folz

I'd have Phil Hansen ahead of Jerry Hughes, at least at this point.

My mom was a big Bills fan, my dad was a big college basketball fan. He became a huge Larry Bird fan when Larry was at Indiana State and then followed him into the Pros, so we became Celtics fans (hated the Lakers). Was originally a Yankees fan, but changed to Orioles fan around 10 years old because of the Rochester connection and then I went to college in Boston, where I could see Fenway from my dorm window (so I went to a lot of games). So, I'm not a Sox fan, but don't have any hatred toward the team, and I love the history of the team (Ted Williams, Yaz, etc.). Went to school with Yaz's daughter. I'm indifferent about the Bruins. And, yes, Hate the Patriots!!! Go Bills!

The firing of Polian...followed by... The firings of John Butler and Wade Phillips and then subsequent hiring of Tom Donahoe and Greg Williams. That started the drought! But, I guess those are really more mistakes (by Ralph) than whiffs. The true definition of whiff would have to be Mike Williams. Getting absolutely nothing out of a #4 overall non-QB pick is a major strike out. I guess you could make a case for Tom Cousineau, since he went #1 overall, but at least he was a good player (though not for the Bills) and he garnered the Bills the draft pick that would land Kelly. Sammy has to be in the conversation too for what they gave up for him and where he ended up being drafted. And trade-wise, you can include Rob Johnson. But I think Mike Williams has to be #1 whiff.

When Whaley released Fred Jackson!

I voted Thurman (leads all Bills RBs in yards, led the league in yards from scrimmage 4 years in a row...only other player to ever do that was Jim Brown, would have been Super Bowl MVP if Norwood's kick went through. How many RBs win that over their HOF QB? Was huge in the playoffs/big games---186 and 3 TDs in Championship game vs. Chiefs, etc.). And for some reason, Joe Cribbs was the 2nd player I thought of when first reading the post, though of course O.J. and Thurman are really 1a/1b...and you can debate about which of the two should be on top. Not old enough to have seen Cookie play, so can't really choose him as my favorite. I am a huge Freddie fan!!!! And Shady would round out the top 5 for me. Thurman O.J. Cribbs Freddie Shady honorable mention: Kenny Davis...loved his unselfishness and competitiveness and the guy knew how to find the endzone Shout out to some guys that didn't make the poll: Robb Riddick and Greg Bell

Exactly, I'm thinking that they are expecting to start McCarron and run a quick passing game, long drives, Shady, and a tough defense. Even if Allen were to win the job at some point, you don't want to put too much on the rookie's plate, so it would still be a good plan. Then next year as hopefully Allen is progressing and you have tons of free agent money and a full compliment of draft picks, you get your #1 WR, resign KB as 1a, and hopefully Zay (in year 3) has developed and then you can start opening the offense up. I think they will pass a lot more this year than last, but I also expect the passing game to still be somewhat conservative, mostly safe throws, etc. (unless the stars align...i.e., McCarron or Allen shine, Zay blows up, KB is the man, and another WR shows). I think they are preparing for the worst from the QB position, to be able to win even if no QB plays great (like last year), but if one or more of them comes on, then they can open up and expand it. But realistically that might not fully happen until next year. This year we're just looking for guys who can hold down the fort, safe outlets, good, fast route runners. But then again, you never know when McBeane is gonna pull another rabbit out of their collective hat.

None of us knows yet how this will turn out, or which QB will turn out to be the best, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Bills picked the right kid for Buffalo: playing in weather, the Jim Kelly/Big Ben size and toughness, blue collar, confident but humble (unlike Rosen), wanted to be in Buffalo, work ethic, team-first guy, never quit attitude, etc. And as other posters have said, some people use the Nebraska game tape against him. But go back and watch just Allen's first 5 passes in that game to see why many think he projects well to the NFL. Yes, watching all of Allen's tape, you can't help but notice his athleticism, but with all of the designed roll-outs, rushes, and scrambles---due to the poor O-line play as much as his ability---it's sometimes hard to project him into the pros just watching those plays (even if some of them are his best). But in the Nebraska game, although his first throw is one of those designed roll-outs for a small gain, the next four throws are beautiful. Throw #2 is another roll-out, but without a man in his face this time, he throws a perfect 15 yard out on the run for a first down. The next throw he stays in the pocket and delivers a perfect, quick slant between two defenders for another first down on 3rd and 2. The fourth throw is another slant from the pocket on 2nd and 8 that goes for about 15. And then the 5th throw is also from the pocket, a six-yard out to the right sideline. Those four throws are all big time NFL throws from the pocket. I think those plays show that he doesn't just have the NFL toolset, but also some know how. The big question is can he become consistent at it? Now, he definitely needs to be coached up (among other things, he'll have to learn to throw the ball away more when nothing is open, to avoid the sacks or ill advised throws), but I think he's got more than a good chance of succeeding with the Bills. Right guy in the right place at the right time. Go Bills!

We're not going to be just a good defense, we are going to be intimidating to play. Thank God we have a head coach/DC who understand that aggressive tackling is the most important part of playing defense. It's the difference between being bad and good or between good and great. Nice pick...after watching his highlights: good tackler, hard hitter, can play gunner on teams, but what I liked the most is that it looks like he has football smarts. He dissects plays really quickly, which more than makes up for any lack of speed. He beats blocks to the spot, covers the right man, runs the interior routes for the WRs. I know they are only highlights, but looks good to me!

This! Since McDermott came people have said that the most important role on his defense is a rangy, sideline-to-sideline ILB (a Luke Kuechly type) and Beane has been clear that you have to have a franchise QB (as if we all didn't know that anyhow). The Bills went out and shored up the two most important spots on this team with 1st round talent. Both picks could be argued to be value picks, BPA (I know Allen detractors won't agree with that, but...), and fit our needs. Will it work out? Only time will tell, but I love that they were aggressive in trying to get long-term solutions at those two spots.

How fun would it be, when Brady/Belichick retire, to see the AFC East dominated by a Buffalo/Jets rivalry (hopefully with the Bills having a slight edge like the 90s team over the Fish), while the Pats and Dolphins swim in mediocrity for the next decade or so. One can dream, can't one.

I had my opinions about the QBs, as everyone else did. There were things I liked about each of them and things I didn't like with each of them. So, I wasn't really in one camp or the other for the pick. What I hoped for last night, as the draft started playing itself out (Mayfield to CLE and Darnold to JETS), was that both Allen and Rosen would be on the board when we picked, because I wanted to know that whoever it was, it was their guy, the guy they really wanted and not just the last QB available. And the fact that they traded up for him and chose him over Rosen showed that. If they think this is the guy to bank on, then I am onboard. And I do think he is the best fit for Buffalo. Welcome to Buffalo Josh! I'm trusting the process.

If the ONE statistic that he used were a true judge of how good a college QB will be (based on the trust of their college coaching staff), then the draft should have played out in this order: Mayfield Jackson Rudolph Darnold Rosen Allen So, is he also saying that Jackson and Rudolph are superior to Darnold or Rosen and should have been the higher picks? If not, then you can't really use that stat to knock another kid. What if certain OCs are just more conservative than others by nature?

Just a moment of distraction from tomorrow night. One of those dumb slideshow articles popped up on my home page, "The 25 Greatest NFL Receivers of All Time" or something like that. I stupidly clicked on it and through the slideshow just to see where they ranked Andre. I was surprised that he was not on their list. Now, this was just some site named newarena, so who cares, right? But I decided to look up some other sites that ranked the all-time wide receivers. The second one I saw was from Gil Brandt at NFL.com and he did not have Andre in his list of the top 32 wide receivers all-time. I went to another list (from fansided) and Andre did not make their top 30. I did finally find some sites that had him ranked: Althon ranked him #18, Ranker #12, Bleacher Report #20, Swartzsports #27, nflspinzone #14. That is a lot of disparity in how people see Andre's career; from #12 to not top 32. So it just got me wondering where you all who actually watched his career would rank him. But first, let me make the case for Andre (as if I need to on this board): He currently, still ranks: #16 in career yards for a receiver #16 in career receptions for a WR #14 in career TDs by a WR #5 in career postseason receiving yards tied for #3 in most career 100-yard playoff games Other notes: 951 receptions was 3rd all-time at his retirement The only player other than Jerry Rice with 13 seasons of 50+ receptions 7 Pro Bowls 4 Super Bowl appearances 3 TDs in the Comeback Where would you put Andre on the all-time list?

I thought the writer was going to show that overall (like if you took an average of all of the mock drafts), that their prediction rate would at least be relatively accurate when he wrote, "On Thursday, few mock drafters got more than a handful of first-round picks correct. Collectively, though the analysts were more accurate than you might think." And then he just runs all of these charts for each draft pick (with the exact team picking that player in that slot not a requirement) to apparently prove his point. But what the charts show is: Only 3 of the 32 picks were guessed by more than 50% of the mockers polled (and those 3 picks were #1, #3, and #4---many years there is a pretty good idea how the top 4 picks might go, so...) Overall, only 9 picks had a better than 10% hit rate by the mockers. And 20 of the picks had only a 0-5% hit rate by the mockers. So, basically he is saying the mockers on aggregate are more accurate than you think because (outside of two picks that no one got right) at least one person picked the selection for each draft spot. I'm sorry, but one, two, or three out of 120 does not prove any accuracy or that the draft isn't a complete, unpredictable crap shoot as we all know that it is. I kind of think that he wrote the article just so he could say this... "Only Dane Brugler of CBS Sports, Andrew Gribble of ClevelandBrowns.com, and my own mock draft here at SB Nation projected Trubisky to be picked by the Bears."

I got the same feeling watching that press conference. Of course he has to prove it on the field, but I was like, yeah, that is the kind of guy I want leading my team. Fiery and passionate (in a good way), but humble and self aware. Lots of self confidence, but truly a team-first guy.

I'm not saying this is true and I have no idea who Chad Forbes is, but I don't think he is saying the Browns would lose their 4th and not get 12th, I think it was an either/or. He says the Giants would move down to either 4 or 12 (not that they would get them both). And we don't know what the other parameters of the deal might be. So it could be Cleveland moves down to 2 from 1, keeps their 4th, and gets some assets for the swap OR Cleveland moves down to #2 and #12 and the compensation for that move would obviously have to be higher than the first trade. Whichever way it goes, Cleveland would still have two picks in the top 12 at worst.

I never really thought about it before, but that must have sucked for New England and the Jets (although O'Brien was better than Eason), for every team in the division to pick a QB in the same draft and then to watch Kelly and Marino become All-Pro QBs and have their teams consistently in the playoffs, while your QB was a bust or just an average starter. Boy do I hope we are on the right end of that equation again this year.

That stat alone gets overlooked way too often. That is a feat!. And he would have been Super Bowl MVP of SB XXV if Norwood's kick went through. Call me a Homer, but I honestly always felt that the RBs from that era stacked up as Barry, Thurman, and then Smith. Smith's stats are amazing, but Emmitt had 1,575 more touches than Thurman and 1,510 more touches than Sanders and ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history. But, even if consensus says Smith was a better back than TT, I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. With Barry it is, he could do things that no other human at that time could do. The Michael Jordan of RBs, if you will. And to No Saint who posted his list of guys that would go in the top 10 ahead of TT, I pretty much agree with your first 7, and might add in Tony Dorsett, but then I think you could debate from there between guys like TT and Smith, Peterson, LT, Faulk, Allen, RIggins, etc. And I don't think any of those guys go in over TT without at least a debate. So, I would put Thurman in the 9-12 range all-time. Just my opinion. I just googled a bunch of Best RBs of all-time lists, just to see what the general thought is, and Thurman landed anywhere from 10 to 17 on the many lists I looked at. One list had him at 10 and another at 11, but most had him in the 12-17 range.

Kyle is a shoo-in for the WOF... and Freddie should be too. A fan favorite. A bright spot in a dismal decade. Eight years as a Bill (more than enough accrued time), inspirational story, fought and clawed for everything he got, 3rd place on Bills all-time rushing leaders list behind only Thurman and O.J.---and most of that done as the number two back, as the team kept trying to move on from him, and with some pretty talented backs in Lynch and Spiller...and yet somehow in the end, Freddie was always the man still standing and even outperforming them. Had a 4.4 yard career average. Went to little Coe college (Marv's alma mater), loved the fans and playing in Buffalo (seeing Freddie run the field with a Bills flag after a great victory, c'mon), he was a very good player who should have been in Buffalo at least one or two more years (damn Whaley!), he was great in the community, great teammate, team leader, etc.. I mean we aren't talking about the Hall of Fame, it's not about comparing him to every RB who ever played the game and saying he wasn't elite. The Wall of Fame is about what you did in and for Buffalo and the Bills, and in my opinion, Freddie definitely has all the credentials for the WOF! Glad he's doing the deal to retire a Bill!

Thanks Ryan...great idea to lay it all out. So, by position, they have met with: 10 QBs 6 LBs 4 OTs 4 RBs 4 CBs 3 WRs 3 TEs 3 OGs 1 OC 1 DT 1 Safety 0 DEs I know visits don't necessarily mean anything, sometimes teams draft the only guy they didn't meet with, etc., and there are many more of the 30-pre draft visits to be announced, but I just thought I would speculate about what this list means for the Bills draft wants per position: Obviously, we all know they are looking at/need QB, LB, and WR...interesting, though, that they have met with 10 QBs but not Darnold...at least not yet. Do they not expect to have a chance at him? Are they not interested? Or are they trying to hide their interest? Good to see that they are looking at RT to replace Mills and Guards to replace Vlad and/or to groom behind Ritchie... Seems that they are interested in drafting a CB...maybe either to beat out or eventually take over for Vontaze, as he is probably only here for two years and health could be a question...maybe someone who could play slot in the meantime. And I'm a little surprised, but I guess they are also looking for a RB, maybe to eventually take over for Shady, and either a more dynamic TE than Clay, or someone that lets us move on from Clay next year. Options for dumping big salaries next year? They obviously feel comfortable now, with the recent signings, on the D-line and at Center and Safety.

Thinking a moment from the Giants perspective...the above trade would give them 7 picks in the top 69. 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds. For a team that needs to restock their roster (and with a new GM) that would seem hard to pass up. And if they are in love with someone at pick 2: Barkley, Chubb, QB; I wonder if their fans are asking the same thing we are about moving up for a QB (in reverse). Is say staying put and taking Barkley worth giving up an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks---or more (which you could have in the trade with the Bills)?

For me it was almost a 4-way tie between Flutie, Fitz, Bledsoe, and Taylor when I first looked at the list. Then I thought Bledsoe really trailed off after the first year, maybe he was just on the downside of his career. And I love me some Fitz, but I thought of his late-game interceptions. And I have always liked and rooted for Tyrod, but the not taking any chances (ala Rob Johnson and Trent Edwards) made me leery to pick him too. So I voted for Flutie. And then I decided to look up a few stats, just out of curiosity. Now, of course, Flutie had the best team around him and the smallest sample size, but... Record Pass Yds/Gm Rush Yds/Gm *TD/Gm Int/Gm Flutie 21-9 253 29.5 1.66 1 Bledsoe 23-25 211 2.7 1.23 .90 Fitz 20-33 220 15.5 1.54 1.2 Taylor 22-20 211 35.8 1.54 .36 *Includes rushing TDs because I think you have to weigh rushing yards and TDs in with a QB like Tyrod in the mix After looking at that, I feel better about selecting Flutie. Going by stats alone I would say the rank would be Flutie, Taylor, Fitz, Bledsoe.

This thread made me think about something I have been wondering for a little while. Last year it seemed like everyone (not Bills fans, but media and fans in general) were saying it wasn't a good QB class, teams should wait until next year, which is going to be a great QB class. And then we get to this year and now I have often heard people saying how great Trubisky and Mahomes and Watson are going to be and I don't know if there is a guy in this year's class as good. What happened? Yes, Watson and Trubisky got to play a bit, so maybe people are higher on them now than when they were drafted, although Trubisky did go #2 overall...and I know a lot of people do like the QBs this year...but it was this overall narrative that last year's class wasn't going to be good and this one would be, but now that it's here it's not as good as last year's class. And then we're told next year's QB class is not going to be good, which only makes me think that by draft day next year it will be the second coming of the '83 class to some people. Just makes me think that no one has any idea when it comes to projecting college QBs into the Pros.

Of course, not everyone who practices hard becomes an All-Pro as there are so many other factors (raw talent, size, strength, coaching, franchise, family, injuries, mental makeup, etc.) that go into it. That was, obviously, not what I was saying. But everyone does get better with practice, so why not see where a kid's ceiling is before dumping him. Do you really think San Diego was Peterman's best and even if he stays in the league for 10 years he will always look that bad on the field? Cause, I am looking around the league and seeing guys like McCown, Keenum, and Foles...who are obviously better at this stage in their careers than they were earlier. Now I'm not saying you wait on a guy for 5-10 years to develop, but let's give these kids at least 2-3 years to acclimate, learn, mature, get some experience and some, of course not all, will surprise you. What Patriots fan in Brady's rookie year thought some 6th rounder should take over for Bledsoe? How many fans were ready to kick Eric Moulds to the curb after his first two seasons. There are just so many examples of players who just needed a little time or the right situation. But, no, since a kid isn't an obvious franchise QB the first time he hits the field, then he's just a bum with no value, let's get rid of him. How are you going to react if the Bills do draft one of the top 4 QBs and his first 8 games are atrocious. Do you dump him and try to draft another one next year? or do give him at least another season to show he can improve and get it?

I am just surprised by how short-sighted people have become these days. It's one thing to have an opinion on if you think someone will become a good player or not (that's fine), but to label players as busts, trash, etc. after one game or even one season is ridiculous. Why is there the old adage of not evaluating a draft until 3 years has passed, or the myth of the 3rd year WRs ready to bust out, etc. It is because 98% of the guys that come into this league need some development, need to get used to the speed of the game, etc. There are only a small group of guys that come into the league each year that ball out right away, and usually it is partly because they were drafted into a great situation. Every job in this world takes time to learn. I don't care if you are a doctor or flipping burgers at McDs, first day on the job you aren't doing everything right, someone needs to show you the ropes, you need to gain experience doing it. This notion that players should come in and not make mistakes and light it up right away or they are a bust is truly baffling to me. In the old days, most fans recognized that it would take some time for rookies to come along and they were patient with them. Some of you guys would have sent Bruce Smith packing after one overweight, mediocre first season. I don't know if Peterman will ever develop into a starting QB, probably not as the odds are against him, but none of us knows for sure. Why would you dump a 2nd year player on a rookie contract if just a few months ago (as a staff) you thought there was something there you could develop? Let's at least give these kids a chance to develop before calling for their heads. Because, ya know, It's a funny thing about humans...when they practice something they usually get better at it.