SuperKillerRobots

Ha ha. Nice way to look at it. No matter what happens, in a year from now everyone should be happy.

I like the logic of it, but all those playmakers that you mention would not really do anything for us this year. We have too many WRs and we need a SS, not a FS/CB. I don't like the DE prospects that much either, so I would advocate the trade down and if it didn't work, I would hope they'd take an OT (Oher, Smith) or LB (Matthews, Cushing) or a TE (Pettigrew). The only players I really like at 11 are: Raji Currey Any of the top 3 OTs T. Jackson (maybe)

Maybe he could play LB on first and second then put Kelsey on the bench for third as a DE....

Because they're an ass in real life.

I love the way the other teams picked in this draft, but there is no way I can see the Bills passing on Smith if he is there (which I doubt) and certainly not Pettigrew/Ayers at 28.

I initially thought someone like Maybin was the way to go because he could be put in different spots (i.e. LB and DE). Unfortunately this theory hinged on the idea that the coaching staff would know how to take advantage of a guy like that. I have since jumped on the Ayers bandwagon. And I hate players from Texas as a general rule of thumb, so Orapko isn't even in the discussion for me.

I'd almost rather they take Matthews instead fo Pettigrew at 28.

I would be fine with this approach. #11 plus our third to get to #5 would make the Peters trade look OK.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

I'm going to have to agree with this prediction.

I was reading something recently (can't remember where) that talked about the Bills O-line and Dockery getting cut and the Peters thing. One insight that I found interesting about why Dockery was cut is that people in the organization thought he was too nice to play the line. They compared him to Butler, who they termed as not nice. I wonder if they had the same concerns about Peters. Myabe they thought that if they were going to pay through the nose for an O-lineman, they wanted some one who had the right attitude as well. I could see the FO thinking that they need a solid interior line (which they are one minus of right now) and would be willing to let the LT positions get filled by some combo of Bell, Walker, and a new guy to groom. Everyone here talks about the poor center play from last year - and I think it's safe to say at this point poor guard play from Dockery as well - so maybe the FO thinks they need to solidify the interior line on offense and maybe go defense with the rest of the premium picks (top 100).

I don't think they'll mortgage the future for a prospect. The Bills may have all 6 of those needs, as you stated above, but that doesn't mena they need to get 6 first and second rounders. Keith Ellison and Kyle Williams both stepped in year one and contributed and they were 5th and 6th rounders. Even if you had the top 6 picks in the draft, you're not guaranteed 6 players who will come in and be all-stars in year one. The better hope would be to expect the top three picks will help out this year in more prominant roles, while the other three needs you stated are worked in. I can guarantee that they will not hae two rookies starting on the line opening day. I would think barring some odd and obviously joyous situation Kelsey will be the opening day starter. And I think that there is a good chance that Derek Fine is going to be the opening day starter at TE. If they could pull two front 7 defensive players and one offensive linemen that would contribute this upcoming year, I would be happy.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment that the Bills should go for a dominant defense this year. If we can get two high quality, impact players for the front 7, we can be that good. Turning those two first rounders (and whatever it cost to trade up if needed) for Ayers/etc and Clay Matthews/Brian Cushing, they would be able to improve the defense. Unfortunately this depends on Bell probably starting at one of the tackles positions this year, for better or worse.

I'm personally boased because I have more of an insider perspective on the Bills, as I don't have any regular interactions with anyone in the Sabres. Also, for the Sabres, I look at it the way I looked at the mis-steps made by former President Bush. It was so bad that there were only two equally unacceptable possible reasons for them: 1. He was a liar and blatantly mis-represented the truth, or 2. He was so out of touch with reality and basically wrong that he didn't know what he was doing. I don't know which is worse.

I think he's pretty dead on as far as the Sabres and not wanting to win, but I'm pretty sure that Ralph wants to win real bad before he passes on. I thought what the article missed was that back 20 years ago in the Sabres hey-day, there were never that good. Before Lindy and after the early 80s they were pretty mediocre. Everyone said they couldn't win because they couldn't afford the high priced players. They did have a few marquee guys, but not what other teams had. He makes it sound like those Sabres teams were competing for the Cup every year, when they were lucky to get in the payoffs in the top 6. The Bills were actually good at this time or becoming good and at first I think people were pretty excited to not watch terrible teams when the late 80s early 90s hit. For some reason the Bills were able to pull off losing four straight Super Bowls, which I think disenchanted the fan base to a certain extent. That's why the Houston playoff game wasn't sold out - people were tired of being part of a seeming national joke. Bucky's got a hell of an ax to grind with these owners.

If he's talking about Peters, I like D Rhodes already.

Ha ha! That would be classic - two players in the first round at the same position! Which one is gonna play LT? Or DE for that matter?

I think they still give Jackson a raise and Rhodes is there to push Omon. If you know that one of your best offensive players will be out for the first three games, and the third guy has never really shown anything, I would be happy to take Rhodes into camp as insurance in case Omon develops fumblitis or Jackson holds out. I think this was a very prudent move to hedge their bets on the RB position. Im sure he didn't get a huge bonus or contract, so he would probably be pretty easy to get rid of. Not to mention he is kind of a bruiser type back and maybe they keep them all and finally go to the power running game.

NE

I don't think he's getting any younger - he's gonna be 28 this year.

I think the problem with that thinking is that you are just talking about the raw number of players and not how good they will be. There are a lot of undersized DEs in college who everyone wants to play OLB in the 3-4, but that doesn't mean they are going to be very good at it. In these cases it always seems like you are picking a player who has a lot of potential, but will also have to learn a new position. As far as the linemen go, I think Buffalo fans are biased because of seeing NEs DL play. They have 3 first rounders on their DL. Other teams struggle to find DLs to play int hat scheme because they need to be so big. If they aren't big and able to hold, then your defense falls apart really quick. I do like the 3-4 better than our defense, but I don't think that it's that much easier to get those players. You have SF, GB, Denver, Cleveland all looking for 3-4 defensive players. They all pick before us or could get ahead of us, so that could be 4 premier players for that defense gone before we even pick.

I hate to agree with you, but I do.

I like Sidbury a lot and think he could be the "situational" guy, if they decide to stay away from one of the earlier DEs.

I think the reason that Welker is so good is due to him possessing a seemingly perfect combination of what Reed and Parish bring to the table - if only we could genetically fuse them together.

They'll probably put Greer on TO. I think they had the same timed speed in the 40, or pretty close. Though Greer looks to be quicker and a little shiftier while Evans seems to be able to get past anyone on a straight line.