2003Contenders

Forget about Aikman too... His overall stats were inflated by that first game in which he threw 4 TD passes -- thanks to the horrible job our own offense did setting him up with 8 or 9 turnovers. Believe it or not, Kelly outplayed him in the second Super Bowl, and he didn't do anything all that special in the win over the Steelers either. He was a decent QB -- who was blessed with a great offensive line and Emmit Smith. (Take a look back at what his career record looked like WITHOUT Emmit!)

If the draft really did break down like that when we're sitting there at #12, I sure hope we'd take a long look at A Peterson or Okoye...

Actually I think it had less to do with money -- and more to do with the manner in which the players felt that they were being treated. TD had a knack for putting out a "Take it or leave it!" offer that was often viewed by the players as being insulting. He would then demonize the player in the press to make them seem greedy for not accepting his low-ball offer. Many of us admire TD at the time for driving a hard bargain, but (in the long run) I think it had a negative toll. I think Marv has done some positive things (including the way he handled the troy Vincent situation last year) to help turn that feeling around. That is one reason why I don't think that we can write off Nate coming back so quickly. Of course, Nate's situation is much different than, say, Pat's was because Pat really wanted to stay here -- and a reasonable offer would have kept him from ever testing the free agency market. The contract he signed with the Vikings was not THAT extravagant. As for Nate, we all know that his goal is to see how much he can get paid in free agency. A player has the right to test the market, and the front office shouldn't be vindictive, when the said player chooses to do so. At least Marv has done a decent job of building up morale to make players WANT to stay here. If Nate prices himself out of our reach, then so be it -- but at least it won't be because he felt disrespected by the current organization and went somewhere he felt wanted.

Reminds me of the Super Bowl XXVII highlight film that ESPN shows every year that Jimmy Johnson narrates in his monotone voice for some inane reason: "I liked Jim..." (at the point when JK gets knocked out of the game).

Also, signing Hood would be very similar in style to what the team did last year in free agency, when instead of tabbing big names, they went after guys that they thought were on the cusp of being quality players.

I think some people are placing too much emphasis on his weight. By all accounts he has looked exceptional this week in Senior Bowl practices. And 287 lbs of lean muscle is still harder to hold at bay than 300+ lbs of fat goo...

Also, in Reed's defense that was a pretty good Giants defense he faced, which was predicated on stooping the passing attack with as many as 8 guys dropping back into coverage. To me it was pretty amazing that he managed to get open as often as he did.

I would say that some of the acquisitions that we made on defense in the off-season between 2002 and 2003: TKO, Sam Adams, Lawyer Milloy -- made a difference in elevating the defense from the bottom of the league to #2. Of course, Bledsoe and the offense were so bad we still finished with a 6-10 record.

There are several high profile Jewish people that work as ESPN. I would assume that if this had any teeth to it, then ESPN's response would have been much different than it was.

Agreed. And note that he excelled later in the season, when being matched up against the opponent's top receiver. Harrison, A Johnson, Coles and Chris Chambers were virtually shutdown by Nate.

That Madden guy was pretty good too...

We laugh at Davis, but he usually "picks" the right coach. (He really wanted Sean Payton a couple years back). Too bad no one wants to work for him.

That's because with few exceptions (Hawk, Urlacher) LBs are not a premium draft position, and you can usually nab a good one in the later rounds.

I have too chuckle at those who worry about how much money Nate can command. It's not OUR money we are talking about spending -- it's Ralph's, right? Now, I suppose I could understand if we were in cap trouble and folks felt that it would be smarter to allocate the money elsewhere. However, we look to be $40 M under the cap! A team that everyone keeps saying may be a suitor is Washington. Now THAT is a team that is in serious cap trouble. Thus, there is no way that they would be able to outbid for his services if it came right down to it. The truth of the matter is that Nate was a positive for this team last season. Given that we have some holes to fill -- which in my opinion are actually "fillable" -- why should we open more holes by letting someone like Nate walk. So what if he signs an over-inflated contract? It is worth more to our team to keep him, than it would be to spend the money on finding someone else to back-fill him. Has everyone forgotten how awful McGee was last season? Do you really want to imagine him as our #1 CB? I keep hearing all of this media speculation that Nate may have priced himself out of Buffalo, but I wonder why that seems to be a given. During the Super Bowl years Ralph had no problem paying guys like Kelly, Thurman, Bruce, Cornelius, etc top dollar. So why should he now? In my opinion, if Nate leaves it's either because 1. He didn't want to come back. or 2. The coaching staff felt like they had a better alternative. From the quotes I've read, it sounds like he wants to be back. And Fewell made it a point to identify him as a strength for our defense. Thus, I do not see either of the above points as factual. The reality is that Nate is excited about testing the market because this is his best shot at getting a big payday. Thus, I do not necessarily feel that the team's inability to sign him to a long contract prior to now means that he doesn't want to be back. Rather, he knows that there are LOTS of teams out there with cap space, the CB position is always in high demand -- and he is coming off a very good season. Thus, it would be foolish of him NOT to test the market. Now, maybe some team will make such a ridiculous offer that it is NOT in the Bills' best interest to meet or exceed it, but I still believe that he has a better than 50/50 shot at re-upping with the Bills, provided that he is sincere about wanting to come back.

I seriously heard this same report last week, when Parcells first hinted at retirement. It would make sense on a number of levels, given that the Cowboys are currently running a 3-4 scheme -- and fans out in Dallas will probably warm a little easier to Wade than Buffalo fans ever did. Note without comment: we play them next year.

One thing being missed by some of the Willis haters out there is that, coming off the sub-1000-yard season, WM's stock is lower than it will ever be. Thus, he has little in the way of bargaining power and can be had at a cheaper price (even with his overzealous agent) than would otherwise be the case. Marv missed this opportunity last season, when Nate was coming off a bad year -- and shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

Another possibility is someone like Justin McCareins, who the Jets are likely to release. He was a disappointment in NY -- but a change of venue could do him some good. He also fits the mold of the big-bodied WR.

I think Rich Gannon made some great points about Losman in the regular season finale against the Ravens. The kid has grown by leaps and bounds from last year to this year. His accuracy has definitely improved, as he completed a nice 60+ percent of his passes this year. However, his accuracy could still stand to improve in terms of hitting his receivers in the exact location to get better after-the-catch yardage. I also think that his pocket presence is getting better -- and should improve even more with better protection. The real key for him will be how well he starts reading defenses next season.

The funny thing is that based on the "NAME" free agents that were available last year, many of us would argue that the Browns had the best off-season last year. How's that look now? Some of the guys that we picked up were under the radar -- but made decent contributions: K Thomas, R Royal, Fowler. Thus, given the bang-for-buck, I'm not so sure that Guy didn't do such a good job.

Personally I agree. Nate was able to single-handedly shutdown some pretty good WRs (Harrison, A Johnson, C Chambers to name a few) this season, and he is definitely going to be better than anything that we would have on hand to replace him with. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and pay whatever it takes to lock him up for the next 5-6 years. As you point out, given our nice cap situation, money is not necessarily the issue. Indeed, I have a feeling that politics plays a role too -- and if Nate receives the kind of payday from us that it will take to keep him in the fold, he will become the highest paid player in team history. That in and of itself is an uneasy thought with guys like Lee Evans, Willis McGahee and JP Losman not far from free agency themselves. What's more, don't forget that this is a two-sided negotiation, as Marv supposedly parted with the Franchise Tag bargaining chip that would normally be at his disposal. (Let this be a lesson not to EVER do this again, Marv!) Thus, in order for Nate to continue playing here he has to WANT to stay here -- and I've heard conflicting reports that this may not be the case. In my mind, Marv screwed the pooch on this one in many ways last season. Recall that Nate was coming off a really bad season -- and his bid for free agency hit at the worst possible time for him. Instead of working a deal to buy low at that time, Marv essentially gave Nate another try at a contract year -- and this time he made good on it. Thus, he probably allowed Nate to price himself out of our market.

Given the success that Marv and Co had with virtually the rest of the draft, you do have to wonder what they may have been able to do with an extra 2nd rounder -- and without giving up that 3rd to move up for McCargo. The funny thing is that the pick that looked like the biggest steal at the time (AY in the 3rd) now looks like the biggest reach, given AY's relative lack of playing time in 2006. Of course, the verdict is still out on that pick just like it is on all of the others. For example, many of our Day 2 picks were rushed into duty by necessity. Does that necessarily mean that they were great picks? Maybe. Maybe not. I think back to the 2001 draft, which was TD's first (and best) draft for us. There were a number of players that were rushed into duty that year too. Some of them have gone onto have productive careers (Schobel, Nate, Travis, Jennings), while others (Edwards, Spoon) haven't. Mort -- who was still bemoaning the departure of TD -- always claimed that there was confusion in the Bills War Room on draft day. I'm not sure where he would have received this tidbit -- and none of us will ever know if this was indeed true. Perhaps there was some indecision on the part of the front office regarding the trade offers. Maybe they spent too much time analyzing what players would be left, if they decided to move down 6-7 spots, as the Eagles and Broncos were both supposedly offering 2nd round picks to move up. I think it is fair to assess that DW would have probably been gone by 14 or 15 if the Bills had pulled the trigger on the trade. Thus, maybe management was guilty of being overly fond of DW in their refusal trade down. Yet, I did not hear criticism at the time of the Raiders and Lions -- both of whom probably had similar trade offers on the table and also refused to trade down to acquire more picks. Given that Whitner was a starter from day one -- and played quite well as a rookie (Note that I don't remember him getting beat over the top very often in the passing game, and he helped the defense wind up with a top 10 rating against the pass.) -- it is hard to really dislike that pick. The only other player taken in that range, who could have conceivably been an upgrade (to this point) would have been Ngata. We know that there was a considerable amount of disagreement amongst the coaches and front office people about whether or not Ngata was a good fit. There was some perception heading into the draft that he was known to take plays off -- and even so, he was NOT a 3-down lineman. I have always felt that Whitner was a consensus selection -- that is a pick that EVERYONE on the staff was on board with and a low-risk selection at that. From that perspective -- and considering the overall "We Are Family" vibe that was to be a season-long motif, I think the Whitner pick may have been every bit as much of a symbolic move as it was a move to acquire an impact player. That is something that was lost on most of the pundits... Even those who thought the team "reached" for Whitner at the time, acknowledged that he was a pretty good player that was definitely a first round talent. However, the McCargo selection was greeted with outright sneers at the time, as some draftniks (like Kiper) had him rated as a 3rd rounder. I would compare the move to get him to what TD did back in 2002 to get Ryan Denney. At the time, our spies had the intel that the Steelers were all set to draft Denney at the end of the second round. Instead, TD moved up from the 3rd to swipe him right from under their noses. Maybe it wasn't in our best interest to move up like that, but if the coaches and front office really wanted him, that's what they were going to have to do. The same thing happened last year with McCargo. The Bills caught wind that the Giants were prepared to draft him at the end of the 1st round, so if the Bills wanted him they were going to have to move up to get him. Obviously the verdict is still out on McCargo; we have to hope and pray that he isn't injury prone, for example. Obviously, DT was a need -- and the draft was dangerously thin at that position in 2006. (Note that there was a major gap between the McCargo pick and when the next DT was taken.) We will not know for some time whether Kiper's assessment of McCargo as a 3rd rounder was right on or not; however, McCargo was something of a late riser. Lenny P had just written an article days before suggesting that he could go as early as the 1st round. If Marv, Modrak or whomever made that call turns out to be correct, then adding a single big body (which should be available in free agency or the draft, where DTs appear to be more plentiful this year) should shore up the interior for years to come. All in all, we headed into the 2006 draft with so many holes to fill that the draft could have taken any direction imaginable. Thanks partly to some nice choices in that draft, we are in much better shape heading into 2007. Thus, I expect this draft to be far more focused than was last year's.

Besides, this isn't legal anyway -- as a contract must be in place for a year before it can be restructured in the manner you suggested.

Actually, I predict a low key off-season from the 'Skins for a change. For one thing, the front office has received an incredible amount of criticism (rightfully so) for last season's spending spree that netted them some over-priced non-factors such as Adam Archuletta and Brandon Lloyd. Gibbs is on record saying that the team needs to make fewer "Wow!" moves this off-season and more astute minor adjustments here and there. There is even talk of bringing in a "real" GM to do a better job scouting around the league. Furthermore, the team's extravagant spending in years past has caught up with them in terms of the salary cap. If Nate really is too expensive for the Bills to have a legitimate shot at holding onto him, you would have to think that he'd be too expensive for Danny to get him -- even if he wanted to. Thus, I really think he has a better chance of staying with us than moving to Washington.

Isn't Hargrove himself a free agent?

The good news is that in today's watered down league, you don't have to be better than decent to make it into the playoffs. With what looks to be an easier schedule in 2007, we could make it into the playoffs with the team that ended the 2006 season.