Quinn) and suggested that he could be a fantastic pro QB in a Mike Martz-type offense.

Actually with Manningham's improved 40-time, he could go in the 1st as well.

Or, they could just do as they have done in the past two years. Assuming they do not have a WR ranked as high as #11, draft the player at a different position that they like there -- and then trade up from 41 to get one of the WRs. As a matter of fact, unless they REALLY, REALLY love one of the WRs enough to take him at 11 that is what I expect them to do.

According to this report Hackett should be deciding between the Panthers and Seahawks today. I guess the Bills FO had no interest in him...

Interesting... Somehow I just have a feeling that Marv and the gang are not focusing much on AP anyway.

Thanks!

I must confess that I have not seen much of him, but the word I hear on him is that he is very versatile. I'm wondering if he is capable of being an every-down back -- and if not, could he at least provide a change of pace compliment to A-Train? I'm just thinking that he may be a decent option in the 2nd or 3rd round, rather than going RB in the first.

I am not endorsing a move to get him, but I agree that if the Bills want him, they'll probably have use one of those 3rd rounders to get him. Even with the injury history -- and the possibility that he could sit out his entire rookie season -- SOME team will take a chance on him. The recent success of Frank Gore will drive teams in that direction.

This is all academic anyway, as I have a pretty strong feeling that Willis will be well off the board before we pick at 12.

I have the feeling that Portis is damaged goods.

I have always felt that the #8 pick last year had as much to do with Marv trying to lay the groundwork for being a consensus builder as anything else. One of the major criticisms about TD was that he had a reputation as a control freak and a dictator. Whether that is indeed true or not, I believe that Marv wanted to set the tone by not only avoiding making a unilateral decision -- but making one that everyone on board could live with. I have a feeling that there were probably some scouts last year pining for Ngata, some for Bunkley -- and even some for Cutler or Leinart, given that JP had yet to prove himself. While some of these factions probably had a mutually exclusive stance (Ngata versus Bunkley -- or riding it out with JP versus drafting a QB), there was no such problem with Whitner. The fact that Whitner at SS fit a need, was one of the few true STRONG safeties coming out in the draft, was a very productive college player, and was by all accounts a good citizen seemed to seal the deal. The interesting notion is that there was no "obvious" selection to be made with that #8 pick last year. Some thought Ngata may not have been such a great fit for the Cover-2 -- and there were whispers that he had a tendency to take too many plays off. Bunkley seemed like a better fit -- and he was a fast riser due to his great workouts. However, aside from a flashy final college season, he had been rather non-productive on the field. Marv had actually been very truthful with the press leading up to the draft stating that he did not want to bring in a "hot shot rookie QB" to cloud matters. I know the biggest beef was with Marv having NOT traded down in this situation. However, he did not want to lose out on Whitner for the reasons specified above -- and he wasn't convinced that Whitner would still be there if he traded down to 14-15 as everyone at ESPN insisted he should have. Interesting that no one criticized the Raiders for staying put and taking Huff or the Lions (who some insiders believe were very interested in Whitner as well) for taking Simms, rather than trading down, as one would have to suspect that similar trade proposals would have been on the table for these teams as well. The bottom line is that Marv circled Whitner as his guy -- and he did not want to risk losing out on him. I wish the pundits would have accepted that -- just like they did for all of the other teams picking toward the top of the draft. I have a strong feeling that Marv will go the same route again this year, as barring something crazy happening with the first 11 picks, there does not appear to be an "obvious" choice this year either at #12. If we look at the following criteria, which the team seemed to apply with virtually all of their picks last year -- not just Whitner -- it may help us identify the player(s) they may be targeting. 1. An underclassman (the youth movement is on) 2. Productivity on the field in college 3. Top notch speed 4. Plays at a position of need (or at least where an upgrade is needed) 5. Tough on-the-field, but a good citizen off-the field 6. A player that everyone in the War Room can live with (**Based on my thesis, this may be the most important**) The question is: who best fills that bill -- even if he is a slight "reach"?

You know, when I first heard the reports of his coming back, I was dead-set against the Bills having any interest in this pothead... However... he does present a low risk-high reward possibility. 1. He does appear to have cleaned up his act. 2. The fact that he was willing to play in the CFL last year, when he could have been just bathing in the sun tells me something. 3. I've NEVER heard anything about his on-field effort or being a bad teammate (other than his suspension problems and last-minute retirement two years ago, which I believe had more to do with his displeasure with Wannstadt.) 4. I still have visions of his piling up the carries and yards against us. 5. He should be available for the league minimum (plus incentives) Of course, even if all of the character issues pan out, there is still a little matter of the wear and tear on his body. That is to say that I think we'd STILL have to address the RB position in the draft. Suffice to say, that if I were Marv, I would find him worth pursuing -- but I wouldn't waste too much time on him.