4BillsintheBurgh

Run stopping ILB Pass defending ILB Pass rushing OLB Primarily pass catching TE, better be able to block (assuming S Nelson is out and Chandler is the blocking TE) Backup QB 5 technique DE CB Short yardage thumper RB #1 WR - I don't think Evans is up for the entire route tree

Peterson Miller Green

Umm, don't think the play was run 95% of the time in the game. I'm assuming that it was run specifically in the 3-wide, TE, single back set that was mentioned. I would think the qb reads the safety and has a run/pass option. Since the Bills did not have enough confidence in their secondary to bring a safety up, KC took what they were given.

5 technique ends like Jordan are not taken high historically, I think I remember hearing something that Tyson Jackson was the first one taken in the top ten in the last 10 years or so. I don't think the positional value is there in the 3-4, it would be sort of like picking a rb that high. Not that Jordan wouldn't work out, I just think the perception is the dropoff from #1 to #10 3-4 DE is not as great as the dropoff from #1 to #10 qb, lt, wr, cb, etc.

Any short, stout, small school ilb's out there?

I would suggest the commitment to sports is as business like as the commitment to the rest of the students. It's all a business, and with the cost of college, every student has to get a decent job just to pay for it, or else they'll be living in their parents basement and riding a bike to work. The only thing the education does for you now is get you a better job.

They should also include some classes on finance.

If we want, the better opportunity to go down may be at 34. Someone may covet a "first round talent" there.

The ignore poster functionality can make a whole thread look less ignorant.

I like B the best becaus eit would help the run d the most. I could really get into 2 lbs at the top of the draft; I would love to have a Timmons/Woodley draft like the Steelers did a couple years ago. The only one I don't like is Ponder, but other than that it looks good to me.

Well, that was a lot to digest. I will just say a couple things: I don't believe Gailey will have any problem developing a qb. Kordell was basically a rookie when Gailey was working with him in Pittsburgh, drafted in 95 and Gailey there in 96-97. Chan was able to have Kordell exceed the talent he had. I am not longing for the next Jim Kelly. I realize that in order to get to Super Bowl this team needs a qb who is better than Fitz. In comments OBD always mentions with regards to him is getting us to the playoffs, not about the Super Bowl. I am saying IF there is a franchise qb at #3, how can you not take him? Really? What has any of those qb's listed done when not under Chan? I don't know much about the chan/bulger time, but the rest of them all had some of their best years under chan. I don't see how you don't think chan could take a rookie qb and allow him to excel.

We need a backup qb at this point. Brohm seems to be out and I'm assuming Brown will not be ready for that role if there are games in 2011. Then there's the question of the free agency period. I think there has to be some chance for them to a vet at some point after the draft, but can they count on getting a guy they want? So if Brown is not the developmental guy then okay, go ahead and pick a later round qb. But if there is a franchise qb there at #3 we should take him because he should be able to claim the backup role for the next year or two. I think Chan will have some patience with a qb as long as he has the correct mental makeup. I think this past years actions have proven that - they gave Trent a chance and when they saw he was not up to the task despite the physical skills they kicked him to the curb. The other positions take a back seat to picking up a franchise qb. Big money will be paid to the player at #3 anyway unless the rookie pay scale is implemented for this draft. Buddy/Chan/Ralph have repeated said that we are building for the long term, not next year. This means picking the best long term player, and I can't think of a better position to have a top player at than qb, can you? We need talent on this team, that's what a pick like spiller is all about - getting talent on the roster for the long term. With the rest of the picks they will address the needs of the team, just like they did last year. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just think that's what they're going to do. I will say I wholeheartedly agree that is in the best long term interests for the Bills. They just need to pick the correct players more frequently than most of the rest of the teams which is where the problem has been in the past. They've added 5 DL/OL in the past 2 drafts and I would be suprised if we don't get another 2 in rounds 2-4.

If we take a DE in the first round, he needs to be a guy that demands double teams in the 5 technique. I think the number three pick is worth spending on that guy unless there is a franchise qb on the board. I'm assuming the reason that you guys have Jordan more scheme diverse than the other 4-3DT/3-4DE's is that he will be better in space, but I haven't seen any tape on him. With Jordan I only fear the Ngata syndrome where you don't take the bpa because he doesn't fit as well in your scheme. I think maybe Wanny may have some say on this, probably suggesting we will be able to work with the 4-3DT and to take the bpa instead of the scheme guy. If Jordan is flat out better, that's fine, but we can't miss on a DE in the first round, he needs to be a starter day 1.

I thought the chart was interesting and really underscores the Bills drafting problems in all rounds of the draft. We just do not get enough players (especially lineman) from the draft. I really like what the Bills have done in the past couple of years and I hope they can have another draft with a couple linemen in the first three rounds.

Only after I call you up and act like an idiot on the phone. Then you're more than welcome too.

I had the same issue a while ago, and stumbled upon this in another forum. Unfortunately it's not great, but it beats wanting to punch the screen when you spend a ton of time and it still looks like poo.

Thanks for clarifying this Astro, I appreciate the work you put in to provide info to us. I haven't played around with your site too much yet, still a little early for me. One small thing for displaying cut and pastes that you could find helpful. Put the word "code" in between brackets ([]) before your cut and paste and then a closing one also "/code" also in brackets to get everything to line up nicely. If you've ever noticed when you reply to someone their text is started with a "quote" in brackets and the "/quote" finishes it. Same thought here, just swap the word quote with code. Just trying to save your dash key a little exercise. Here is an example that I aligned with spaces. Edit: If you reply to this, you will see the syntax. Rnk Player College Ht Wt P1 P2 P2Dif Chng 1 Patrick Peterson LSU 6'1" 211 FS CB -10 +1

I was wondering something about the big board rankings. If I plug our postions into the value and say in the case of Peterson who I'm guessing we would use as a cb because we have Byrd, wouldn't that knock him down 10 spots (the P2 diff as of 2/27/2011 from FS to cb)? So then our bpa in the first would be (1) Green, (2) Cam Jordan, (3) Von Miller and (4) Julio Jones. Is that how the p2 diff works?

Why is it about productivity? Heck, it's not even about the knowledge level of the guy on the phone. In this case it seems like a courtesy call. Not to speak for him, but it's about being heard I think. Heck, I bet Albany would have been good with a "Hey, I don't know, but you can check out verizon.com for more detailed info", not just the next line on the script.

I guess I'll take that. Must be Albany's fault, right? Or someone else's? it's impossible for the call center guy to take ownership of what he's doing and actually try and answer the questions? God forbid he comes back with "Sir, if you give me a second I can look that up for you" or something else remotely helpful to at least signal he is actually listening? I know, he only makes $3 an hour, he's not given this, he's not given that. It's not his fault, he's only doing what he's told. Whatever. Have fun in the call center, and take what you get for the effort you give.

I was thinking more like woefully inconsistent, unfortunately.

I think the need at qb is a backup. That's why I think they either take one at #3 or they don't take one at all. I agree that if Nix thinks there is a franchise qb available you have to take him. The plan will be not to be drafting that high again, and a franchise qb will help us the most long term. And the concern is long term, not next year. There are run stoppers available after the 1st round believe it or not.

I would love to see him and Merriman (healthy) on the field together next year. The run d would be impressive I think. The only concern at that point is if we can get an ilb or two that can cover, assuming these two may have some issues. The vid is impressive but I only saw 2 or 3 games there, most of it against uva. #67 took a beating in film review, that's for sure. The only thing with Quinn is the mental side, will he handle the money etc. If he can, I think he's a nice pick at 3 and looks like someone who can make some plays.

I don't think Poz is great at coverage and I think we really need a wilb (at least as I understand the position) to have that skill. I would say in round 2 if there is an ilb that can cover, even if he is not the most physical that fill a need. I'm beginning to wonder if Poz is not in our plans, maybe Edwards/Chan consider him a 4-3 middle backer and not a fit for the 3-4. Considering they had Moats at ilb before needing him outside where he did well, and now they're moving Batten inside it seems like they really don't like the vets on the roster. I still think we need a thumper in there, but I'm guessing coverage skills are more difficult to find so we can get that ilb a little later.

I've been there a few times over my years in Pitt, it seems to be a fine collection of plants. I don't have anything to compare it against though. I'll take JR's word for it.