2003Contenders

Terrell Suggs and Chris McAlister... We can ASK, right?

No, not necessarily. I would view either a healthy CB or Rhodes as an improvement over Thomas. But neither is an upgrade over Willis. It also depends on what we can get for Willis in a trade. Personally, I still do not think that Willis is going anywhere, as I do not believe that another team will cough up a Day 1 pick (or decent player) for him. Thus, I hope Rhodes and Brown are being pursued as compliments to Willis -- rather as potential replacements. Regardless of what happens, I fully expect Marv to draft a young back on Day 1 of the draft.

While I agree that he probably is not in the team's long-term plans, if we can't get decent compensation for him, I see no reason why he won't play out his string in 2007.

I wonder how much the injuries have sapped him of his prior abilities. If he was so great -- why did Travis beat him out of a job? The same Travis who lost his job back in 2004 here to Willis? I'm OK with CB as a replacement for A-Train. Not sure I'd be comfortable with him subbing for Willis. Now, maybe a combination of CB AND DR...

The Bears have until June to work out a long-term deal. If they wait until afterwards, then they lose the ability to use the Franchise Tag again for the life of Briggs' contract.

I wouldn't mind having Gandy back at the veteran minimum to backup Dockery at LG -- or compete for the starting RG position.

Maybe not... We still have NOT resigned A-Train.

And it probably means that OLB is the bigger position of need that can be filled either va free agency (Cato June) -- or in the draft. You can usually find a decent OLB that can start right away in the 2nd or 3rd round.

Recall also that Marv came in as a new GM last season -- and he had precious little time to make the decision about franchising Nate right away, as the designation was due by mid February. Also, at that time, there was serious concerns about whether or not there would be an extension to the CBA or not. As it was, 2006 looked to be the final capped season -- and there were serious restriction about how to back-load contracts and prorate signing bonuses. Under the circumstances, the Bills did exactly the right thing. The one area where they seriously err'ed was in their decision to promise NOT to retag Nate. In doing so, they gave up valuable leverage -- and prevented themselves from being able to demand some kind of compensation for him. (Did you see what the Broncos just gave up for Bly?) Truthfully, the Bills' use of the franchise tag last season was the best thing that could have happened to Nate. It gave him a mulligan for a sub-par 2005 season -- and he made good on it. Congrats to him for landing the big payday -- and congrats to the Bills for having the good sense NOT to try to overpay to the extent that the 49ers did.

I'm not sure that we can lay the guilt-by-association at the feet of Fairchild. I think, if anything, he was overly conservative last year -- but most of that was because he was scared to death of JP losing the game. As he became more confident in JP, he began to open the playbook up more -- and the offense magically got better. That is to say, that I liked what I saw out of Fairchild and believe that he will try to make the best use of the talent on hand. Remember that he also used to be a RB coach. I think where the signing of these new big bodies especially helps us is in those situations where we had trouble converting 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1 last year. If I am Willis right now, I'm trying to be on my best behavior so that I do not get traded -- even to the point of promising to show up for OTAs!

Not sure what's up with the the Travis love-fest. I seem to remember his final days playing here back in 2004, when he was stinking it up en route to a lousy 0-4 start -- that we only recovered from AFTER Willis came in for relief. (My heart skips a beat when I think back to THAT Willis, stiff-arm and all!) And it was Travis who FORCED the trade. The Bills wanted him back in 2005. Oh, and what happened after he was traded to the Titans? He had to serve a 4-game suspension. That to go along with the problems he had when he was in Buffalo with under-age girls. As much as we all dis Willis for not knowing the plays, do you all remember how horrible Travis was at doing practically everything except for running with the football? I do.

There is no denying that there may have been some racism involved in regards to Moon's non-selection regardless of Williams' status. Still, I could be wrong, but I would venture to say that in Williams' very short time in the league, he won more playoff games than Warren Moon did over his lo-o-o-ong career.

Raider fans were not sad to see him go: Langston Walker to Void Year... Let's just hope that a change of scenery with better coaching does him some good...

Saw that the NFL Network is reporting that the Bills and Dockery were CLOSE to signing. Now, maybe they are getting their information second-hand from the likes of Chris Brown. However, if this is true, then maybe the PC is on hold until after the deal is done. Anyone know if the PC has even started yet?

Word out of Washington is that he's looking for $12 M up front, which was too rich for the Skins' blood, if you can believe that.

This guy was probably also a victim of Gallery's miserable failure at LT. The Raiders will have to move Gallery back to RT, which makes Walker expendable. If he can be had for limited funds -- and is capable of playing adequately, maybe not such a bad deal -- even if he is being relied upon as a starter.

Jon Kitna, who passed for well over 4000 yards last season.

Bengals.Com is reporting that the team may be interested in Takeo... Hmmm.

I agree. That's why I'm so interested in watching the fall-out from the trade talks. That is, it has to occur to Willis that he is not nearly in as much demand as he thought, which should be a signal for him to be on his best behavior -- as his ultimate goal is still to hit the big payday. I expect the Bills to acquire a RB to challenge Willis REGARDLESS of what his status with the team is. If he sulks and pouts -- that's fine. He'll just muddy his own water. If he does what he needs to do -- and regains some of the passion he showed back in 2004, he'll either find himself franchised or re-signed by the Bills. All of this is just to say that the Bills should NOT take anything less than a Day 1 pick for Willis, even if he and his agent demand a trade. We hold all of the cards in this situation... Also, if we're going to draft a RB with the pick that we hypothetically acquire for Willis... Why wouldn't that hypothetical trading partner just sit tight and make the same selection. After all, that's what the Cardinals did back in 2005 when we were in talks with them about Travis. Sad for them, that pick (for JJ. Arrington) hasn't worked out.

What about Landry? Or is he more of a fit at safety than CB?

Don't think the Ravens would be interested in Willis. He didn't exactly make a good impression on them in the season finale.

I'm starting to think that Willis may in fact be the Bills' man. On the NFL Network last night, one of the scouts commented that he would be a perfect fit for the Cover 2 defense, thanks to his instincts and ability to roam.

Whatever... 1. Anyone whining about "Cash to Cap" and calling Ralph cheap should take a close look at the contract that Kelsay just signed. 2. What was Jauron supposed to say? If you read his quotes, I think his answer was spot-on. That is, the Bills do not HAVE to trade Willis, but if an offer is presented to them that is too good to refuse, they will listen. FYI, it was the Giants front office that let the cat out of the bag that Willis might be available, not the Bills. Personally, I am excited that the team is interested in finding an upgrade whether Willis remains on the team or not. 3. If we have a draft in 2007 that approaches what we did last year, it will NOT take 3+ years to be truly competitive. And, if some of the guys who didn't perform from last year's draft (McCargo, Youboty and Butler) manage to step up this year, all the better. Just what UFAs are we losing? Fletcher? I don't think his probable departure has as much to do with money as it does with his age and the fact that the coaches want a different style MLB. Clements? Well, TD tried in vain to r-sign him -- and Marv was forced to slap the franchise tag on him. The dude is bound, set and determined to test the open market, which is his right. Not much anyone can do about that.

Don't think that will happen now that Kelsay has re-signed.

Isn't that why revenue sharing is supposed to exist? To help the smaller market teams support an NFL franchise, right? Remember, that until recently, the Bills had one of the highest payrolls in the league. (That is one thing that TD did do -- clean up our cap problems.)