Matt in KC

A sustained pattern of criminal behavior... This really is embarrassing for the NFL. I fully expect the league to hand down a harsh fine/suspension.

Nice draft! I posted a topic a week ago (http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=62764&hl=)listing what I thought were our top needs. We seem to agree RB, LB and CB come first. I also concluded another LB was our next most pressing need, so we seem to agree on Day 1. Where we differ is that I think getting another RB / FB and another Center/Guard is a higher priority than you. My "surprise pick" is a DE on the second day. Also, we really need another safety since Bowen was released. We may find a "new" (FA) Bowen instead of drafting another this year, so you may be right. I was suprised you selected a WR in the 4th. Do you really think Courtney Taylor or Paul Williams could beat out Price and Parrish for the #2 receiver position? I don't know much about eithre of these guys but your description of Taylor makes him sound like Aiken (who is going into the final year of his contract I might add).

1. Adrian Peterson - Houston 2. Patrick Willis - San Fran 3. Brady Quinn - Minnesota 4. Amobi Okoye - Miami 5.Ted Ginn, Jr - Atlanta

I think Talent, Need and Alternatives are all factors in making a choice. Example: LB - Willis is available Need: 90% (considers who is already on our roster) Talent: 90% Alternatives: 75% (higher = less alternatives if this player is not selected) Overall Decision score: .90 x .90 x .75 = .608 RB - Lynch is available Need: 97% Talent: 85% Alternatives: 65% (includes FAs) Overall Decision score: .97 x .85 x .65 = .536 WR - Ginn Need: 40% Talent: 87% Alternatives: 50% (includes FAs) Overall Decision score: .40 x .87 x .60 = .174 DT - Branch Need: 30% Talent: 93% Alternatives: 75% (includes FAs) Overall Decision score: .30 x .93 x .60 = .167 In the scenario where these players are available, I think we select Willis, not because LB is our biggest need, or because he's the most talented player available, but because he's the best fit of need, talent and our alternatives.

WR is really a longshot position for us to pick in the first round. Would this answer the "draft for need" versus draft talent question for the Bills front office...? I was okay with the Whitner pick last year because it was a big need, not just to get a safety, but to transition to the Cover 2. (So, draft for need last year, and ignore need this year?) I agree with your points except that I thought Reed did well as a possession receiver for us last year (34 catches, 21 first downs, 410 yards, 12.1 average). I think we have too many needs to take a WR early this year, but would not be surprised if WR is one of our top two picks next year. Nate hasn't returned punts for us in awhile: 35 in 2004, 8 in 2005, 0 in 2006. Nate's Stats at NFL.com Roscoe Parrish OTOH did well for us returning punts. We could maybe use depth at the returner positions, but McGee and Parrish are doing fine. I would be surprised if anyone else took over this year (barring injury).

I'm planning on returning to DC for that game. A Redskin's season ticket holder friend of mine knows I'm a Bills fan and is giving me his other seat. 200-level seats sound great. Here's an interactive web page where you can click on your exact section and get a look at the field. Maybe if you click on that section you can see what "obstructed view" is all about. (Maybe those fans stand for the entire game? ) What section are you in? I'll be in the upper deck somewhere.... http://www.redskins.com/tickets/stadium.jsp

So now we're definitely drafting a WR!

Great work! I've had that happen to me too, and I don't think there's an easy way to preserve the formatting. You could enter the spaces manually and use Courier font (all characters are the same width), or post the table elsewhere and put a link here. What you did is good enough for anyone who's interested. Thanks!

Hopefully Davis is finding out his market value and gives us a chance to sign him at or just above what he is offered. I'd love to have him back for his special teams play.

Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS - Win Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers - Win Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots - Lose Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS - Lose Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS - Lose Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS - Win Oct. 28 @ New York Jets - Win Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS - Win Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins - Lose Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - Lose Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars - Lose Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins - Win Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS - Win Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns - Lose Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS - Lose Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles - Lose 7-9 - If it happens this way, it will be a roller coaster ride...

Nice breakdown by clownments22 Teams seem to win 53-54% of the time the week after their bye.

Peterson probably puffed on a pipe prior to performing.

One of those games for Pittsburgh they also have the previous week off, so I'm not sure you can count that as a disadvantage. For the Bills the games are against division rivals (Miami and New England) and are in consecutive weeks. I think division games are too important for this to be scheduled randomly, especially if random means we "always" get New England after their bye when we play the week before.

So, anyone know when the HD games will be determined / announced?

So your top three guesses are 0-8, 3-6 and 5-3? Looking at this schedule, part of me thinks we could finsh the first half of the season 0-8, but another part of me thinks maybe 1-7, but another part of me thinks maybe 2-6, but another part of me thinks maybe 3-5, but another part of me thinks maybe 4-4, but another part of me thinks maybe 5-3, but another part of me thinks maybe 6-2, but another part of me thinks maybe 7-1, but another part of me thinks maybe 8-0. ...sorry, I couldn't resist.

Just so anyone reading this doesn't have to go look for the same thing: We play Miami and New England the week after their bye week. Neither of them play an opponent coming off of their bye. The Jets play Phili the week after Phili's bye.

This game (11/18) is the week following our game against Miami where they have a bye the preceeding week.

I bet Mike Williams ends up a Buccaneer.

Is that 2.5 smilies, or 3.5?

Okay, thanks. I somehow missed the thread title. I'm tired.... I think this mock has us drafting one LB too many for our needs and I don't know many of the college players projected to be drafted after the first round or two this year, so forgive me. If we can get Willis, then a CB in the second, and Turner, we're off to a great start. If Tanard Jackson can backup at safety, and the other (again, not two more!) RB is more of a specialist (FB/short yardage), than I think this is close to what we need. Fill in some combo of a OG/C, DE, TE or a promising WR for the two players you took out (RB, LB), and I'm sold.

Am I losing my mind or are you? If we traded for Turner, you'd be happy with drafting 3 LBs, 2 more RBs and 2 DBs? Or are you finding a way to tell N.Y. Orangeman he's lost his mind and I'm too thick to catch it?

Yes, Schobel often fell back into coverage (1-3 times per game) in the zone blitz and did quite well... for a defensive end. Denney would occasionally drop back, but Kelsay never did. I can't imagine they'd consider playing Schobel in another position after his trip to the Pro Bowl. I would ignore the recent player weight updates. If they were thinking of something like this, Denney would be the logical DE to ask to play LB.

If you look at the begining of my post, I say "My positions and reasons are below, in the order I think they are important and likely to be selected." If you count, you'll see that I agree with you that TE, WR and QB are not the most likely to be drafted with our eight selections, but are the next most pressing needs. (I list them after LB, RB, CB, LB, C/OG, DE, FB/RB and S). As I mentioned, I'd like to start grooming another DE for depth since Schobel/Denney/Kelsay play regularly, and because I don't think Hargrove is more than a ST player and stop gap DE. If HargroveforMVP=Anthony Hargrove, then go prove me wrong! Yes, with 3-4 year contracts the norm in the NFL, you have to (re)build 1/4 to 1/3 of your team in an average year. We have 8 draft picks and I listed 11 positions where I think we could use help. I listed DE so high on this list because we could still use a better pass rush and it seems impossible to find affordable DE talent in free agency. Maybe we should start growing another one. The positions listed lower are more easily be found in FA IMO.

I would love to see another receiver on the roster, but I think Price's contract, plus Marv's comments about "being happy with who we have" mean this position probably waits until next year. If Willis is gone, I suspect we take Lynch with our 1st round pick. I don't think it's easy to trade down so we might grab someone unexpected, but WR would definitely be a "shocker."

Boy, I sure hope so. With our WR speed and JP's arm it really could be exciting. ...but we'll never find out if we can't provide pass protection. Reed seems to be doing a good job as our possession reciever, consistently coming back to JP when he feels pressure. I liked everything but Price's lack of blocking last year...until I looked at his stats. Price's YpC is bad-possession-reciever-like and I suspect this is his last year on the team in a stopgap role. (Reed 12.1, Price 8.2) Actually, Clumpy's page says Price signed through 2009, so who knows. I could have sworn he signed a two year deal. Why do you call Price our possession reciever and not Reed? I still think a first day pick is going to be a CB, but not because I think Yobouty can't play. We often have three CBs on the field at once, they take awhile to develop, and good ones are not available for cheap. You have to draft them. I suspect we keep the pipeline full with a 3rd round CB, or a 4th rounder if we see someone else we can't pass up in the 3rd. Given how well Clements played in the second half of 2006, we need a lot of things to go right on defense for us to not feel a significant drop-off this year. That's not to say we've made any bad choices, just that we lost a good player.