Bills Must Address WR in Round One

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 6:10 AM EDT in NFL Draft Comment 82 comments

OU's Kelly Could "Fit the Bill" as top pick (Athlon Sports)

Let's go retro this morning, folks - it's April of 2007, and the Buffalo Bills are entering the NFL Draft with two glaring weaknesses on their team: running back (made a need by the trade of Willis McGahee) and linebacker (where the free agent defections of Takeo Spikes and London Fletcher left depth sorely lacking). Yet as fans prepared for that draft, first-round mock draft choices for the Bills were varied in terms of positional choices: DE Adam Carriker, DT Amobi Okoye, and LB Patrick Willis were the three most popular choices, especially to this (then just-born) community.

Marshawn Lynch? Yeah, some mock drafts had him in Buffalo, but the Bills weren't taking a running back in the first round. There were second-round runners that could be just as effective, and choosing one of them would allow the Bills to focus on other needs with their top pick. Then former Bills defensive end Bruce Smith "shocked" the Bills' fan base with the pick:

"With the twelfth selection in the 2007 NFL Draft, the Buffalo Bills select... Marshawn Lynch, running back, University of California."

2007 Flash Forward
Get used to that feeling you had last season when the Bills selected Lynch, whether it was euphoria or disappointment. Buffalo went into the draft with Lynch rated as the top player on their board, and even though many considered him an iffy proposition as the number 12 pick (including yours truly), they took him. Expect the exact same thing to happen this year at a different position: wide receiver.

It's now 2008, and the hole that the Buffalo Bills have at receiver is even more glaring than the hole they had at running back in 2007. And unlike last season, when the Bills entertained the option of trading for former Chargers (current Falcons) running back Michael Turner, the team is out of veteran options. The Bills' clear and most urgent need for an influx of talent is at wide receiver. Other positions can wait; wideout can't.

Wideouts Worth #11?
The most common argument against selecting a wide receiver with the eleventh pick is that the top two prospects, Texas' Limas Sweed and Oklahoma's Malcolm Kelly, have too many question marks to be considered value selections that high in the draft. That, folks, is the exact concern that we had with Lynch last off-season: was his durability good enough? Could he carry a full rushing load, something he'd never done in college? "Certainly taking a player with those types of questions would be a bad move that early in the draft", we said; Lynch proved differently.

I'm not saying that either Kelly or Sweed are the upcoming 2008 versions of Lynch. It would certainly be nice if it worked out that way; all I'm saying is that it's not prudent to discount either of these guys just because they're not perceived to be value selections at this point. Sweed has worked out well this off-season, and the Bills have already confirmed that they're high on Kelly (despite the fact that he's got lingering injury questions). If the team becomes enamored with either Kelly or Sweed, the Bills will take him. End of story - they can't afford not to. And even if they don't fall in love with either player, they should take a wideout first - they need to fill that hole with the best talent available. You get that at the top of the draft.

No Other Alternative
Sure, the team has other holes that could be filled with excellent first-round talents. The team is almost certain to take a look at top cornerbacks such as South Florida's Mike Jenkins, Troy's Leodis McKelvin and Kansas' Aqib Talib. Cornerback is this year's version of linebacker. Florida defensive end Derrick Harvey and even Miami safety Kenny Phillips should, and probably will, be considered as well. Ultimately, come April, they won't be serious considerations - they can't be.

So I'm prepared. It's not my favorite thought to dwell on, but I must, just as the team must - the Bills will be taking a wide receiver with their first pick, and the chances are enormous that they'll get their pick of the crop. They can't beat around the bush, just as they didn't beat around the bush last season when they selected Lynch. Get used to it, Bills fans - whether they trade down to do it or not, the Bills are taking a receiver with the eleventh selection.

0 recs | Comment 82 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I can live with it

As long as they get their guy later in the 1st. I prefer Sweed to Kelly due to my worries over Kelly's very long absence from doing anything this offseason and that makes me very scared. Its not like when we took McGahee on a flier betting he would be healthy again, though I would have waited to see if the dude made it to the 2nd in that case.

Best world option? We fleece some sucker in the 20s who wants Medenhall and we get Sweed later, or someone from the top 4 WRs this draft. But, if we take Sweed or Kelly at #11, can't exactly kill the team for that. Big hole, gotta fill it. May take some time, but its gotta be done.

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Mar 22, 2008 6:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh, you kill me Brian...

I couldn't disagree with you more. This is how strongly I feel against drafting Sweed or Kelly in teh first round (sireric - please listen to this): I'd cheer for a Harvey pick instead.

It's not that I don't like them. I just don't like them that high, and I feel there are other WRs out there who can make just as much of a difference later in the draft.

Plus, the concerns about these two are different than the Lynch concerns. Lynch's concerns where more about if he could fit in or not. These guys have injury concerns. That's a big difference.

by krytime on Mar 22, 2008 9:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hear you

I don't want to see a receiver at #11 either, but let me say this, the last time I liked the Bills top pick was Mike Williams. I thought that was an awsome pick who would be a fixture on the Bills O-line for years. So maybe I know a lot less then I think I do.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 22, 2008 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

my sentiments exactly

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apologies, krytime

Did not intend you physical pain.

For the record, I'm not advocating any one receiver (although I drafted Sweed in the Authors Mock and pimped Kelly's name a couple weeks back) - I think there are four guys that can start (Devin Thomas and James Hardy included) immediately. I don't care which one it is, my man - I actually think Thomas is the best long-term prospect of the group. We just can't afford to miss out on one of these four guys, because we need a starter out of this draft.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Patients is a virtue

I believe the Bills will go WR in the first round. However I also think that if they waited until our pick in the early part of the second round we would also be able to get one of the top four guys.

In the end (at the risk of seeming obvious) the preceding picks dictate what the Bills will do. Harvey, Kelly or Sweed may already be gone by then.

Being a Bills fan in MA, My new favorite saying is "18-1"!!!

by grego32 on Mar 22, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweed and Kelly injury "concerns"

Sweed does not have an injury concern. He tore ligaments in his wrist yet still played 6 games with it catching 3 TD's. He has been working out all offseason and in his proday he looked awesome. He caught passes using only his repaired hand. He will be fine.

Kelly has a hamstring problem. How many football players don't have a hamstring problem. If he needs surgery, I'm sure that the Bills medical staff will figure that out.

by RabidBuffalo on Mar 22, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anything but a Guarantee

I think this is ridiculous that you say it is guaranteed that we will see one of the WR's at #11, you mentioned yourself that Marshawn was a shocker, and oh what about '06 when we were all waiting on Bunkley's name where the hell did we go...Donte Whitner. My point being that unless you are part of the Bills front office is we have no idea where they are going. I will not be totally devastated if we take one of these guys at #11, but I would hardly say that it is a guarantee.

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP on Mar 22, 2008 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree

that Marshawn was such a "shocker". I watched the draft with a bunch of Bills fans and all of us were praying the Bills would take Marshawn and when they did he were pumped. Lesson:Last year the Bills offense needed to have a RB and they took one, this year the Bills offense needs a WR and most likely they will take one. And we should all be happy regardless of who we want because in all liklihood that is the direction we'll go in the draft.

It's not delivery, It's DiGiorgio!

by poz on Mar 22, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course we should....

All be happy regardless of who it is we draft...obviously. I mean we all root for the same team we are Bills fans! I don't want either one of the big 2 or 3 WR's this year at least not at #11 with that being said, I will be happy to have one the second they are a Bill, beacuse I like you am a fan!

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP on Mar 22, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha

I don't believe I actually used the word "guarantee" (not in this post, anyways), so please don't mistake this as being some sort of absent-minded prognostication in my part. I just have a very strong feeling that we can talk corner, defensive end, etc. all we want, but a receiver is going in the first.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry to misinterpret you..

I am just on the opposite side of the fence. I just think that WR makes so much sense that I would not be at all surprised to see one Not taken in the first, or at least with 11.

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP on Mar 22, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we'll all soil ourselves when ...

"With the 11th pick in the NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select, Fred Davis, tight end from the University of Southern California." Wouldn't that be something?

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

By the way

that was a joke. Although, I would like Davis in the second round.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

davis

if we move down I wouldnt mind davis or if Davis has a good workout at his pro day then maybe considering hi at 11

by The Buffalonian on Mar 22, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's WAY too high

He's not an elite TE prospect like a Winslow or Vernon Davis.

That would be a major reach at #11 and I still don't think he's even a first round pick. He likely would be gone before our 2nd pick though, but guys like Dustin Keller and Martellus Bennett would be good 2nd rounders for us.

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get your top choice at WR

At least Buffalo has done enough this offseason to make WR an overwhelmingly most glaring hole on the roster (rather than just one position amongst LB, DT, and CB). I want them to get their top choice for this hole, regardless of the slot they select him.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 22, 2008 10:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stay at 11

I think the bills should stay at 11 to pick a reciever because their is a chance a time like denver may take on before buffalo picks.

by The Buffalonian on Mar 22, 2008 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I might agree...

If there was a clear, best wide receiver choice. But, in my opinion, there isn't. Kelley, Sweed and now Devin Thomas all appear to be about equal in many scouts' minds (albeit the consensus is Kelley is the "best" of the bunch, but they only give him a slight edge). Truth is, any of those guys could be available (Kelley less so than others I suppose) if we trade down. And I certainly believe that this team has holes that could be filled by more draft picks. Furthermore, I am not so sure that available "second round talent" (i.e. Doucet, Hardy, Caldwell) would not be as viable a candidate to take the No. 2 over from Reed and be a significant upgrade than the first round guys.

Ultimately, the Bills need to hedge their bets on wideout this year because of the importance of the position to the success of the team, and that means taking two WRs this year IMO; one early and one late. If we trade down, if possible, and gain an extra pick or two, being able to pull two wideouts in the draft becomes more patible. So we get Sweed or Thomas instead of Kelley. I must ask the community: are you positive that one is truly better than the other? It's not like the difference between Chris Long and Phillip Merling. The wideouts are near equals in potential talent.

And I repeat, I really believe that a starting or even star wide receiver can be found outside of the first. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just remember who the greatest wide receiver in Bills history is and tell me in what round he was picked.

by DCRumbler on Mar 22, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

I don't think that the top wideouts are all "equal in many scouts minds". I think different scouts like different players. I would bet that either Sweed or Kelly has seperated themselves from the pack in the minds of the Bills scouts and FO. If the Bills don't clearly like one more than the other, they will be smart enough to address a different position.

I also think it is a huge risk for the Bills to assume that a player like Hardy or Doucet will still be available in the second round. It would be a huge surprise if Hardy was still there and I think there is a less than 50/50 chance that Doucet slides. Wide receivers always get overdrafted, it is just the nature of the position.

That leaves Jordy Nelson, Mario Manningham, Earl Bennett and Andre Caldwell. And I do think there is a big difference between that group of players and Malcolm Kelly or Limas Sweed. Also I think it is only 50/50 that any of those guys are still available in the third round. With a need as great as WR the Bills can't just sit around and wait for a player to slide in the draft. They have to be aggressive and target a player they really believe in. That could be a guy like Nelson in the second. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills moved up in the second or third round to grab their guy either.

Of Course there is a huge dropoff between Chris Long and Philip Merling. That is why Chris Long is going to be a top 2 pick. It is easy to say they should trade down, but you need someone to want to trade up to be able to accomplish that. I realize the wideout talent doesn't drop off much between the top 4 or 5 guys, but it does go down as the round goes on. And is WR really different from any other position the Bills might address at 11? couldn't you say the same thing about trading down and drafting Merling instead of Harvey? What about trading down and drafting Aqib Talib instead of Mike Jenkins?

I hope the Bills don't draft two wideouts unless the second WR will be used as the primary kick returner this season. Historically drafting a WR later in the draft isn't hedging your bet, it is taking a shot in the dark. Using Andre Reed as an example isn't fair either. The guy went to Kutztown University and wasn't highly scouted. The other two receivers on the Bills Wall of Fame WERE first round picks. James Lofton was taken 6th overall and Elbert Dubenion was a first round pick back when the Bills were still in the AFL in 1960. Eric Moulds, a first round pick, will probably become the fourth wideout to be placed on "The Wall". So thats 3 first rounders and a lucky pick out of a tiny school.

by kaisertown on Mar 22, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"MUST" address WR?

I don't think so.

It's a good idea, but it's not something that they have to do. What happens if their draft board doesn't have a WR on it until the mid 20's? What if a guy like Ellis or Dorsey slides to us? What if they have a DRC, McKelvin, Harvey, etc rated so high on their board, it'd be stupid for them to pass? Just because WR is probably the biggest need doesn't mean we have to take one at #11.

Unlike other seasons, I don't really see a big difference between the top WR's and the next 8-10 WR's. If they have someone like Earl Bennett, Jordy Nelson or someone else rated rather high and in the same range as a Sweed or Kelly, why not wait until the 2nd or 3rd to get one of those guys?

There's also the chance that we could trade back into the first for a WR. Supposedly, the Bills have shown some strong interest in James Hardy, which could lead to a trade back into the late 20's/early 30's.

I won't argue with a WR at #11 as long as that player is obviously healthy and ready to contribute immediately.

I don't consider Kelly/Sweed that similar to Lynch. Lynch produced throughout college and there were just questions as to whether he could carry a full load. Sweed and Kelly have injury and consistency issues.

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 10:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hardy

Does anyone know exactly what Hardy's character issues are? I remember last year that I wasn't even paying attention to Lynch all winter because I had read what a character risk he was. Upon having him on my team for a full season, I really like the kid and even view him as the face of the franchise for the next decade...I really thought Hardy was a dominant player in college and if anyone knows the details to his issues at Indiana, I'd appreciate hearing them in order to gauge the risk involved in picking him.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 22, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure

Hardy allegedly beat up his girlfriend. Lynch's charges against him were dropped. Although, I don't know what he was accused of, but I doubt it was assault. I think it was a trumped up charge of disturbance by some cop.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

correction on Hardy

in 2006 he was arrested for domestic battey after she accused him of hitting her and their son.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

That's pretty bad...if his story checks out though, I think he's got the skill set I'm looking for.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 22, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Humorous quote:

"We're extremely disappointed with this incident",

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hardy

He was also suspended for a few games in '06 for "conduct detrimental to the team". I have no idea what it was for but that sounds bad.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 22, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops..

"We're extremely disappointed with this incident," team chairman Dan Rooney said. "The Steelers do not condone violence of any kind, especially against women." - Don't condone violence....unless you're wearing a helmet.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

more...

"Earlier this month, Steelers linebacker James Harrison was charged with hitting his girlfriend. He has a preliminary hearing April 3 and remains with the team.

Team spokesman Dave Lockett said the Steelers recognize the circumstances were different. Harrison's dispute began when he argued with his girlfriend about whether to baptize his son. Wilson and the woman he's accused of hitting were also involved in a fight in January."

So it's ok to hit your woman if it's over a religious disagreement....and you're a starting linebaker. These guys are such hypocrites!

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Responding to Kurupt

If a guy like Ellis or Dorsey slides, they'll try like hell to trade the pick, because we don't need a DT. If there are top-ten talents available at positions we don't need, you can bet lots of dinero that the team will do their damndest to move the pick. In the event that those guys are gone, the Bills will stay at 11 and take either a WR (90% chance, in my book) or a cornerback (10%).

I like Earl Bennett and Jordy Nelson, but if you're comfortable entering the 2008 season with Jordy Nelson starting next to Lee Evans, and Leodis McKelvin battling for nickel duty... ew. I can't even think about that. :)

I didn't want to compare Lynch to the receivers this season and tried hard not to; I merely was examining the situations, not the players. Lynch wasn't a superstar last year, but he brought consistency and has tons of room to grow. Why can't we be happy with the same production out of a #11 WR?

As for trading up - with what? Future picks? If we trade down in the first round, it'd conceivably be for a wide receiver. Therefore, we wouldn't have to trade back up for another one, unless they're looking to overload the position like they did at safety two years ago (Whitner and Simpson) and running back last year (Lynch and Wright). I don't like the idea of trading future picks, myself.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unbelievable

You would actually argue that the Bills could not use Dorsey or Ellis. I think the Bills could use another future ProBowl DT. A rotation of Stroud, Dorsey, and McCargo sounds great to me.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

at the expense of a perfectly passable rotation of Stroud, McCargo, Spencer Johnson and Kyle Williams with a continuing glaring hole at wide receiver? There comes a point where bolstering a position is overkill, and they've reached that point at DT.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Chris Brown on BuffaloBills.com

"If Sedrick Ellis is there at 11 I think the Bills would be hard pressed to pass on him despite the acquisition of Stroud. Ellis is a special talent."

I have to say, Stroud's not here because Jacksonville wants another 3rd and 5th round in exchange for a great player making a bargain salary. This is like the deal we made with Philly for Spikes. All the Philly fans were so excited to get him and one year later they cut him. Stroud is an improvement, but damaged goods, and not a Pro Bowler like 80% of Buffalo fans think. I doubt that Ellis or Dorsey will be there but if they are we better thake them because I don't see Stroud as our answer(long term) to DT with a 30 year old bum ankle.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nor do I

But for a 3rd and a 5th-rounder, we'd better be getting at least two years of above-average production out of Stroud - and I think that's exactly what we'll get. We have depth at the position; we need to get better in other areas before we replace Stroud.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"we'd better be"

In a perfect world you do get that production. Sometimes in the real world you get Takeo Spikes. I understand you think that but all the signs point to "Buyer Beware". Tell me this, why would Jacksonville let him go for such a modest price?

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not the point

Concerns over Stroud are well-documented, and in most cases valid. That has very little to do with the current discussion, however - as it stands, we have to count on Stroud, and we have to take a starting receiver in the draft. I don't understand why we'd add a guy who would start out as the fourth defensive tackle (probably fifth, in fact, behind Kyle Williams) instead of a starting receiver. That line of thinking just doesn't make a lick of sense to me. I understand and agree that adding a DT to replace Stroud would be a smart thing to do, but I don't think there's a good chance of it happening this year because we still have to count on Stroud.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

YOU WOULDN'T START THEM!

If we get Ellis or Dorsey you wouldn't start them? By that logic whoever we take at receiver goes in the depth chart behind Roscoe Parrish. There's nothing wrong with trading Kyle Williams, I don't care if we cut him, if we get a much better upgrade. Start that upgrade with McCargo as backup(and can play when Stroud goes down) and we have Johnson for DT/DE.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the difference

The coaching staff has already declared McCargo a starter - clearly, they ARE comfortable with him starting. Add in the five-year deal that Johnson got as a free agent the same day as we acquired Stroud, and it's a near certainty that any rookie wouldn't start.

Long story short: we added two defensive tackles on one day, to two more that the coaching staff likes and drafted themselves. If we make another move at the position, it'll be in 2009.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

defensive tackle

I think Spencer Johnson will be a pleasant suprise, i've heard many people say he was a great under the radar signing. With the pretty decent depth at defensive tackle along with the rotation system buffalo uses, Marcus Stroud may be productive, although i dont see him as pro bowl caliber still. He was required to be a work horse in jacksonville, and play nearly every down. Hes still got some left in the tank, how much is the question. I dont see buffalo drafting defensive tackle in the first round, just too much depth this year. maybe next year, if stroud is a flop.

by big john on Mar 22, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bills aren't married to Williams

If Halle Berry comes up and says, "I'm yours" and your faithfully married..then that sucks. But the NFL doesn't work that way. Again, I DOUBT Ellis or Dorsey will be there because THEY'RE THAT GOOD. So if they somehow, someway fall into your lap you take them.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baffled

by the thought that people would take another DT over a WR here.

Not only do our current WR's stink, but our best one will probably be gone next year. Then where will we be? In a position of desperation, where we would have to way overpay for a mediocre talent or take perhaps a WR next year when we could be addressing another position.

We simply can not put ourselves in a position like that. Sweed and Kelly are great talents. They produced in college, played for big programs, they have size, great hands, decent speed. I just don't get it.

by RabidBuffalo on Mar 22, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have the Bills taking Sweed

at #11, and I will be happy if they get either. But if Dorsey or Ellis fall to us, there is no way we don't take him. If Sweed and Kelly were such great talents, they would be rated higher.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Responding to Brian

You can say we don't need a DT, but I don't believe that. With major injury concerns for Stroud and McCargo, a decent player in Johnson and a guy who's very medicore in Williams, I don't think our DT group is THAT great. We have some talent and it looks pretty good on paper, but digging deeper you can see the potential problems we may be facing this year. If Stroud goes down, we're right back where we were last year. I'm not saying we definitely have to take Ellis/Dorsey if they miraculously slid, and I definitely wouldn't oppose a trade down scenario, but to say that we don't need a DT is a little ridiculous.

I wouldn't mind Bennett or Nelson starting. Maybe there's some other gem in the draft that could start for us immediately. Who knows? Who's to say Kelly, Sweed, Thomas or Hardy would be ready to start immediately? And I don't want a CB in the first round, it doesn't make sense. I was trying to point out that WE don't know what the Bills' big board looks like. They may indeed have McKelvin as a top 5 player in this draft and would be comfortable taking him at #11 even if the position isn't the greatest need. Same could be true for DE or DT. We don't know how they'll rank players, nor do we know how pressing they feel the need for WR('s) is.

Again, why couldn't we trade back into the 1st? I hate trading up, but just because we don't have that extra 3rd doesn't mean it wouldn't happen again. I doubt they expected Poz to be around early in round 2 last year and were probably expecting to keep the two 3rd's, but since he fell, they moved quickly to get him. That could happen again if the right guy falls. We're assuming the Bills will be picking a TE somewhat early this year, and maybe CB too, but what if the front office feels Anderson/Johnson at TE and James/later round pick at CB can be sufficient? I definitely don't feel that way, but OBD might. And if we did trade back into the first, I would be kind of upset because I feel we have SIX big needs.

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can't trade...

... because the only extra pick we have is a 7th, plus some compensatory picks (can those be traded?). Unless we're trading future picks, we don't have the ammo to move up - and trading future picks is a bad idea. Just ask the 49ers.

I wasn't saying we don't need a DT - I'd like one to be added for depth/competition purposes for Williams, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary to address it this off-season. There are bigger fish to fry right now.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade

So the only way we trade is if we have extra picks? That I don't agree with. Plenty of teams trade away picks to move up when they don't have the extra ones. I don't agree with trading up, but it's not impossible this year, especially depending on what is actually considered "needs" by OBD.

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clearly

You can always trade up. But the Bills have only done that the past two seasons because they've had extra picks. I don't see them trading '09 picks just so that they can pick a non-WR in the first round. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Trade down, yes; trade up, not so much.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

trading

No you can't trade comp piks, but if the Bills get a 4th round comp pick, does that not make it easier to trade their original 4th rounder?

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 22, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Comp picks are at the end of the round; we'd be trading, in essence, a fourth-round pick because we picked up, in essence, an early fifth-round pick as compensation. I don't like that. :)

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright

So then it makes it easier to trade the original 5th.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 22, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

And that might let you trade up into the third round. So, again, if we're looking to move up into the late 1st/early 2nd, we'll have to deal 2009 draft picks (or J.P. Losman - not likely) to do so.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Thoughts.

I think the Bills take the best value at the pick. Be it WR , CB, DE or a trade to move down. I really like the way they have been drafting lately so whoever it is I am not going to complain cuz I have been proven wrong by them to many time.

Wood

by rwwrodeo on Mar 22, 2008 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think this whole...

"best player available thing" has become laughable. Yes, it's a good philiosophy, but only when you tie it into team needs. If you don't, that's how you end up drafting a injured RB in round 1 when you already had a 1400-yard workhorse in the stable. That's just stupid.

the Bills have players at DE (Schobel, Kelsey, Denny). The Bills have players at CB (McGee, James, Greer, Youboyte). The Bills do not have a starting WR opposite of Lee Evans, who happens to be entering the last year of his contract (Reed? Parrish? Jenkins?!). The only chance of finding one prior to the 2008 season is the top of the NFL draft (barring trades-which are nearly non-existant). I'm not buying this whole "Jordy Nelson is just as good as Sweed or Kelly argument." Some may not be able to see the difference, but I'm positive the Bills scouts can. I would find it hard to beleive that the Front Office does not have a favorite among the group-a guy they think is distinctively better then the next best option.

If, for whatever reason they do not, and they think that the top 2 or 3 wide-outs grade out about the same, look for them to try to trade down and grab whichever one is remaining later in the first. If they can't trade down, then they'll simply stay at 11 and take the highest graded WR at 11. Simple as that. To take any other position at this point (barring one of the top 8 prospects dropping - which would require at least a look) the Bill must and will go WR in round 1.

This whole "best player available" concept is great in theory, but you have to be able to apply that to the needs of your team. Are the Bills really going draft a DE like Harvey in round 1, in spite of the gapping hole at the WR position? To borrow an old phrase: are they really going to "cut off their nose in spite of their face?"

John I.

by jri111 on Mar 22, 2008 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with a caveat

I also believe the Bills should pick a WR in the first if I wasn't clear earlier (this supposes people are reading my posts of course). Worse things could happen than if the Bills choose a Kelley with the 11th.

However, that pick is probably more valuable to other teams than it is to the Bills right now. We can get an extra 3rd and possibly a 2nd with it. Finding a trade partner is much easier said than done, but IMO the front office should be looking aggressively to deal with some of the teams below them. If OBD isn't grading one WR that much higher than the other, then they must look to trade if only for that extra pick. Look at it this way: it could be the difference between us being able to take Owen Schmitt (who everyone seems to love enough to spend a 3rd or 4th on). And its more than possible that we'd be able to choose between one of the "big three."

by DCRumbler on Mar 22, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree 100%

The Bills practice BPA after filling their needs. Case in point: Trent Edwards following Marshawn Lynch and Paul Posluszny last year. That philosophy only works in the later portions of the draft; we're still trying to build a foundation here, and we have a serious leak at wideout. We hav to plug it.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trent

Do you really believe Trent Edwards was a "luxury" pick last year? He is now the starting QB, not because of injury, but by the way he played. I have a feeling this was their plan all along. They wouldn't waste a #1 pick on QB because of RB need and JP had showed some promise, but my guess is OBD saw JP's demise coming. Plus, he was Donahoe pick. The Bills needed a quality QB somewhere in the draft and after Bill Walsh's comments on Trent, how could the BIlls pass him up?

by JTM1023 on Mar 22, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a luxury...

... best player available. There's a very big difference. Luxury implies the Bills had three quality quarterbacks; that certainly wasn't the case. Edwards was rated as highly as the top of the second round, and the Bills get him right at the end of (the old) Day One. That's BPA.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trent

Trent was definitely a best player available pick, the coaching staff said as much. He wasnt part of the original OBD plan at all, in fact they thought the team 1 pick ahead of Buffalo might take him and didnt make any moves to trade up.

by Thronsen on Mar 22, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does BPA after filling needs

apply to the Whitner draft? We had holes on both sides of the line at the time right?

by Kumario! on Mar 22, 2008 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes and no

Yeah, we had holes on the lines - especially the O-Line - but it's not like we were abundantly deep in the defensive backfield that year, either. We took Whitner, then we filled a "need" by trading up to nab McCargo. From there on out, we took more defensive backs (Youboty, Simpson) and BPA in Kyle Williams and Brad Butler (both 5th-round picks). I see that as pretty similar to the '07 draft; the '07 draft was much more exciting for us fans for obvious reasons (a.k.a. Lynch and Posluszny weren't completely left field as Whitner and McCargo were).

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

i agree completely. I think it may come down to character more than production in college, and other stats that set them apart. So many people think kelly, sweed, hardy, etc. are ranked about the same and i always hear about character players in buffalo, so if the bills dont have a clear cut leader in the wide receiver class what sets them apart in the bills mind? Unless they go completely different with the 11th pick.

by big john on Mar 22, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not best available player.

The best available player and the best value are two different things. I know I'm getting a bit anal here but here me out. We are not going to take McFadden if he falls to us even though he would be the best available player but not value for the team. If he did fall to us the best value would be to trade down. If pick 11 rolls around and we cant find a trade partner the best value to us will be a CB or WR. Say Kelly and McKelvin. Clearly McKelvin is the best value hereshort term he can come in and start. Although the Bills might not think so if they are looking past just this year. With Evens still not extended we might have no choice but to make sure we still have a top WR after next year if Evens gets away. So the best value to the team is not always going to be the best player. If I made any sense at all.

Wood

by rwwrodeo on Mar 22, 2008 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The workhorse..

went out to stud a little too often. I think the Bills knew they had an even bigger injury-prone knucklehead with Henry. I'm not saying the Bills shouldn't draft a WR in the first round, but I don't assume to say they have to.

by jj24 on Mar 22, 2008 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

trading down

the bills obviously need a wide receiver, but whoever we get doesnt have to come in and be a superstar. Our offense is going to be based around the run, so we need a guy to take pressure off of evans, and grab some first downs. whether we pick kelly or sweed isnt a huge deal since they're nsomewhat alike. plus the receiver class is deep enough. therefore i think trading down a few slots is a great option, because even if a team ahead of us takes a receiver, theres plenty still available and well have extra picks.

by big john on Mar 22, 2008 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Welcome to the site

Glad to have you, bigjohn. I'd like to thank you for pointing out that we don't need Randy Moss-type rookie production from our pick; we just need a guy who can be somewhat consistent, make plays in the red zone and be a player that opposing defenses have to give a second thought to. We need that so desperately it's almost painful.

I'll say this about all the trading talk: there are, by my count, four receivers (Sweed, Kelly, Thomas, Hardy) that could start immediately for Buffalo; the rest of this year's receivers would be BIG-TIME starting gambles as rookies. IF the Bills pass on them at eleven, and instead take a cornerback... how in the world are we expecting to trade back up for one of these four guys? We have no more ammo after trading our extra picks to land Stroud. If we trade down, it will be for a wide receiver, and if we trade up, it will be after taking a receiver. There is no guarantee that any one of those guys will be available past the 35th pick, because they're all similar athletes, and receivers tend to be selected in runs - once it starts, they'll all go fast. So it's either stay at eleven and get your guy, or try to be fancy, take a cornerback who may not start (or a defensive end who won't start), and hope to the heavens that one of those four guys is still there when you pick next. That's bad strategy, in my humble opinion - you take guys who can help your team when you can get them.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thankyou

for the welcome.
I personally think the bills will draft their wide receiver with the 11th pick. That way they have their choice between the top 4 available wide receivers. With the signing of veteran cornerbacks recently, the bills most likely wont take cornerback with the 11th pick. Also the need for a defensive end isn't as much of a need as wide receiver. With the addition of big defensive tackles, the defensive ends already on our roster will be more productive. the lack of free agent signings at wide receiver basically shows the bills are drafting wide receiver in the first round. and most likely with the 11th pick, where the bills can pick whoever they think best fits.

by big john on Mar 22, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

YOU MUST BE FLEXIBLE!!!

It is not as simple as drafting the best player. You must look at round 1 and 2 as a whole. Does anyone here really believe that the Bills would not have taken Patrick Willis if S.F. had passed on him? I don't. The Bills had plan A and plan B to get the two players that best filled both holes. Willis was taken so they shifted into plan B. The same will happen this year. I believe a WR at #11 is plan A. If a DT, DE, or CB that the Bills like slides to #11, we will take them and shift into plan B. If someone wants to trade up, they go with plan C. The key to a good trade is the same as the key to good sex. YOU MUST BE FLEXIBLE!!!

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 2:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I do.

Does anyone here really believe that the Bills would not have taken Patrick Willis if S.F. had passed on him? I don't.

I do. Marv Levy all but confirmed that Lynch and Posluszny were the top two guys on their board last year, and a third was available when they picked as well; many believe that to be CB Darrelle Revis. The Bills had their top three guys on the board, and they took the guy that filled the biggest need. I wanted Willis, and took him in last year's SB Nation Mock Draft (after trading up, no less), but I don't think the Bills were enamored with him.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Marv would never lie to us, would he ?

Marv and Ralf said they got their top two guys, but what would you expect them to say. "We really wanted Willis. But since we gambled and lost him to S.F., we figured we could get Posluszny in the second round and took Lynch instead." When is the last time you hear any team say anything like that about their top picks. Everyone always says they got who they wanted. They have to say that, so as not to piss off the player they just drafted and the fans that want to hear otherwise.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

But that still doesn't mean that he wasn't lying, and it doesn't mean that Lynch didn't rate ahead of Willis on their draft board. We'll never know how they rated, but I still believe that once Adrian Peterson's name was scratched off of Buffalo's draft board, our #2 guy, Lynch, became the top priority.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best Available and Need

Yeah, as much as Marshawn was a beast for us, I don't believe that AD wasn't also on the list. With the apparent need for a RB last year, how could the best prospect not be on the list? The need for WR is almost as apparent this year, so the best WR's should be on their list. Also, like last year's RB draft, we may even draft more than one WR. A #1 and possibly #3 or #4 could be on their radar.

by JTM1023 on Mar 22, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you don't fully believe that

Marv isn't going to say "man, we really wanted Adrian Peterson or Patrick Willis, but we had to settle for Lynch instead". Of course he's going to say the two guys we got were their top priorities.

That's like if your girlfriend asks you whether she's the hottest girl you've ever been with. Even if she isn't, you aren't going to say that.

by Kurupt on Mar 22, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wanted Willis too.

Are you sure it was Revis as the third guy? I never heard anything on who the third guy was, and I always wondered. Good find..

by krytime on Mar 22, 2008 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could be wrong

but I don't remember Peterson being projected to slide all they way to the Bills on any mock drafts. The Vikes were lucky he slide as far as he did. Willis was projected to go to the Bills, much the same way Kelly is this year. If the Bills were planning on getting Peterson last year, they must be planning to get Ellis this year.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry

about the grammar. The kids were having a meltdown.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually....

I was on here last year at this time saying that it could happen. Although it wasn't likely, it also wasn't impossible. The Vikings had Chester Taylor who was coming off a 1200+ yard season and had they passed on Peterson like the 7 teams prior to them (for someone like Jamaall Anderson, or Amobi Okoye) Peterson could have very easily fallen out of the top 10.

I do remember something, somewhere, saying that the bills gave Lynch a higher grade then Peterson, and would have taken him regardless of whether Peterson was there at 12, but I don't remember where I heard it. It definitely wouldn't surprise me.

John I.

by jri111 on Mar 22, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it was "planning"

I remember a lot of mock drafts having Willis going to San Francisco in late April, which turned out to be extremely true. The chances of Willis falling to Buffalo last April were minute. That's not the case with the receivers this year.

No worries about grammar. We're not perfect around here, just smart. :)

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 22, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

by late April Willis was projected by most to go to S.F. But pior to that, he was projected to go to the Bills. Willis was considered by most to be the best LB and a beast, much the same way Calvin Johnson was considered a freakishly talented WR. If Kelly or Sweed had that type of ability, there would be no debate.

by Joe P. on Mar 22, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree 100% with ya Bri,

we need a reciever very bad and taking him in the first round isnt as bad as everyone thinks.

Do you BILLieve?

by NYTXFAN on Mar 22, 2008 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Down and up

I know the odds of this happening really aren't good, but what if we trade down to get some value but still get one of the stud WR of either Kelley, Sweed, or Thomas, and then in the second round use the pick we gained to move up and grab Fred Davis, suddenly our offense would have some pretty solid talent on it

by ArenZimm on Mar 22, 2008 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs