2003Contenders

I'll be honest, I thought Anderson was a good signing last year too. After all, he had been one of the blockers for Jamal Lewis' 2100-yard season. That isn't to say that Reyes will be a similar bust -- or that he isn't a good acquisition. I guess I'm just saying that we'll have to wait and see...

I get the distinct impression that the Bills camp is divided on whom they will take, assuming that someone like D'Brick doesn't fall to them. Clearly OL and DL represent our biggest need. Modrak pretty much made it clear that he sees no other OL besides D'Brick worthy of being selected in the top 10. If he somehow gets past the Jets, selecting him at #8 becomes a no brainer. Otherwise... I get the feeling that there are some vocal supporters of Huff and there are other vocal supporters of Vernon Davis. The staff appears to feel that either is a better "football player" than Bunkley/Ngata. Of course, either of the DTs would fill a bigger position of need. Indeed, Marv let it slip that he feels (without naming names) that a particular player that they are interested in COULD be available 4 spots later in the draft. So with all of these mock drafts that are out there, no one -- not even the Bills' front office -- knows what they are going to do with the #8 pick yet.

Yea, imagine if that did SOMEHOW happen... The author must have been a Bills fan, suffering from a case of the wet dreams.

It won't happen, because there's no way that D'Brick falls past #8. And I still think it is unlikely that he falls that far... (Those damn Jets!)

No one is going to like this, but if the rumor is true, then it adds validity to the assessment that John Clayton made this morning: namely that the Jets are not interested in Lienart at all and would take D'Brick if they couldn't make a trade to gte out of that spot. We've said all along that if D'Brick gets past the Jets at #4 that he'd likely fall to us at #8. Well, the Jets are probably aware of that too, which is why they would like to work this deal with the Raiders -- trade down to #7, pick up an extra pick or two, and STILL wind up with the player they really want. Of course, the Raiders may decide themselves that they'd rather stay where they are at, since Leinart -- like Ferguson -- isn't likely to be drafted by either team picking at #5 and #6.

I think Marv may indeed be targeting Cleveland at #12. Remember his comment that the guy they expect to take would probably still be available 4 picks later?

The Saints COULD do like the Chargers did with Eli in 2004 -- and draft Leinart, and then trade him to another team later in the draft.

The question is: Why did SF who needs A LOT of help, do it?

I'm going to go against the grain a bit here and defend TD on his Round 1 decisions over the years... 2001: Traded down for Nate Clements: hardly a shocking move, and it turned out to be one of the better moves he made during his time as GM both in terms of the decision to trade down and in terms of the player selected. 2002: Well, Big Mike as we know turned out to be a bust. However, he was hardly a shocking pick, and seemed like a safe one at the time. TD desperately wanted to trade down but couldn't find a partner. 2003: Managing to steal a 1st rounder from Atlanta in exchange for Peerless was a great move. Some would argue that Willis was a luxury pick, but if the team had elected to pick based on need, they would have selected Chris Kelsay, whom they ultimately grabbed in the 2nd round anyway. Besides, based on what we've seen from Henry since then, you'd have to agree that TD was forward-thinking in looking for a potential improvement. Considering the forfeiture of the original 1st rounder for Bledsoe, who gave us a great 2002 season (which inflated Peerless' value), we can say that we traded Price (the following year) plus 7 spots in the first round (the following year) in exchange for Bledsoe. Or, if you'd rather, we traded Price and Ty Warren for Bledsoe and Willis McGahee. I think you make that deal every time. 2004: Lee Evans was hardly a surprise pick, as he is the guy most scouts expected us to take. It's still early, but so far he seems worthy of the selection. The surprise that year was the decision to move up to get JP. Obviously the verdict is still out (See below). 2005: Our first round pick was actually JP Losman, whom we traded a 2nd and 4th for the right to get him a year early. There is little doubt in my mind that the team would have gone QB here if they hadn't done so the year before. The scouts identified an exceptionally week QB class in 2005, which is why they elected to gamble on JP in 2004. Again, with just 8 starts under his belt, it is too early to tell whether or not he willpan out. But he has no less chance of doing so than Jason Campbell or Aaron Rogers, the 2 QBs that may have been there for us. In fact, with a limited sample size, Losman looked BETTER than last year's #1 overall draft pick, Alex Smith. Being that the Bills don't have as much tied up (money-wise) as the Niners do in Smith, Buffalo is in a better position to cut bait if the front office determines that JP isn't the guy. The criticism for this draft hinges on the decision to draft tiny Roscoe Parrish in the 2ND round. Again, we will have to see how that plays out, but my guess is that TD knew that Moulds was not going to be back in 2006 and was making a contingency plan. Clearly a mixed bag... However, even in the cases where we missed (i.e. Mike Williams), it wasn't as if the decision at the time was a crazy one. Still, TD seemed to enjoy the drama of draft day. In fact, he made at least one trade in every draft up until last season. My suspicion is that we'll find Marv and co. to be more "boring" in their moves. Of course, sometimes boring isn't bad.

Agreed... In fact, the consensus at the time was that WM was a "safe" pick as he did not come with any questionable character issues. I think too often the problem is that these guys sign the fat contracts with the big guaranteed signing bonus -- and they feel like their goal of getting rich has been fulfilled. A guy like Big Mike will never have to work another day again in his life if he so chooses. The key is identifying which players view that big payday as the BEGINNING to a highly competetive career. That's what makes this whole thing such a crapshoot.

I know some fear Bunkley as a "late riser", meaning that his stock really didn't soar until the combine. However, his numbers last season sure look good to me. What is the knock on him other than that he had a knee injury 3 or 4 years ago?

I still believe that, if D'Brick gets past the Jets at #4, then he will fall to us at 8. That is, of course, if some other team doesn't trade up with the teams currently slated at 5-7.

Count me in as one of those who is very hyped up about this particular draft... 1. Reggie Bush has the portential to be a real difference maker in the NFL, easily the best RB prospect since LT. Although he is unlikley to be the workhorse that LT has become, Bush is so explosive, that he will change the way defensive coordinators gameplan. The only reason I don't think other teams are trying to move up to get him is that Houston has pretty much made it known that they intend to take him -- and only a knock-your-socks off type of trade would get them to budge. Thus, only the teams picking at the top of the the draft already would have such ammunition -- and those teams all have too many needs to trade away draft picks for a single player, even one as enticing as Bush. Also, the Texans' greatest need (like ours) is along the OL, and they know that this draft is pretty well stocked with linmen through the first 3-4 rounds. Thus, they can afford to stay pat and draft Bush. 2. The #2 spot is interesting, namely because the Saints just paid big money for Drew Brees. That would seemingly take them out of the Matt Leinart sweepstakes, but they have also made it known that they would be willing to trade down with the right partner. If they do trade, what team is likely to deal with them? The rumor is the Jets. However, if the Titans are set on taking a QB at #3 -- do we know for sure whether they like Young or Leinart better? If the Jets like Leinart and feel that the Titans prefer Young, it may be in Jets' best interest to stay at #4. If there is no trade, do the Saints take Mario Williams? 3. Depending on what happens at #2, this is where the real drama starts. If the Saints don't trade down -- and do take, say, Mario, then that leaves Tennessee to decide which QB they want. Does Chow have fond memories of Leinart -- or does the coaching staff want to have McNair mentor Vince Young? With a messy salary cap situation, the Titans may elect to trade down to avoid paying the kind of coin that a rookie QB drafted in the top 3 would command. Like the Saints, though, will they manage to find a trading partner even if they wanted to? 4. The Jets will torment themselves watching to see what the Saints and Titans do. If they are dead set on one of the QBs, they may elect to ease anxiety by trading up with the Saints. However, the Jets are in real need of help at MANY positions, so they can't afford to be giving away important draft picks to move up 2 spots in this draft. If they get lucky and the Saints do stay put and draft Mario Williams, while Tennessee selects Young, Leinart could fall to them at #4. Unliklely, but if that happens, then the Bills could be the real winner with Ferguson falling all the way to 8. The way I see it, there is some high drama early on that will affect how the rest of the draft goes. Additionally, there are a couple of teams (Minny and Denver) who could be in the market to trade up into the top 10. Even after the first round, this draft is so deep that there is plenty of value in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. That, coupled with the knowledge that we have that extra pick in the 3rd, means that I am less worried about the team taking the best playmaker at #8, rather than INSISTING on taking a DL or OL. Maybe the quality of this year's draft is being overhyped. We won't know the answer to that for a number fo years. However, I like the drama and excitement that is sure to be there in less than 2 weeks!

Good point... Cuz the other NE David -- Patten -- sure set the world on fire in DC last year...

It's funny because Kiper was talking on Mike and Mike this morning about how the first 4 picks of the draft could surprise people. For example, let's say that the Jets decide that they cannot afford to trade up to #2 with the Saints. Since he doesn't see any other team being willing to give up what it would take to move up to #2, the Saints would have to stay put and draft Mario Williams. Then the onus is on the Titans to decide which QB they like the best at #3. There is some speculation that they may actually prefer Vince Young. If the Titans were to select Young over Leinart, then Leinart would be there for the Jets at #4. Would it be possible, then, for Ferguson to get past GB, SF, and Oakland? Not likely -- but possible. The Packers are supposely in love with Hawk -- and the latest I've heard is that the Raiders really like Huff, provided that Leinart/Young aren't there. What about the 49ers? I'd expect them to draft Ferguson if he were to fall to them, but they have so-o-o-o many needs... Thus, while it is VERY unlikely that D'Brick would fall to us, well... stranger things have happened.

One thing that may help is the speed of our revamped WR crew. With spread formations and quick throws -- it should be easy to beat the blitz. Doing that just a couple of times a game for a big gain, should force opponents to back off, which should in turn open things up more for Willis. In a way, I am glad that we start the season against NE. If they have a weakness on defense it is definitely their secondary. If the OL can manage to keep JP upright, I think the offense could be surprisngly good this year. At least that's my story -- and I'm sticking to it!

That may explain why the Lions are interested in Tutan too. The strange thing about Bennie Anderson is that he was only a year or so removed from blocking for Jamal Lewis' 2,000-yard season, when we brought him in. I have to confess that I thought he was a good acquisition at the time -- so I can't be hypocritical by blaming TD for a move that I agreed with then. The question is: Why exactly did he suck so bad when he came here? Was it a poor supporting cast? Poor coaching? (i.e. Is McNally really as good as everyone says?) On a related note, given that Anderson's stength in Baltimore was as a run blocker, maybe he wasn't properly utilized, as MM gave up on the running game too quickly. Poor conditioning? (The write-up by Scouts from 2005 suggested that Anderson was often unmotivated to stay in shape.) Or, did we just get damaged goods that Baltimore was willing to cast aside?

The flip side of the coin is that a position of need may not necessarily be the same a year -- or even a few months -- from now. Thus, if you've taken a mediocre player at a real need position you are more likely to have to address that position yet again in the not-so-distant future, whereas, you could draft a future stud at a position that may not be one of need now -- but could be one of need in the future. Obviously, in the best of all possible worlds you can draft the best value at a position of need. Teams with good scouting departments are well aware that maybe a crop of players at a specific position may not be so great in this class -- but may be exceptional the following year. They are also well aware of their own future needs and not just there here and now. In fact, the draft is usually a better place to find depth and future needs than it is to find current needs, considering how few rookies start right away. Free agency is the better place to address immediate needs. TD's sin was that he was too busy trying to make waves in the draft, rather than trying to build a quality team. I would hardly, say, for example that Roscoe Parrish was the best available player when we took him last season. In fact, given that TD likely suspected that Moulds' days were numbered, he probably viewed him as a "need" pick. Our drastic needs at DT and OL are because TD spent too many years simply overlooking these positions, when there were quality players that he could have drafted over the years. His fetish for "skill" players and refusal to invest day one picks (outside of Mike Williams) in the less glamorous OL positions is why we're in the situation we are in now.

Your point is well taken, and it relates to draft philosophy. The Patriots have been doing this for years. They pinpoint particular players that they feel will fit their system and draft them accordingly without worrying too much about how that player's "value" is perceived by other teams. Other teams use the Jimmy Johnson value system -- and refuse to deviate from it, regardless of the position. If the highest rated player is at a non-need position, that is where a trade-down comes in. Then, of course, there are other teams that draft purely for position of need -- and are willing to overlook better value at another position. Ususally the teams that have weaker scouting departments fall into this trap. We are in a nice spot this year simply because -- as much of an oxymoron as it seems -- we have S-O-O-O many needs. Thus, there will definitely be a good player sitting there for us at #8 that will fill a position of need. From that perspective, if we have, say, 3-4 guys all ranked pretty closely, then it makes good sense for us to trade down, since we will still have a shot at getting one of them. Say, for example, that Ngata, Bunkley, Huff, Justice, and Davis are all still on the board. We could use any one of them -- and potentially wind up with a good player that fills a need. Now, let's say that a team that runs a 3-4 alignment has a real need for a DT, well, Ngata is likley more valueable to them than he would be to us. Thus, we could afford to trade down 3-4 spots and still be assured of drafting one of the players I've mentioned -- and at the same time pick up an extra draft pick or two. If one of the QBs slips, that makes our situation even better. Now, assuming that we can't find a decent trading partner, then we will need to suck it up and go with the original strategy that I outlined above. That is to say that, even though, say, Winston Justice may be ranked #12 in terms of his overall value, if the Bills feel that he is the best option to help our OL with the #8 pick, then they should go for it -- and not worry about someone like Mel Kiper suggesting that we "reached" for him.

If nothing else, with all of the bodies we now have at WR, there is no need to invest a day one pick on a WR in the draft. That means more opportunities to draft OL, DL, and DB help.

Remember also that Fairchild was the OC in St. Louis in 2004 when the Rams were reportedly all set to draft JP if we hadn't traded up ahead of them. I know that Fairchild may not have had any say so in the Rams' planning, but you would have to think that he at least was aware of what was going on.

If we were picking late in the 1st round I would like this kind of trade. (Think of what the Cowboys did with us in the JP deal... That was for the #22 overall pick.) However, picking #8 this year, we had better wind up with another later first round pick THIS year.

Are the Packers still shopping Javon Walker?

Maybe if we build the line this year JP will excel -- and there will be no need to sell the farm to get Quinn next year. Hmmmm.

As the old saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat... The Patriots have had a lot of success, for example, in recent years by targeting specific players that they want to draft. Then they are willing to "reach" at times to select such players. The point is that they have done their homework and feel that the players(s) will fit well into their system, even though the player's "value" may be lesser to other teams. During his Dallas days Jimmy Johnson did well by using his point value system and sticking very closely to it to draft the best available players, regardless of position. Because he had SO many picks -- and high ones at that -- this particular system worked well for him. Once he moved onto to Miami he stuck with this point system -- but he started obsessing over need positions rather than best athlete available. Remember the number of RB misses he scored in the draft? It's all really a crapshoot. You never know how good or bad someone is going to be coming out of college. Remember in 1998 when many scouts thought that Manning was a "system" QB, while Leaf was someone you could actually build a team around? Indeed, Leaf did have better measurable tools, but he was missing the heart and brains. No matter what happens, we have to trust our scouts to do a good job of rating the prospects. Looking back at TD's career in Buffalo, I do not think it is pure coincidence that his first draft was the best. With the team pretty much torn apart that off-season, we had needs almost everywhere. Thus, he could afford to draft the best player available with each pick -- and he had the good sense to trade down a couple times to get more bang for the buck. I'd like to see Marv use that draft as the model. There are valid arguments to take any number of guys at #8, depending on who is there... Davis, Huff, Ngata, Winston, Bunkley... We can use ANY of them. It is up to the scouts to correctly identify which one best suits our needs... And with so many needs, if we have the opportunity to trade down and pick up, say, another 2nd round pick, that is a wise decision, provided that we don't trade down too far and risk losing a REALLY good player.