Dan

I would very much agree with all that you posted. The Oline Depth is probably the weakest on the team, easily. And will have to be addressed. Only caveat being... the FO may decide to address the depth issue in FA - not the draft. Either way, I'm guessing it'll have to be addressed. I agree. None of the later round guys will be starters. But, IMO, they were taking best player available approach at that point. And not addressing needs. Which is why I'd hope they'll draft OL earlier rather than later. But, when they weren't drafting them this year, that's when I could only conclude that the FO sees the deficiencies at CB and WR as bigger needs than OG or C. Next year.. hopefully is different. Hopefully, we don't have any glaring weaknesses on the team and we can draft 1 or 2 quality linemen to develop as backup and/or starters. But, you're right; there's a few players that may effect that. I think Ko is definitely a question mark seeing as how he's had little playing time. Of course, the TEs. So, if Ko is the weakest link and once again the Oline looked good throughout, yeah I could see draftign a safety first again. Not sure I agree either way, but I could see it. Bottomline for me is what's the product on the field look like. Because there's often more than one way to get to your destination. I would suggest that the team is getting better. Although the record didn't show it last season, I think that was largely due to the number of injured players. I expect this year our wins to be greater that our losses. If that happens, I think we can conclude that the current plan is working. And the FO buys its self a little time and respect for putting the team together. If we have another middle of the pack 8-8 or worse year, then its definitely time to look critically at their building plan. But, overall, I think everyone has to agree that the team is better off now than 2.5 years ago - regardless of how we drafted or handled FAs. Could we be even better? Perhaps, but that's complete speculation. I guess to say it shortly, it's just been ~2.5 years for this FO and HC. That's not quite long enough to see if they know what they're doing. Most regimes come in with a 3 year plan (or so it seems). I think we have to be patient for another season and see how their moves pan out. IMO, this is the first season that we can really even begin to talk about Whitner and the '05 guys abilities. So, I understand the consternations, but I just think we have to be careful that we're not judging this FO based on mistakes of the past FO.

Point made. Counter point - was there a tackle even close to Thomas' ability in the draft in round 2? So, yes, if we had passed on Joe Thomas in round 2 I would think it a mistake. Agreed. We need to work on depth on the Oline next year. But, we'll also need to work on depth at several positions, I'd think.

The Colts have one of the Best Qbs ever; a solid Receiving corps, TE, RBs, Secondary, D-Line. So, yes, they had a different draft strategy. But that's the point. And remind me again, why does it matter if we pay through the nose for OL help via free agency and draft CBs or draft OL and pay through the nose for CBs? Its six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. The current FO thought they could get FA linemen better than they could draft them. Given the past draft record, maybe they know their college line scouts suck. I don't know. But we got a decent line out of this FO, so why are we complaining about how they got it?

For all posters claiming that we're in trouble because we didn't draft Oline depth players this year.... are you suggesting that we should be drafting 2nd string players for the Oline because Peters may get injured and not address obvious needs at the starting position in other areas of the team? I want solid lines as much as the next guy. I really do. But let's be realistic here. We needed a big WR. We needed a TE. We needed a CB. We needed a DE/DT. Those are needs. Not well we kinda don't like the guy that's there (like Fowler). Now, yes we could have drafted a lineman instead of Oman, for example. But, I would guess the FO was going with BPA after a certain point and not just drafting for specific positions. So taking Oman, as an example, could we use a OG over a RB. Absolutely. But, the FO (I'm guessing) decided the potential upside of Oman was greater than the potential upside of any linemen at that time. Can we argue that? Sure. It's speculation. So, look at the first 3 picks - CB, WR, and DE. I would argue those are all much higher need positions that a backup offensive linemen. The current incarnation of the FO has done a pretty decent job of filling the holes on this team through FA and the draft. Provided all the players work out, we'll have our starting lineups set (for the most part) after this year. So, in 3 years, we'll have gone from a team with aging players and guys that couldn't wait to leave to a young team set for several years. At that point, I think we'll start seeing them draft more for depth at key positions. But, I would suggest that this year was just one year too soon. Initially, I didn't like the CB pick in round one. But, in thinking about it, it seems obvious. Our starting Oline held up pretty well last year and we're returning all our starters. So, they should get better. Our secondary, however, was a mash unit and gave up every critical 3rd down pass they could. So, yes, maybe we should work to strengthen that unit. And yes, if Peters goes down we're screwed. But, if we drafted a LT in round 2, wouldn't we still be screwed if a rookie came in to protect Trent's blind side?

Hamdan Rocks!

No idea of prices because I try not to deal with that... but the guy I worked with just checked pricing on all nationwide carriers and settled on Verizon. So, `I'd suggest giving them a good look. (My phone is cellular south nationwide, unlimited with a cheap nokia. Best reception of any phone you'll get. But I imagine it's pricey in comparison to Verizon. I know before switching to an unlimited plan in January, my bill was averaging about $3500/mo.)

OK.. let's put this to rest once and for all please. Trent does not spread the ball around more than JP. You may think he does. You may want him to. But, the facts are... he does not. So please, lets stop just creating imaginary notions to convince us that JP blows. The numbers are detailed below. (disclaimer: I hate math, so please feel free to make sure I added properly. The stats are copy/pasted so they're accurate as listed on nfl.com, but the summary at the end I added up.) According to the numbers, its quote clear - both QB's spread the ball around remarkably similar. Yes, Trent completed slightly more passes to the TEs; however, JP completed slightly more passes to the RBs. So, if you combine them into a single category (TE/RB), the numbers are very similar. Furthermore, in comparison, to all WRs vs Evans, both QBs favored Evans on roughly 1/5 of their completions and the other WRs on about 36% of their completions. So, please, let's discard the erroneous notion that JP only throws long passes to Evans. He clearly completed just about as many passes to TEs, RBs and WRs not named Lee Evans as did Trent. Perhaps Trent looks better throwing 43.7% of his completions to the TEs/RBs than JP while he's completing 42.3% of passes. I don't know. But, they both spread the ball around quite well and in similar fashion. ========================== per nfl.com wk 1 (JP) Rec. Yds J. Reed 4 37 R. Parrish 2 25 R. Royal 1 12 M. Lynch 2 9 A. Thomas 1 8 L. Evans 2 5 K. Everett 1 3 P. Price 1 -2 ------------------------------ wk2 (JP) R. Parrish 6 56 P. Price 3 33 M. Lynch 1 21 L. Evans 2 17 M. Gaines 1 14 R. Neufeld 1 8 R. Royal 1 5 ------------------------------ wk3 (TE) R. Parrish 2 27 J. Reed 2 27 P. Price 2 23 L. Evans 1 7 M. Lynch 1 2 (JP 1 4) R. Neufeld 1 6 M. Gaines 1 5 ------------------------------ wk 4 (TE) L. Evans 6 72 J. Reed 4 64 R. Parrish 4 33 R. Royal 3 31 M. Gaines 4 20 P. Price 1 14 ------------------------------ wk 5 (TE) R. Parrish 6 37 J. Reed 5 35 R. Royal 4 34 M. Lynch 2 32 A. Thomas 2 16 L. Evans 1 12 M. Gaines 2 6 D. Wright 1 4 ------------------------------ wk 7 (TE) L. Evans 5 98 J. Reed 1 25 M. Lynch 3 14 R. Parrish 1 9 M. Gaines 1 7 ------------------------------ wk 8 (TE/JP) L. Evans 3 36 (JP 2 102) J. Reed 4 40 R. Royal 2 19 R. Parrish 1 12 M. Gaines 1 11 D. Schouman 1 9 (JP) D. Wright 1 8 M. Lynch 1 7 F. Jackson 1 -1 ------------------------------ wk 9 (JP) L. Evans 9 165 J. Reed 6 55 R. Royal 2 35 M. Gaines 3 22 A. Thomas 1 11 D. Schouman 2 10 M. Lynch 1 7 R. Parrish 1 -2 ------------------------------ wk 10 (JP) L. Evans 4 65 J. Reed 3 40 M. Gaines 2 28 M. Lynch 3 24 ------------------------------ wk 11 (JP) R. Parrish 1 47 J. Reed 3 44 L. Evans 4 40 An. Thomas 3 15 M. Gaines 1 13 F. Jackson 2 9 D. Wright 1 5 ------------------------------ wk 12 (JP) J. Reed 6 50 F. Jackson 5 47 An. Thomas 8 45 R. Parrish 4 26 L. Evans 2 19 M. Gaines 1 19 R. Royal 1 5 ------------------------------ wk 13 (TE) F. Jackson 4 69 J. Reed 5 67 L. Evans 4 51 R. Parrish 4 36 R. Royal 4 21 M. Gaines 1 13 ------------------------------ wk 14 (TE) L. Evans 2 79 R. Royal 3 46 J. Reed 3 30 F. Jackson 1 6 M. Gaines 1 3 R. Parrish 1 1 ------------------------------ wk 15 (TE) L. Evans 4 36 F. Jackson 3 36 J. Reed 3 29 M. Gaines 2 14 R. Royal 1 9 ------------------------------ wk 16 (TE) L. Evans 3 43 M. Lynch 2 42 R. Parrish 1 42 M. Gaines 2 23 J. Reed 1 11 ------------------------------ wk 17 (TE) R. Royal 3 31 F. Jackson 6 24 J. Reed 1 24 M. Lynch 1 22 M. Gaines 2 17 S. Aiken 1 10 R. Parrish 1 3 L. Evans 1 2 ------------------------------ ------------------------------ JP Losman (111 completions): TEs -18 (16.2%) RBs -29 (26.1%) TE/RB -47 (42.3%) WRs (other than Evans) -40 (36.0%) Evans - 24 (21.6%) T. Edwards (151 completions): TEs -37 (24.5%) RBs -29 (19.2%) TE/RB -66 (43.7%) WRs (other than Evans) -55 (36.4%) Evans -30 (19.9%)

With a rare combination of size and speed, this guy could really be the high motor pick we're looking for. He's a little old, but on the positive side, we could sign him to a 5 year contract and he'd retire a Bill. So, no more letting guys go after their first contract is up.

A little too tall for my tastes. Got anyone shorter?

Completely agree. I'm not sure I could ever leave this place, but it would definitely make me wish that my fears that the world is ending in 2012 were true. But this site, is by far, the best - not only in terms of content but simultaneously in terms of appearance.

Sorry, didn't know what else to call them. But, I'm referring to the bar at the top of TBD that has "The Latest Buffalo Bills News" in it. The bars that have the dates (i.e. April 29, 2008) in them. The ones in the left and right columns "Discuss the Bills!", "2008 Team Info", etc. Might could replace some of those with a simple pic that would give more design options for the text. But now I'm getting too crazy perhaps. (Actually they're probably table cells, but they look like bars due to the design.)

Well, I'll go on record as saying the front page (TBD) and the board (TSW) look good to me. Again, this is where I come to get information and news about the Bills and then to talk about that with other Bills' fans (and a few idiots). So, I prefer the simple, straight forward design. Of course, you're right, there's always room for improvement. And most of the times you don't realize how much so until you actually see the improvements. So, I would never say change is bad. But, I do think change just for the sake of change isn't always a good thing - especially if you start getting away from the primary intent of the site. A few things for consideration, if I were pushed to come up with some: 1. Sure the banner could be updated/changed. That would be fairly easy and give a new look. 2. Striped background on TBD could be a solid background. But, again, that just simplifies and cleans things up in my mind. 3. Links at the top of TBD (Home :: Stadium Wall :: History :: Trading Post :: Tailgate Central :: Football Pool :: Bills Daily) could be worked into the graphic. That would make them look more polished and less old school. 4. Update the color of the header bars. No neons, but just new "bills-themed" tones. 5. I wouldn't change the overall layout at all. IMO, it's puts the maximum amount of information right there in front of you, with minimal scrolling 6. Make a link to bb.com more prominent (in the banner?). Possibly on the right column a link to the multimedia section, updated as they add new videos (similar to the news sites). but, I admit I have no idea how you get all those newspaper sites listed so quickly, so maybe too much of a hassle. That's the one thing really missing at this point. Video's have become much more commonplace, so more links to video content. But, again, that may bring a whole range of problems I don't know about. 7. As far as TSW, other than similar banner change and color of header bars, I agree, I wouldn't change a thing. OK. So guys and gals don't PAM me. I'm just offering ideas.

I agree with you... and with Dibs. I like the clean. uncluttered look. But, yes, that is my preference. Too many sites lose focus. I come here to read and converse about the Bills, not look at stimulating artwork and colors. I like a site that is clean, easy to navigate, and true to its intent. That's exactly what we have here.

Now Waddle ends the show by saying the Bills are the most improved team since the end of the season. What's this?!? Is it possible the Bills will start getting some love from the national media? Is it possible the Bills FO has made some good moves? Oh man, we are so screwed this year.

Hamdan Rocks!

That's how I see it. We let one player walk. He didn't want to be here anyway. And in return got 3 guys that solidified our line. I don't care how you slice it that's a good trade. I do agree with Bill though. The line is by no means set. We need to upgrade at least one position and get some depth. But, the Oline is far from the most pathetic unit on the team. And that's basically the result of letting Clements walk. Hopefully, the line is held together this year, continiues to improve, and we can start getting some depth guys in next year.

So much for flying under the radar! NFLN TA guy, just called us a sleeping giant! We're the team to watch. We're going to be healthy. Lots of good players. Good draft. We're going to be a young team on the rise. We're definitely doomed.

yes By all accounts, this guy is being billed as the next Devon Hester. Is he? I don't know, but we have to find out.

This is a good question. And for me, I think it's its a no brainer. Let Clements walk and spend that money on the line. We absolutely needed help on the line and no way you spend that much on a CB and hope you can draft OL.

yes

For me... yes. A player drafted that high should be expected to make the probowl at least a few times in their career. However, I think you can't expect the probowl for at least 3-4 years. Firstly, because it takes several years for most players to develop and become dominating-type players. Secondly, it takes several good years for a player to get the league-wide recognition and be selected to the probowl. So, should he make it? Yes. Should he make it in the next 3 years. No. I think you have to look at this pick in a few ways though. First of all, you clearly think we should have drafted a lineman. Myself, and many others, would agree with that. However, I think we have to consider the possibility that the coaches and FO staff disagree with that. We see Fowler as a liability. Perhaps the FO doesn't. We see guard as an area of upgrade; we see the lack of depth as being a problem. Again, the front office must disagree. Certainly, if they saw the line as an area in need of help they could have drafted for that. And I'm not talking about with pick 11 or even 41. There were plenty of decent linemen on the boards in the later rounds, yet they steadily passed them by. So, my only logical conclusion is that the coaches and FO see the state of our lines differently than we do. Are they right? I don't know. But, I'm certain we'll find out by mid-season. If they're right and the line is creating holes and pass protecting well (regardless of who's in there), then this pick will look alot better. If Trent is rushed and Lynch is fighting to reach the LOS, then this pick will look like a bust, regardless of Mclovin's play. IMO. I think another way you can look at this pick is one of value. They looked at the players and many had McLovin rated in the top 10. So, if a top 10 pick slides to you - do you take him? Add to that the CB is/was a position of (marginal at least) need. And I think they felt they had to select him. If McLovin is off the board, would they have selected a CB? That's perhaps a more important question. Finally, I'll add.. Lori put up some numbers yesterday along the line of 11 starters in the secondary last season, 4 of which are no longer on the team. Just looking at that at face value, CB definitely seems like a much higher need position that OL. So, if you have a highly touted CB and a very good OL guy (Albert) on the board, wo do you pick? The guy that will likely be a starter by the end of the season or a guy that will be a backup? (Again, assuming that they like our line and have no intention of moving a new starter in.) Well, that's all I got as far as trying to justify this pick. My initial reaction was one of uuugh. Similar to the Whitner pick. Although, if he can solidify a spot as well as Whitner has (because like it or not, Whitner has solidified our safety postion) and the line continues to progress as it did last season, then it'll all be water under the bridge. So, we just have to be patient and see if the FO's plan works. But, IMO, they don't have long - one more season. No playoffs this year and heads should role.

Exactly.... different people have different motivations. For some it may be competition with a friend. For others, the drive to be in the HOF. For some it's just plain old money. The key is finding out what motivates the guy and using it. If it's money for this guy... no problem give him an incentive laden contract and gladly hand over the cash when he puts Brady's head on stake and delivers it to you.

Well seeing as how the Chiefs were all about saying they expected 6 starters; I'd say a team gets out of a draft what they want (for the most part). And yes, they may have tried to trade up and/or down and couldn't. However, I would think that if they wanted to move up a few spots sinto the high second or mid second, they could have. Plenty of teams moved around with fairly reasonable offers - why couldn't the Bills if they wanted to? My guess is they didn't because they didn't want to. Really, do you think they don't know Fowler blows? do you think they don't know they could vastly improve at TE? That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Just because you or I think they blow, that doesn't mean that Jauron does. I would rather that they waited until next year to fill a position with a top pick or in free agency than waste picks on marginal players that aren't any better than the guys they already have. I agree.

When was the last time there was pre-season hype about the Bills outside the city of Buffalo?

Under the title of... FWIW... NFLN TA just ended with a quick segment..who's under the radar and had a good draft. Tom Waddle selected the Bills. Said we made alot of good moves and got some great talent.