SuperKillerRobots

I personally find the proliferation of nationalism obscene. I don't want religion forced down my throat and I don't want government forced down my throat. The best part of our constitution is its allowance for changing the document itself, which means that the best part of our country is the people in it and their abilities and ideas. The constitution itself was written by people who if alive today would find the world unrecognizable to what it was when they were alive and their greatest legacy is that foresight and providing later generations a way to deal with what they knew they could never know.

I would rather Golisano take over the Bills and do with them what he did witht he Sabres than allow the team to leave. When you think about, he ran the Sabres in a way that was transparently business first (like how most people try to say Wilson runs the Bills). However, the saving grace is the fact that he 1. saved the team from leaving initially when he bought and 2. basically ensured that the team wouldn't leave after he got out. This is no small feat. He took less money for the sale of the team (albeit mroe than he paid) from someone who guaranteed they'd stay in Buffalo. He also wrote language intot he sale contract making it difficult to impossible to move the team going forward. If he bought the Bills, held on to them for 10 years, then sold them to someone who really cared and kept them here, I'd call him a freakin hero.

I think what you're missing in your highlighted statement (and I'm guessing at your meaning) is that when you rank guys 1 through 10 at the top of the draft, its not like all 10 are in the same tier. In fact it's not even guaranteed that the top five will all be in the same tier. If the WR is #1, the CB #2, and the DT #3, it doesn't necessarily mean that the difference between the WR and the CB is the same as the difference between the CB and the DT. It could be that the WR and CB are elite calibre players while the DT is the start of the tier most players in that draft fall into: good. I don't mean to advocate for one position or player over another, but I think you have to be mindful of the fact that one prospect can be significantly better than another prospect and they can be ranked right next to each other. All that being said, I like all of the players you are looking at for each pick, but am least enthusiastic about the first round players. The only one of the three I really like is Dareus. I do like Quinn and the DE from Cal and I'm warming up to Von Miller, but I don't know if I really like any of those players at 3.

Donte Whitner seemed to survive his tasering and arrest OK. But on the topic, glad we didn't draft him.

I like the idea you have here, but I don't think the grading system is that great of a representation of what you are trying to say. Part of the problem you are going to have is how to weight the production of the players by round. Does a starter in the first round equal a primary backup in the second? The third? Is there a difference between a backup who never sees the field and a player who plays in sub packages only? How do role players fit? I suspect that you will see a slightly skewed bell curve with a higher number of teams consistantly drafting poorly and a very small number (if any) who consistantly draft well. I think the first thing taht needs to be accepted for this is that there are probably no teams, over a 10 year period for instance, that have had 10 good drafts. Therein lies the problem witht his exercise: it's really easy to pick out the teams that draft poorly, but hard to decide who drafts well and to then quantify it. One team might draft a bunch of really good, near elite players, but can't find a role player or second or third tier player to save their life. Other teams might only be able to find the second and third tier players, but not elite players to save their lives (ehem, cough *Buffalo Bills* cough). How many third tier players equal an elite player? All these questions are important, but unfortunately don't go anywhere near the real question of how good a team is at drafting because none of these things deal with wins and losses. If a team hits on a few (5-7) elite players and then a whole load of third tier players and wins the SB with a predominantly self-drafted team, I would say they are much better than a team that found 10-15 elite players, but can't get out of the first round of the playoffs. I think in the end, the majority of teams are too close to explicitly quantify and rank their drafting against other teams because of all these differences and how they relate to winning. I'd bet that you'd find that the good drafting teams tend to get players who fit into their system (or a system is designed around them) effectively.

I'm not advocating keeping Whitner (especially at $7mm/year), but to say 1. that the three guys we'd have left would be just as good; and 2. that Wilson is better than Whitner is kind of ridiculous. Wilson looks better as a sub because teams don't game plan for his weaknesses because he's not guaranteed to be in the game much. He's got ball skills, but he's not natural in coverage at all. He's a great backup, first off the bench safety and would probably be better suited to taking Byrd's role as centerfielder than playing against the run (where I think last year he overtook Bryd as the worst run-defender of the group). Bryan Scott is a good backup, but, as so many posters like to say, he would not be starting for a playoff team. Neither would Wilson for that matter; he'd be the first off the bench backup. If Whitner goes, like it or not, we're going to draft a safety or sign a safety to big money. I don't like the idea of taking any DB at our pick in round 1, but I could see it happening in round 2 or 3 if the right player is there - someone who can play the run from the SS position. It would also helpt o get a guy in that positoin who could cover the TE, but I don't know if that would work better than getting a pass rush that forces the offense to leave in extra blockers to protect.

I think you're right in that he only has one chance left and it's not guaranteed to last past minicamp. He's a poor player at this point in time and I don't have any inside information on him, s I can't say why he's not living up to expectations other than to guess at it like everyone else. I was wondering however, if the comments coming out of OBD regarding him and the OLBs in general have been aimed at getting him more motivated (which I believe is the underlying factor - not in game motivation, but motivation off the field to get smarter and bigger). They added Merriman and have a few players who could help or who they at least need to see mroe of in Moats, Coleman, and Battan. They have to add someone else here just to round out the group of those four plus Kelsey. You'd think all of this activity and spot-putting would turn a light on for him to get his stuff together. I wonder if some of the stuff coming out of OBD is really meant to wake him up than it is for the fans benefit. By the way, full disclosure: the only reason I'd be against cutting him would be the off chance that he is able to come around. If it takes until minicamp, training camp, week 1, or tomorrow to figure that out, I'm OK with it. I am not in the group of posters who want him gone even if he turns out to be "decent".

Obviously they've made some errors in the drafts of the past decade. Aside from the hindsight is 20/20 argument, I do think you are going about this incorrectly. You really have to take into consideration what type of player/position they were looking to draft or needed on the team. For instance, the Mike Williams pick. Obviously this was a bad pick and there were people who thought so before he played a down. However, was there really ever a chance that they were not goign to take a OT there? It was between Williams and McKinney, who is OK, but not living up to expectations either (though obviously much closer than Williams). Freeney wasn't a consideration and neither was Ed Reed. They had a good defense at that point, but couldn't do anything on offense. Just traded for Bledsoe, so they ahd to get someone to protect him. Another one is Evans/Wilfork. We had a great interior that year and needed a deep threat at WR. They had to take Evans and I believe that was probably their best pick of the decade, not that it's saying much.

Maybe we could trade them Kelsey, since he's such a great fit in DJ's scheme.

Just like menstrating women attracting bears into the newsroom... If everyone keeps repeating something, it's bound to be right.

I think they've been playing variations of the 5-2 since after the bye. Whether they are in the 3-4 and have Kelsey and Moats/Torbor outside or playing 4-3 and have Kelsey play on the line as the 5th guy, the only differences are whether the 5th guy puts his hand on the ground. I actually like the defense that they play now (scheme-wise) and I think they really need another (or a) pass rusher and an ILB who can step right in an they should be good to go. We need a few more guys to help stop the run and add some pass rush.

I agree - McKelvin's problem isn't that he is lacking physical skills or football ability. He seems to have a problem on the concentration side of things, which is correctable. I can't understand how a team with almsot zero true physical talents would cut one of them. These are the types of players that eventually turn out to be great. If they kept some of these other guys as longa s they have, they owe McKelvin at least a total of 5 uninjured years.

I don't have a problem with the schemes they run. 3-4 or 4-3 is fine. I think the real issue is they should be playing a two-gap defense instead of the one-gap we played under Jauran. I actually think it'll help the team out in the future to be able to play both 3-4 and 4-3. I like being able to give teams the 3-4 under look (one-gap) at times while also being able to go with a 4-3 and 3-4 two-gap look. Going to a 4-3 doesn't hide the fact that our LBs are still crap for the most part and need to be upgraded.

I think the most over-looked LB need on this team is ILB. I like Poz, but they need another player to put next to him on the inside. Basically Andre Davis' replacement. I do think they need a player at OLB who can play the run and rush the passer - a blue chip player - but I think after getting one of those, we'd be OK. Moats looks like he's worthy of more playing time. Battan looked good before he got hurt and is very athletic. Kelsey is Kelsey. Maybin deserves another offseason and training camp at least. Coleman has potential and should get another offseason. On the inside however, we have Poz and Davis. We could use 2 or 3 new players at ILB depending on Davis' availability for next year. At the very least, if Davis goes down again next year, there should be a player who can actually fill his role come in for him instead of another Keith Ellison sighting or Ayodele.

I think the reason they are not using the TEs to block inline (or at all) is due to two things: 1. the TEs cannot block that well and none are that great at receiving to bring otu a WR, and 2. they are trying to stop teams from throwing all sorts of exotic blitzes at us by spreading out the defense so the o-line can make the right blocks. The more players you have bunched up in the ofensive formation, the more defensive players are bunched up on the formation and more different combinations of blitzes. I've noticed that they use Corey McIntyre a lot in the blocking schemes and very creatively. I like the running play where CM lines up out wide initially, then motions towards the line until he is on the OT's hip when the play starts. They use him a lot in the space normally occupied by the TE to block in all kinds of formations. I think the reason for that comes down to him being a better player than anyone else we have. All that being said, we really need a TE who can block and at least catch passes of the sub 15 yard variety up the middle of the field. We'd be much better on offense. Much better.