Mickey

Kudos on the find. I really liked what I saw on Johnson and Bell. Looking at the numbers on Johnson, I have to wonder why he was still around so late in the draft. Anyone know what the concern was on this guy? He isn't blazingly fast but neither were a lot of the greats. The one aspect of a receiver you don't see quantified much in all the scouting reports is the very simple, very basic and ultimately vital ability to catch the freaking ball. I remeber watching a streaking Byron Franklin repeatedly torch defenses deep only to have the ball bounce off his helmet. Johnson clearly has a good pair of mits on him, performs in the clutch and is fast enough. Bell is an intriguing prospect, I like guys who are athletes but need work on strength. You can always add muscle but coordination and balance are all but impossible to teach. Remember that viking dude we drafted, Lief Laaaaaaaaarson or something like that? He could bench press a house but had limited football experience and wasn't exactly a ballroom dancer in the footwork dept. We figured with that kind of strength, we could teach him the rest. Never worked out, it was a wasted pick. Not a high one but wasted none the less.

I don't see anything surprising about those cuts. As for the offense, it is the same as last year's save for the addition of Hardy and some use of a fullback instead of an H-back. That offense was the worst in the history of the franchise so I definitely have some concerns about next year. There is a new OC, Edwards will start for the whole year barring injury or really crappy play, they added Hardy and young players like Trent, Marshawn and Butler will be a year wiser. So yes, there is reason to hope that they will be much improved. I am not sure though that these are enough positive changes for us to go from worst offense in the history of the team to playoff lock.

Last year we had the worst offense in the history of the franchise. That number gives me some concern about the offense, including the line. The jury is still out on this line.

That was the worst offense in the history of the franchise. We could bicker about whether it was slightly less historically bad with Trent behind center than it was with JP but the bottom line was that the offense simply sucked. I can't even imagine not holding the head coach and the OC responsible for such poor production. That is very much the kind of performance that gets QB's benched and head coaches fired. Jauron gets a pass because he hasn't been the coach that long and the horrendous injury situation gives him a pretty good excuse. If JP does end up the backup and the team doesn't play a lot better this year, then JP and DJ might end up sharing a ride out of town.

I hate being the wet blanket but I have some reservations about Poz. He has been hurt two of the past three years, any other player with that record would immediately draw the "injury prone" label around here. I think "injury prone" is just another word for "unlucky" sa I am not worried about that. What does worry me is that he was hurt so early that I don't think the kind of mistakes you would expect from a rookie are over with him. He will be a second year player in name only. Another worry I have is a play I recall against the Steelers which haunts me still. If you recall, they pushed our defense all over the filed but had to keep settling for FG's which kept the game close. Finally, they were inside the 5 and again we had stopped them but rather than kick the FG, they decided to go for it. They faked it up the middle and then hit a wide open TE just off the tackle on the right side. Poz went for the fake and realized his mistake too late. He tried mightily to get to that TE but there was just too little time. The Steelers, I am sure, decided to pick on the rookie on that play and it worked like a charm. Just one play and he was a rookie after all. However, he went down for the season the very next game. The education he would have continued to get had he stayed healthy didn't happen. So maybe he still has a pocketful of mistakes to get out of his system like the one he made against the Steelers. I like Poz, I have high hopes for him and think he will be a very good player. Still, I don't think he has proven much yet on the field. I am not sure the idea that he is going to go from the guy who got schooled by the Steelers and knocked out for the season the next game directly to Pro Bowl level is all that realistic.

Bill and Trent, sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..... #10 is really the only reach on that list so it could all happen my friend.

These days, it seems every other player has "character issues" so there is no guarantee with Hardy. Yet, his problem was, I think, 2-3 years ago. He has dealt with it and has had no problems since so there is reason to be encouraged. The fact is that without that issue, he wouldn't have been there for us to take in the second. I wrote a post before the draft defending the idea of taking Hardy despite the domestic incident. I felt then that teams should do their homework on him but should not cross him off their boards automatically. Doing so prevents you from taking advantage of a guy dropping into your lap way later in the draft than he should given his ability. It can be worth taking that gamble. The balancing test is the opportunity of getting a top notch WR who fills your needs to a "T" in the second round vs. maybe wasting a pick on a character nightmare. I thought Thomas was too small for what we were looking for and he only had one big year. Sweed and Hardy were the two that fit the bill for us and pretty clearly, lots of teams had questions about Sweed. Not to blow my own horn but I did say we were going CB, WR, best pass rusher available. A prediction I made based on which three positions sucked the most for us. I call it the "suckiness theory" of draft analysis. I thought it would be Hardy or Sweed at WR but I had no clue that Leodis was going to drop to us but as soon as Atlanta took Ryan, it was clear a couple guys were going to get knocked back a slot or two. For now it is all on paper but I have to say, the top 2-3 picks couldn't have worked out much better for us. Consider how may thought we would take the top CB at 11 and then try to trade back in to the end of the first or top of the second to get a WR like Thomas, Hardy or Sweed. A lot of people also wanted us to trade down to essentially get the same result, a first round CB and round 1/2 WR. Well, we didn't have to do any of that and we got the top rated CB when most of us thought there would be at least one CB, likely Leodis, gone before we picked. And we still got one of the WR we had targeted. Hardy, minus the character thing, probably would have been the one WR taken in the first. On paper anyway, the draft went very, very well. The only complaint I have is the TE position which we have repeatedly ignored for so many years I have lost count. I guess they really like Schouman.

I hope he is right but I must have heard 20 fans of one team or another claiming their team grabbed the next Hester in the draft.

It is not unheard of to use to punt returners back. In the winds of the Ralph, its not the worst idea ever. Besides, I am sure he will compete as a returner against both McGee and Roscoe and if he wins the job from of either of those two, he must be very, very good. I don't see a downside here.

There are two returners on kick offs.

I have been beating the same drum on the CB issue. A quick look at our defensive roster over the last few years and some game film from last year is all that is needed to see how badly we needed a corner. The fact that no WR was taken in the first and that we got Hardy in the second certainly demonstrates that the Bills made the right call in waiting on a WR. My only concern is not that we took a corner but whether we took the right one. Only time will tell if we should have taken DRC or Jenkins. It sure looks like this is the right guy but I didn't see enough of their play to be able to see a clear difference between the three of them.

Iowa State has taken an aggressive stance agains NCAA recruiting violations thanks to Alvin "Ace" Bowen.

No insults needed. I can see why some don't think much of drafting a corner but its not exactly a disaster. given that not a single wr was taken in the first, it would have been a major mistake to take one at 11.

I agree, I don't see any of our corners as being "solid". McGee is the only starter among them. I was as impressed with Greer as anyone last year but at best, he is a marginal starter. We definitely need help on the offense so I am not saying CB is our top need but it is high on the list.

I like Thomas but I don't think his size is all that impressive at all. Isn't he 6'1"? There are plenty of corners who are just as big. Sweed and Hardy have the kind of size to win jump balls and the wing span to be a larger target than the average WR.

Though I very much appreciate the work you put into this very interesting analysis, ultimately I don't think it is very revealing to try and measure the worth of an individual player by comparing team performance from two different years when the amount of variables in play are mind boggling. For this analysis to have any valididty at all, you would have to be able to know how team A would have fared in year X if they still had the player they lost vs. how they fared without him. Of course, that is impossible. Comparing defensive rankings from year X to year Y is comparing yesterdays apples to todays oranges. I think the far easier question to ask is simply whether or not the player you lost was better, worse or the same as his replacement. I think we would all agree that Marshawn was an upgrade from Willis yet we fielded the worst offense in the history of the franchise when we replaced Willis with Marshawn. You are basically doing the same thing with these corners. You do not improve a team by losing good players. No amount of analysis will change that. As for the value of CB's to a defense which I think is more your point, that also has way too many variables involved to come up with a universal answer. That is why the debate has come up so often around here, because there is no argument ending data available. For me, the easiest way for the Bills to approach personnel decisions is to ascertain the relative strength and weaknesses of each position on the team. From there, they will have to also gauge how important each position is to team success given what they want to do. Frankly, I don't think that is as high on their list of concerns as it is on ours. The situation at CB is pretty bleak. Thomas was our nickel back the last two years, he is now gone. We lost Nate. We signed Webster to replace him and he is now gone as well. McGee has been up and down. Greer certainly was a pleasant surprise but one surprise year doesn't a legit starter make. Looking over the defense, CB is clearly the weakest position on the field. We like our starting safeties and we have Wendling developing. We also have Wilson who remains an interesting if risky option for depth at safety. Between McCargo and Stroud, our top DT's are looking pretty good. We have Poz, Kawika and Angelo at LB which is as good a starting set of LB's as we have had in awhile. The DE's, Denney, Schobel and Kelsay better show us that last year was an anomaly, we have certainly paid them as if we didn't need to replace them. That leaves CB. All this talk about how important it is to have a top CB is largely academic. The fact is, if you want to improve this defense, the top position to address right now is CB. The only position that I think would merit a first round pick is if a guy drops who can rush the passer. That could be a LB, a DT or a DE. I have never been happy with Denney, Schobel and Kelsay but they had put up numbers just good enough to warrant keeping them around. If a guy is there at 11 who can really get after the passer, I could definitely see them going that way. Otherwise, I think it will be a CB or a WR. Not because or inspite of the defense we play or the offense we play but because that is where we suck: CB, WR and rushing the passer.

Step back a bit and look at this. The Bills are going to spend their top pick in this draft on a guy to play a position for us that he has never played before? Why not take Thomas with the idea of converting him to CB? Sure this is possible, anything is but I just don't see them gambling like that. Its not like they have film of him playing center. What if they are wrong and he can't? With serious needs at other positions we are going to spend our top pick to replace one of the few overachievers we have? No team has enough top picks to build a champion through their top three picks each year. You have to find some gold later on in the draft, like Brady, like Peters, etc. Butler is looking like one of those guys, not that good perhaps but certainly a better player than his draft position. The more I think of it, the more I detest this idea.

I wouldn't put too much store on that stat about sacks allowed. That was the worst offense in team history and this team has put some pretty bad offenses on the field over the years so that is saying something. I think the low sacks had a lot more to do with series after series of run, run, check down and punt than it had to do with our revamped offensive line. Five of the eleven guys on the field for the offense, six if you count the TE, were offensive lineman. They have to take their share of the blame for what was the worst offensive performance in the history of the Buffalo Bills.

You need to define what you mean by "reach"??? When our pick comes up at #11, the question will be, given our needs and the talent still on the board, who is the best pick for our team? If we take that guy, whoever he is, will you condemn it as a "reach" if he was rated 3 spots lower by Mel Kiper? To me, a reach is when you know that the same guy would still be there when you next pick comes up or that you have a trading partner allowing you to move down, pick up another pick and still get the same guy. That, especially in the first half of the first round is virtually never the case. For example, if we think the Thomas is our guy, I highly doubt he would still be there when we pick in the second. At the same time, trade downs are the exception, not the rule. I don't see any teams picking after us that are so in love with some other pick that they are going to trade up. Especially not with only 10 minutes on the clock to arrange such a deal. I think its rare to have a player so good that others will trade up for him but not so good that the team with the original pick isn't going to take him themselves. The trade ups are far more likley later in the draft when its clear that a couple guys have slipped beyond where most teams interested in them would have thought. That is when they start thinking that they might actually have a shot at so and so in the second when they thought he'd be long gone by then. It happens that way every year, nothing new.

The term "reach" is way overused. To me, a reach is taking a guy now who would very likely still be there when your next pick is up. Taking a guy now who you need and who is the best left at that position but who, on the big board is "rated" lower than 5 or 6 other guys is not a reach. Teams have very little control over where they pick in each round. Trade downs, especially in the first half of the first round are the exception, not the rule. You can't just decide that you'll trade down here and up there to get so and so at such and such a slot. It doesn't work that way. We needed a RB last year and the best guy on the board at that position when we picked was Lynch, so we took him. Maybe on the expert boards Lynch was rated 4 or 5 slots lower but the other guys, no matter how talented, weren't talented enough to warrant taking them despite our glaring need at RB and the availability of real good one, Lynch, at the time we picked. These guys don't pick based on just need or just talent, they pick the guy who is the best combination of need and talent still on the board when their pick comes up. The only way that kind of pick is a reach is if you know he would have been there at your next pick or that you could trade down and still get him. That is rarely the case, a lot rarer than I hear some know it all raving about how this team or that team "reached" for whoever.

If I thought the guy could play based on what my scouts have said, what I had seen on his film, etc, I would have no problem taking him despite his so called "outburst". He is a college kid under a lot of pressure with limited experience with the press. He said a few things that a seasoned pro well versed in giving cliche responses to the press might not have said. It means less than nothing. The rush to label this kid as having character issues based on one interview is ridiculous. I am worried about his knees, I am worried about his 40 time. As for his ability to handle the press, I figure we can teach him to shut up a lot easier than we can teach Josh Reed to be taller.

Why not include all the stats? This throws out the New England game where Trent played all but the first series and the second Jet game where he played the first three quarters. These kinds of stat fests don't really show much but if we are going to jump in that swamp, let all the mud fly.

I think fans and the media are the only ones for whom his "outburst" means anything. NFL GM's, I am sure, care alot more about his 40 time than anything he said afterwards. If a guy can play, they will take a chance on a felon. By comparison, Kelly's hissy fit means nothing. If he drops, it will be because he is slow and has injury problems.

Yes, and you have really, really big opinions.

Harvey, Harvey, Harvey, and never look back.