Logic

I think it depends on who they want. If it's Watson or Trubisky, they may need to take him at 10. If it's Mahomes or Peterman, they may be hoping to trade down and select him later while recouping a pick or two. If they could manage to trade down, draft a QB, AND add a 2nd or 3rd round pick, that would really be ideal.

Agreed. I don't think the owner of the football team is just playing along with a smokescreen setup. I think the Bills are legitimately interested in drafting one of the top 4 quarterbacks. We'll see in a couple weeks.

I think Bills fans should get used to the idea that QB @ #10 is a very real possibility. I'm not saying it's a lock, but when a team spends time working out every top QB prospect in the draft, not to mention Tyrod's "bridge" contract and McDermott saying "we want to address the QB position for the present AND the future"...it sure looks like more than a smokescreen. Sure, they could just be trying to bait a team to trade up to 10, but something tells me that team owners don't often come along to workouts just to set up a smokescreen. Honestly, they are in a perfect position to take a quarterback. Top 10 pick, decent starter to buy said pick a couple years on the bench, and a new head coach. The timing is right.

Marlon Humphrey, CB, Alabama. McDermott recently stated in an interview that the success of his defense is predicated on cornerbacks who can tackle well. Given Humphrey's tackling skill, size, playing style, and projected fit in a Cover 3 zone defense, I could see him being the pick. In this scenario, Watson, both safeties, Lattimore, and Foster would already have been selected.

Fair enough. But if various articles are to be believed, Whaley impressed upon all those he interviewed for HC after Marrone quit the importance of giving Manuel another shot, stating that Marrone had messed him up, etc...Many GMs have historically not been nearly so attached to a QB pick after a new head coach is brought in. They gave him every opportunity to re-gain his starting spot. I would venture to guess that the preferred outcome of the Manuel-Cassel-Taylor QB competition was EJ winning. Then he hit the hospitality tent with an errant pass. Anyway...I'm not denying that they met with Dak or liked him. I'm only saying that in my opinion, it was always going to be Cardale. I suppose we'll never know for sure.

I don't buy the "Bills would've drafted Dak but missed out due to Ragland trade!" narrative at all. Whaley is and always has been a height/weight/speed guy. He wants a big quarterback with a big arm. It's why he refused to abandon EJ and why he's STILL not sold on Tyrod Taylor as the Bills' franchise QB. Personally, I think he was gonna draft Cardale Jones regardless of Dak's availability. Just my opinion based on Whaley's clear preferences for the position and for football players in general.

If his last name wasn't Kelly, no Bills fan would have any interest in him whatsoever. That's all I'll say. If he lasts until the 7th, take a flyer. Otherwise, stay away.

Nah. The Falcons only lost because they over thought things and passed instead of ran the ball when they were in field goal range. Add that 3 to go up 11 with 4 minutes left and they'd have won. Make that TWO Super Bowls the Pats* have won now because the NFC team overthought things.

Why be worried? The Seahawks, with their super simple C3 zone defense, were one poorly timed red zone slant away from beating the Pats* in the Super Bowl. The Giants, also running an aggressive but somewhat simplistic zone-based 4-3, beat the Pats* in the Super Bowl TWICE. To add to that, I would say I'm actually MORE optimistic about McDermott's defense vs the Pats*. Why? The big nickel he plans to run will be helpful in stopping the TE-centric offense that NE likes to run. Oh, and one MORE thing: McDermott is known as being methodical, obsessively process driven, and very concerned with minute details. That sounds like EXACTLY the kind of mind we need to finally have a chance to beat Belichick.

First of all, while I agree that I'd like to see our passing offense upgraded, I don't think we will be throwing the ball enough to justify spending a 1st on a WR. You need to get McCoy, Sammy, and Clay targets in the passing game. That means the new WR would be, at best, a 4th option. Furthermore, it wasn't offense that lost us games last year, it was defense. That being said... If a trade down (or two) toward the bottom of the 1st can be achieved, then draft: Kevin King, CB. 6'3", long arms, ran almost a 4.4. Unreal size/speed ratio. Perfect corner for McDermott's defense. While I don't like the idea of drafting a corner at 10, trading down a couple times and adding, say, a 2nd and 3rd would make it palatable to me. I see both elite safeties being gone by our pick, and the value isn't necessarily there at 10 to draft an OLB. Then, with two 2nds, you can nab the best OLB and S left. If a trade down can NOT be achieved, then draft: Reuben Foster, LB. The value may not be right on, but I think he could come in and complete our front seven and be our Will for the next 10 years. Size, speed, ferocity, built in report with Ragland, coverage ability. A safe pick with a high floor, in my opinion.

I honestly feel that the Bills can address LB and WR in rounds 1 and 2 and STILL get a quality S and CB (quality zone corners can be found later, especially in a deep draft for the position) in rounds 3 and 5. That being said, I expect it to be a very defense heavy draft. While they will likely address the QB, RT, and WR positions, something tells me it will be with later picks. We shall see soon enough.

His NFL.com Draft profile notes that he was extremely raw coming out and should probably have stayed for his senior season. It says "could require patience". Here's hoping that a new environment, a badass d-line coach, and a second chance help him unlock his potential. At the very least, his presence along with that of Ryan Davis and Lorenzo Alexander lessons the immediacy of the need for edge depth.

Just wanted to pop in and say that I always represent the Bills in online Madden games. I am 108-78 using only the Bills and trying to play as fairly and realistically as possible (lots of exploit abusing, cheap little funkers online). The thing is, in Madden, speed has always mattered most. So with Watkins, Goodwin, Listenbee, Clay, Logan Thomas, and McCoy, not to mention the advantage of a mobile QB, the Bills offense in Madden is pretty hard to stop. People always pick the Cowboys or Patriots or Seahawks and have a good laugh when they see I've picked the Bills. Then I smoke 'em.

Yeah. Potential treason sure is hilarious!

I expect proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in an effort to sway the election. What happens after that? I have no idea. In a just world, impeachment proceedings and indictments. I'm not claiming to have a crystal ball, I'm just telling you what I expect to happen. Today alone, there was Schiff's "more than circumstantial evidence" line and the AP story about Manafort's job as an aid to Putin prior to becoming Trump's campaign manager. I -- and I am in the minority on this message board, I realize -- am inclined to think that there are far too many "coincidences", and far too much smoke, for this to all be just a bunch of meaningless liberal hand wringing. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it without hesitation. As I said: We shall see.

If we're talking "convenient" things...it's AWFULLY convenient that so many people connected to Trump and his campaign are, one by one, revealed to have shady ties to Russia. I mean one or two and maybe it's a coincidence...but I'm really wondering at this point what it's gonna take for some here to buy into the fact that maybe, at a certain point, smoke = fire. Sessions, Flynn, Manafort, Page, Tillerson, Kushner, Sater. How many Trump lackies have to have their dirty aired before you consider that maybe it's more than "convenient" that they're connected to Trump, who, as you know, is himself under investigation. And I stand by my statement that it will be an interesting few weeks and some unimaginable stuff is about to come down the pike. I'm not going to run off and hide if I'm wrong. I'll openly admit that I was incorrect. I hope others will do the same if the opposite is proven. We'll all find out soon enough one way or the other.

Things are about to get reeeeeally interesting over the next few weeks. Shouldn't be too long now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nunes-trump-russia-investigation_us_58d2e0b5e4b02d33b748452d Man Tasked With Investigating Trump’s Ties To Russia Makes Friendly Visit To White House “If a Democrat had done this, Republicans would have been asking for him to be investigated both for disclosing classified information and for obstructing justice,” said Matthew Miller, a Department of Justice spokesman during the Obama administration. “It is so far beyond the pale for the person who is conducting an investigation to both brief the subject of that investigation and potentially jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the FBI.” We need an independent investigation like YESTERDAY. Via Twitter: Schiff tells @ChuckTodd: “there is more than circumstantial evidence now…there is evidence that is not circumstantial” —@MeetThePress edit: Add John McCain to the list of those calling for an independent investigation in the wake of Nunes' actions.

Peer-reviewed articles is the standard now? That's funny. I see nothing but newsbusters, National Review, and Fox News much of the time.

I don't suppose you read the very next paragraph in that link? "Just as stunning was the admission by Director Comey, speaking for both the Bureau and the Department of Justice, that the president’s tweetstorm accusation that Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower is nonsense. Nobody in the Intelligence Community has found a shred of evidence to support Trump’s outlandish claim, while Director Rogers explained that NSA’s British partner agency, GCHQ, was not involved in any surveillance of Team Trump—another bizarre accusation the White House backed, notwithstanding that such conspiracy-theorizing is of Russian origin."

http://observer.com/2017/03/fbi-nsa-congressional-session-trump-putin-kremlin/ "Monday’s marathon Congressional session about Moscow’s clandestine machinations during our 2016 election was one for the books. The directors of the FBI and NSA hardly ever speak jointly in open session, so this was a truly special event, and what they had to say rocked American politics. Together, the FBI’s James Comey and NSA’s Mike Rogers made it abundantly clear to the House Intelligence Committee that Russian spies interfered in last year’s presidential campaign, to the detriment of Hillary Clinton and the benefit of Donald Trump. Moreover, the new president and his team are under FBI counterintelligence investigation, and have been since last summer, in an inquiry that’s attempting to get to the bottom of this unpleasant mess—including assessing if there was any clandestine collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump." For those who still make insistences to the contrary.

To be fair, I am in agreement that Wikipedia is not a quality "source". That being said, everything I posted in the quote from that link was factual. It wasn't as if it was erroneous information. Furthermore, I wouldn't call newbsusters.org, the National Review, or Fox News "reliable, fact-based reporting" either, yet I see those "sources" used here constantly.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/ "President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests." It's getting smokey in here. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breitbart-covered-by-fbis-russia-probe-report/article/2617956#.WNHYNN614Fw.twitter "Breitbart News, the right-leaning news site that aggressively promoted Donald Trump's bid for the presidency, is part of the FBI's probe on Russia's influence of the election, according to a report. The report, by McClatchy, said the FBI is looking at whether Breitbart and other "far-right news operations took any actions to assist Russia's operatives." Breitbart was formerly run by President Trump's White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon, who left the site to chair Trump's campaign in the fall." et tu, Bannon?

Thanks for this response. Well reasoned and civil. Sometimes it's tough to acknowledge that, while much of the GOP have been selfish, obstructionist children the past eight years, it doesn't mean democrats have to follow suit. You're probably correct, though.