2003Contenders

That's where Poz comes into play...

Whoops sorry... Didn't see the other post...

He just had surgery to insert a rod into his injured leg yesterday -- and won't even be able to work out at all for several months.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but my answer is simply: WHOMEVER OUR SCOUTS have RANKED THE HIGHEST. That is really the only bright side to having so many needs... aside from QB and SS, I think you could make an argument to draft the best available player at almost any other position. I am no scout and do not pretend to be. There are however, many scouts employed by the team that are paid to make these kinds of decisions. Based on the early returns from last year's draft, I am inclined to trust their judgment. Assuming that these guys are all ranked very close, that is where I'd try to trade down.

Don't be surprised if the Bills pass on Branch even if he is there at #12. Recall that Marv and crew passed on Ngata last year because they did not want to draft a 2-down DT that early. There were also whispers of him taking too many downs off. My guess is that the same principle may apply here.

The word I heard is that his contract was extended through 2012.

Huh? Personally, I don't get the Alexander comparison because Peterson's running style does NOT remind me of Alexander's running style. Still, if you knew that you were drafting a back that would get you around 1500 yards and 14 or more TDs each year for the next 5-6 years (not to mention a league MVP) -- regardless of what he does after that -- I think you'd use that #12 pick on such a player without hesitation.

This is simply ludicrous. Even if you weren't worried about Ricky's drug problems (which any serious person would have to be) there is still the little matter of fact that Ricky has tons of wear and tear on his body... Why would Marv be interested in this guy?

It's not going to happen. I see no way he gets past the Cardinals at 5. However, if by chance it were to happen, the Bills would HAVE to take him. Then just move Walker to RG -- and we'd be set with Peters and Thomas at tackle. The line would suddenly become rather formidable.

Plus, the team actually does throw him a bone every now and then.

Wrong. At least one analyst (Mike Mayock) had Whitner going to the Bills BEFORE the draft. I noted that someone on here commented that Mayock made this call after the Bills actually selected Whitner, but that is misinformation. In his last mock draft (a day or two before the draft -- once Whitner's stock had peaked), Mayock predicted that he would go to the Bills. Now, maybe Mayock caught wind that the Bills were interested in Whitner, but the fact remains that he was on board with the pick BEFORE it actually happened. Meanwhile, Kiper agreed that it was a good fit and that Whitner was a good football player; he just felt that he was a slight reach at 8. He didn't have a problem with the Bills passing on any of the other available players -- his criticism was that the team should have traded down, considering that both Cutler and Leinart were still on the board. The main dissenter was Chris Morteneson, who had an axe to grind with the Bills for having fired his butt-boy Donahoe. Of course, Mort is no NFL scout, so why anyone would be worried about what he has to say I'll never know. The real point is that it does NOT matter what anyone has to say about our picks. Last year there were some publications that gave us a low grade after the draft -- but they are now changing their tune. Of course, the opposite is also true as well. That is, after just one year, it's too early to call any of these players "reaches" or "steals". From my vantage point, I am no scout, so I have to go by what the experts say and trust our scouts to identify the best players for the system(s) that we have in place. Thus, I was ambivalent regarding the Whitner pick, although I agreed with Kiper in my wondering why the team did not trade down with, say, the Broncos. As far as the trade-up/down possibilities, now that he has a War Room under his belt, I have confidence that Marv will do a good job working the phones. Regardless, I just wanted to set the facts straight that not EVERYONE thought that the Whitner pick was horrible.

True... But he was a "fast riser" up draft boards -- and would have gone no later than 12-13 if the Bills hadn't taken him. When it is all said and done -- he may have been a slight reach but he was a SAFE pick. For those looking at what Marv is liable to do this time around... think SAFE. What player ranked, say, in the top 20-25 (allowing for a bit of a reach) might fill a need -- and at the same time be a sure thing. By sure thing, I don't necessarily mean high upside... I mean someone liable to fill a position of need, has no character issues, no serious injury risks, and would be a consensus type pick. Also think YOUNG. Marv made it a point last year to go after juniors. When we start looking at this kind of profile, I think we can narrow the field down quickly.

I get the impression that the Bills have a take-it-or-leave-it offer on the table for 1-2 years at rate similar to what A-Train got. Brown and his agent are still trying to find a better deal. I find it interesting that Chris Brown originally said that his decision was between the Bills and Lions. Then the Lions signed Duckett. Next his decision was down to the Bills and Browns... So it sounds like the Bills offer remains the best he's seen but he is hoping for something better to come along. That is unlikely to happen, unless the Packers become interested or the Colts decide that he'd be a good replacement for Rhodes.

Ha! I was just going to post something of this variety. In last year's ESPN the Magazine's Pre-Draft issue, AY was projected as a late 1st rounder. The current NFL player that they compared him to was ... drum roll please ... Nate Clements. Of course, all of that means nothing until he steps on the field and faces an opponent's top WR.

There actually is a rookie cap, which is a subset of the overall salary cap. The rookie cap is based on cumulative total numbers of draft picks a team has -- and where they were taken. Check out this FAQ

I would only consider trading with SD if the cost was just ONE first day pick. If we could get Turner for, say, a second rounder I would be all for it, provided that the scouts grade Turner high enough to make such a trade. The only problem is that I think AJ Smith is going to be stubborn about this -- and probably risk the missing out on the opportunity to trade him at all, as I suspect that he'll hold fast to the 1st and 3rd round compensation that they are entitled to with the tender they placed on him. After all, if the Chargers were willing to settle for less, then they could have used a lower qualifying tender that would have entitled them to lesser compensation.

Yea, aside from the age factor, I fail to understand why so many on this board are pining for Colts' defenders. Yes, I know that they run the same Cover-2 defense that we do, but their run defense -- if you can believe this -- was actually worse than the Bills' last year.

If Brown does sign here -- given the signing of A-Train today -- I think that the RB position no longer has to be viewed as a glaring need for 2007. Yes, I know that both Brown and Thomas are short-term band-aids. However, I believe that we can address the RB position maybe even on Day 2 of the draft, rather than being desperate to draft someone in the 1st round. Interestingly enough, I believe that the same principle applies to Cleveland if he signs there. Thus, I think you could forget about the Browns taking Peterson in that situation.

Nah, he's more of an injury concern than Chris Brown. If we were really gonna trade a middle-round pick for a RB, I'd deal with Detroit for Tatum Bell first.

Well, we all know that you always get in trouble when you draft solely for position. That is the one positive sign about having so many obvious needs -- there is definitely going to be a player there that can help us at a position of need with each of these picks. This is the part where we have to trust our scouting department. While I'm game for taking who they believe is the best player available, I think it is equally -- maybe even more -- important to carefully analyze the drop off in terms of how good the next-best player would be at a given position. I believe that is exactly what the team did with their trade-up for McCargo last season. They knew that they had to come away with a solid DT prospect from the draft -- and they viewed the drop-off from McCargo to the next-best DT to be a large gap. Thus, they pulled the trigger to trade up. In terms of the need-picks themselves -- which you can't cast a blind eye upon, despite what I said above -- I highly doubt that they would draft two CBs or two RBs that early. The likely eventual signing of A-Train should serve to fill one of those spots -- and without knowing for sure what Youboty brings to the table, I don't see the powers-that-be investing two day-one picks on CBs when we have so many other needs. Let's not forget that the team drafted 3 DBs with their first 4 picks last season. To take 2 of their first 3 this year would significantly impact other important areas. Finally, all of this is moot until we see what else they do in free agency. For example, prior to March, I would have argued that the team could afford to spend 1-2 day one picks on the OL. However, with the big signings that were made in free agency, any OL picks would have to be viewed as luxury picks now. The media is pounding us for adding so many holes to the team in the off-season, but despite all that has happened, I don't see our draft needs being THAT different. Even if we had retained Clements, Fletcher-Baker and McGahee, we could not have avoided drafting players at their respective positions. We all knew that Clements was leaving, because of F-B's age we would have still planned for an heir apparent, and drafting a RB to back-fill (or upgrade) Willis still would have been a priority. Thus, CB, MLB, and RB STILL would have been positions of need. The only difference is that (again, depending on what happens in free agency) with actual holes to fill, these prospective draft picks will HAVE to make an immediate impact as opposed to having the luxury of time to be groomed.

That essentially makes him the same age (actually a month younger) than Kelly was in his "rookie" year back in 1986.

No thanks. We have enough #3 WRs... We need a bona fide #2.

I especially liked the accompanying song...

McCargo's presence on the team is why I do NOT think that the Bills will draft Okoye. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with Marv and company, but with Tripplett and McCargo already on hand to ostensibly play the same position, I do not feel that they would be willing to give up on McCargo just yet. A better fit would be Branch, who is more of the classic run stuffer, but he's almost certainly not going to be there either.

Excellent observation. The only other thing I can think of is that the Bills came right out and said that they were going to draft their RB of the future and Dillon did not want to wind up in the exact same situation he was in last year.