1B4IDie

Oh I guess you got me, high draft picks win popularity contests more often. But wait look further: #1 Picks - 11 #2 Picks - 8 #3 Picks - 9 #4 Picks - 9 #5 Picks - 6 #6 Picks - 10 #7 PIcks - 1 #8 Picks - 4 #9 Picks - 3 #10 Picks - 2 #11 Picks - 5 Wow the Bills should really do every thing in their power to go 1-15, because there is 1 more hall of famer chosen #1 overall than #6 overall. Since its very unlikely the bills draft lower than 6 this season, you better do all your rooting against the Bills to ensure the Highest draft pick, because wait, why? I'll append my statement: A Top 10 player's translation to the NFL has more to do with coaching, organizational opportunity, and personal individual determination than whether they were picked #6 or #2.

This is all anecdotal hoping and wishing. "There will be an elite player, or semi elite player or moderate elite player." It's not too early to identify who specifically you want to draft that requires the Bills to lose inorder to draft? Most College teams have 3 games left in their carreer. Have you not identified your Mario Williams yet? Haloti Ngada wasn't drafted top 3, the aforementioned Patrick Willis wasn't drafted top 3. Brian Orakpo wasn't taken in the top 3. If you look at player performance overtime as related to draft position you will not find any consistency between where a player was drafted in the Top 20 and their NFL success rate. Go ahead find 1 study that shows Top 10 picks translate to the NFL better than Top 20 picks, or Top5 picks translate better than Top 10 picks. You won't find one because it doesn't exist. A Top 20 player's translation to the NFL has more to do with coaching, organizational opportunity, and personal individual determination than whether they were picked #7 or #2.

Thats all well and good in theoretical land where you can assign draft weight to each draft position and having a very highly weighted draft pick position means you're positioned for a great draft. But in reality its November 2010 the College Football Season is almost over. Who specifically is your Bruce Smith? Specifically what player are you going to put men in harms way on a NFL field and purposely lose games to draft? Who is specifically worth this contrived, small minded strategy that doesn't see the forest for the trees? If you're going to suggest that the Bills go 1-15 in 2010 to get a higher pick you better be able to specify who they should draft, otherwise go back to playing Madden.

+1000 I want to earn that extra Buffalo some day.

I'm traveling to Minnesota for that game. Mostly to see Favre and Peterson too, Please Favre hold on, just a few more game now, Are you a Minneapolis native? Its doesn't seem like there is tailgating there. Is it true that the tailgating takes place at a bar? Sounds like I'll be there.

Look at Bradford. Thats more Luck's Luck.

This was actually the point:

Right. I don't think there is much risk of losing draft position for him in particular, but you're right why go back? Is getting a degree and ganging out with his sister that important? Thats for Luck to decide. The pragmatic answer is come out and start your career. (Especially if Cowher is in Carolina with the #1 pick)

I agree to that. Luck may come out for many reasons but one reason is not because this is the last year of bananas contracts is the point that I think we both agree on. If he is any good the difference in guaranteed money from 2011 to 2012 will be a drop in the bucket to his overall earning potential. Getting a check for $20 mil in August 2011 is much better than preparing for class and the Cal game in August 2011, its compelling but for Luck the money will probably always be there.

I never implied they are starting from scratch, I don't know where you got that from. I implied that that 10% is a little more sticky then you believe. The TV money is guaranteed if there are no games, The owners negotiated that in the contract. That's what will activate the Nuclear bomb, when the regular season starts and the owners are still collecting TV revenue while the players are out in the cold. The Nuclear bomb to summarize basically puts the TV contract in jeopardy and the CBS and FOX can stop paying and take legal action to void the contract; or the won't because they don't NBC or VS to be favored in a new contract after the lockout and the owners are still sitting pretty collecting checks. If the TV contract is voided there would be no football in 2011 for sure. It will get really messy and both sides don't want this. I do think that the CBA will be straightened out before August. You can brush everything off as posturing if you want, and hey maybe they come to agreement in early march, Jerry Jones and some NFLPA guy say they ironed it out over some beers in Dallas and they both look like heroes. But the point being if they do agree to a new CBA, why would the rookie contract pool not start until 2012? The NFLPA and NFL both agree in principal that its crazy that Bradford makes more than Brady. So they iron out the 10% in March then they turn around and sign Luck to a 6 year 60 Mil guaranteed contract? Not likely. Sam Bradford was the last one to get the bananas contract.

Dude, I like Mallet, Check the signature. I'm just discussing the Lewin system. I assumed Mallet would be over 60% for his career but he is going to finish just under. If the Bills draft Mallet I'll be happy, my biggest concern with him is durability. Worst case scenario imo he is Matt Stafford, but that's still TBD, as Stafford looks good when he is then gets knocked around by an O-Line that is far worse than the Bills and can't play for 6-8 weeks at a time. Mallet and Luck are both good prospects and pass the eye test. I'll be happy with either with the edge to Luck. But Luck doesn't walk on water he still has some learning. This week against Cal is huge. Every Bills fan should be DVRing the Akansas and Stanford game this week. Cal may not be a great team but on the road in a late season Pac-10 game, there will be lots of pressure, I expect Luck to do look great. Mallet has a tough stretch here and these games are going to be very important to prove his draft stock.

I guess you're not out of tune, you're just seeing what you want to see. Did you actually read the articles you linked to, because they kinda prove my point that players probably won't be signed and that there will be a lockout. Check this out: http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Lockout-Steps/ August 2010: NFL team executives negotiated contracts of the 2010 first-round draft picks to reflect the belief there will be a lockout in 2011 by changing the payment date of option bonuses from the first two weeks of the league year, which begins in March, to around the time the first regular-season game is played in 2011, whenever that may be. I guess you can call that posturing. Also the fact that part of a an NFL contract process is an NFLPA approved agent negotiating the contract and must have NFLPA approval. So if you think that the NFLPA and NFL are going to be aside the CBA negotiations and the NFL owners are going sign rookies to gigantic contracts which is a negotiation topic in the CBA than have the NFLPA approve the gigantic contracts you're really not seeing whats going on here. So yes the NFL can sign scab players outside of the NFLPA but its not likely, that a drafted player is going to sign a scab contract. Being De certified, is called the "nuclear bomb" which means that the NFL is no longer a regulated monopoly by the Federal Government and the players can sign anywhere including the UFL. The UFL is basically in business betting on a 2011 lockout. Free Agents can play in the UFL instead of cross picket lines and scab on the NFLPA. I don't know about players under contract. You have to realize that you are a little out of tune with anyone paying attention to the situation. All signs are pointing to a lockout. Its not just a simple, lets tidy up this 10% and move on, type of a thing if it were the deadline for March 2011 has been there for 2 years and no one has made any real progress. The NFLPA thinks there will be a lockout, the owners think there will be a lockout, the lenders to the NFL think there will be a lockout and in January of 2011 when college players have to declare the college players are definitely going to hear it from their coaches and family that there is going to be a lockout. Although K Gun Special will tell you, no big deal 90% is in the bag, don't worry, the Owners will give you 80 million when you sign, no problem.

And Ofcourse ESPN has to run with this. This is a non-event. Nothing to see here, please move on.

I don't mean this as a personal attack but you're really out of tune with the labor contract. Its not a re-neg, the CBA was voted out by the owners in March of 2008, 2009 was the last year of the CBA, then the "uncapped year" which is 2010, is a proviso to ensure that there is football for one more year while the two sides negotiate. If the owners didn't want a lockout they wold have used the uncapped year to re-negotiate. There are no negotiations going on, there isn't a meeting scheduled until December. The owners absolutely want a lockout. They know that the NFL players don't have the war chest to last and the NFL owners will get what they want. Read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810 Its much better than a Mort Report Tweet that there will be no rookie salary cap in 2011. I know you're basing your opinion on what you think is common sense. The NFL Owners are looking at the long view. If you look at the MLB and past lockouts, the fans will be there in 2011, 2012, or 2013 the owners have a war chest, the players don't. The owners feel they got a raw deal in the last CBA and are going to do whatever they can to get the deal the way they want it in the next CBA. This is the reality. If there’s a lockout, will there still be a draft next spring? Yes, but it won’t be business as usual for the teams or for the players they select. With no CBA in place, teams won’t be able to sign players, and those post-draft minicamps will be non-existent. Also, in the absence of a CBA, the league’s ability to generate revenues from the new crop of big-name draftees will be limited. In other words, if you want to purchase one of those sweet new Jake Locker jerseys in the aftermath of his being drafted, you’ll have to buy one without his name on the back of it or wait until a new CBA is signed.

I agree with this. This is the one scenario where it does make sense for Luck to get drafted into the NFLPA picket lines. If Harbaugh does leave then Luck can go learn a new offense in the NFL, whenever that will be, just as easy as Stanford. I personally have no read on this. Rich Rod was a deadman walking in Michigan from day 1 is about all I personally know. People have brought that up many times. If Harbaugh does jump then I would agree that Luck would jump. Otherwise he has a good thing going at Stanford with an uncertain labor situation in the NFL, it's very likely he stays in.

Locker was never really highly regarded by anyone besides Kiper and McShay. Locker went back to school because he had a second or third round grade in reality. Luck will be the #1 pick in 2011 and 2012. When the CBA expires in March 2011 no one can be signed. Rookie or Vet. This is a fact. So why would a player spend 6-12 months waiting for the CBA to be finalized, and not getting paid because owners cannot sign anyone when they can go play ball in school and be the big man on campus another year.

I have to agree. I thought that was the strangest post by Mango. QB play is at an all time high. You're forgetting about Aaron. Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers, Matt Shaub, Sam, Bradford, And Jay Cutler. Not to mention More questionable QBs like Carson Palmer, Colt McCoy, Vince Young, and Troy Smith. Steroids? Really? I didn't know it was 1985? It's HGH. If you think usage has increased from the 80s, you've white washed the past. The NFL has always had a revolving door. That has not changed. So why would that matter in 2010 but not 1985. Doesn't make much sense. There is a better product on the field. In all reality the 2010 Baltimore Ravens would do the Super Bowl shuffle all over the 1985 Chicago Bears it would be 51-0 blowout with the Ravens winning. The fridge was 299 pounds and got in trouble for being over 300, an average NT is 330 pounds and thats on the small side. Players are bigger stronger faster and the NFL is better for it.

The Bills would be 19-0 because he would genocide the opposition, but it would be a PR disaster. I think we should leave him alone. (did I take it too far? Those is jokes)

You stick Mallet on that Washington team and you get more wins, everyone keeps saying the talent isn't there in W, but I think that statement is right if you add "under Center" to that statement. I've never seen a crappier QB get ranked higher and get a constant pass on "the talent around him." He is playing like Doo Doo right now because Jack Locker = Doo Doo.

Seriously, I can't believe this thread is still going. You could already see where this was going from the start. "Vick is horrible he killed and tortured doggies." "Vick has changed, America is about second chances, its time to forgive." "I don't care he killed doggies" "He could help the Bills win." "I don't care he killed doggies." "You're dumb and unforgiving" "No you're dumb and Vick is Evil." "No you are" "No you are" Vick is equally as likely to be a Buffalo Bill as the man that seems to be everywhere lately, Adolf Hitler.

As a mod I would pin an Andrew Luck is/is not God thread, Losing out to get the #1 is a horrible/good idea thread, and a Mallet/Locker/Newton thread Or propose that a mod pin these threads.

The Bills just have so many needs but the reason I put QB at P2 instead of P1 is because I think that getting a pass rush in 2011 would immediately lead to more Ws. Finding a long term solution at QB can't outweigh the short term pass rushing need though. Plus The RT position is such a mess that it is a top tier need, obviously you wouldn't draft a RT at #4 so I'm just assuming that the draftek player ranking will take care of not picking a RT too high. Next would be more 2-4 year and depth needs. Depth and starters at ILB depending on the 3-4, or 4-3 alignment Depth at Rotation and NT, and DT depending on the 3-4, or 4-3 alignment. One Solution at LT and RT is find a better LT than Bell then move Bell to RT so that is why I gave LT a P3 But Bell has been doing OK so its not a P2 right now. TEs? Do we have those on the current roster? If Wood is long term solution at C its kind of dynamic situation on a draft board. Basically don't draft a pure G, Draft a big intelligent C\G like the Colts do, They just draft Center\Guards and put them at Guard then you possibly create a line that should understand protections better. I thought it was interesting you have WR at P4, there is a need, but if Nix has anything to do with the seemingly endless line of big WRs that the Chargers have (VJAx, Floyd, Nannee, Tutu, (I think Buster Davis is under 6",) Then he might draft WRs as his pet projects Or TEs (when Gates goes down they seem to have another big guy that steps in take his place) It is a lower priority need but WRs don't translate well to the NFL so you constantly need to bring new WRs to see how can work out, and they make pretty good Special Teamers same as LBs. Maybe the lack of depth at LB, TE, and WR is another reason our special teams have been struggling more than usual.

Strategically losing to get the #1 is only plausable if a GM has identified a player that they believe is of a franchise changing nature, a 1 out of every 10 or 20 year player. Certainly the only player in the 2010 draft that could be possibly considered that special may be Andrew Luck and there is not any guarantee he will be there. So you lose out in 2010, Luck doesn't declare and you draft Failey. Not really a sound long term strategy A strategy of strategically losing to get a higher draft position creates a franchise that continually loses. When do you decide to start strategically winning? It's the most prudent course to always strategically win. Canton is filled with players that were drafted from #5-#14 too.

Thats right Strategically losing is only plausable if a GM has identified a player that they believe is of a franchise changing nature, a 1 out of every 10 or 20 year player. Certainly the only player in the 2010 draft that could be possibly considered that special may be Andrew Luck and there is not any guarantee he will be there. I actually am one of the few that think Andrew Luck will not declare. A strategy of strategically losing to get a higher draft position creates a franchise that continual loses. When do you decide to start strategically winning? It's the most prudent course to always strategically win. Canton is filled with players that were drafted from #5-#14 too.

QB=P2 C= P3 LT=P3 DE=P2 OLB=P2 RT=P2 NT=P3 ILB=P3 WR=P4 TE=P3 All other positions are listed at P9. There is no such thing as P7 or P8, and I haven't used any P6's. I made my suggested adjustments. Luck trumps all.