Dan

I tend to agree with you, but I'm not so worried about his return to college form. I'd say, its been plenty of time for that to happen. I do think he could be a heck of a RB if he gets behind a good line and is reasonably motiveted each week. So, I've always been hopeful he'd stay here and tear things up. However, with that being said, if the reports regarding his work ethic, attitude, and unwillingness to learn the playbook are true; then I say screw trading him, bench him for a year then put him in NFL Europe. Seriously though, at the very least, that kind of attitude would definitely warrant trading him regardless of our alternative.

Are you reading what you're saying.... A player in a contract year, is going to hold out and not play? So, he's going to stake his future on a 2006 season where he gained less than 1000yds and a 2007 season where he held out and refused to play? If he does that, he's dumber than I ever would have guessed.

I completely agree. That's been my assesment of Marv's rebuilding plan as well. He's brought in some good draft picks that'll be future stars for years to come. While trying to mix in a few FA's that are past that initial learning curve period and should provide us with an immediate turn around on production. He's defintitely holding true to this plan again this year. Look at our OL (just to keep this on the point of the original post); we have sevveral young guys that are still learning, but now we have a few FAs that'll hopefully propel us forward. Just as Dockery and Fowler are slipping due to age, these 2nd year guys will be in a good position to take over. It's a well mananged, well thought out plan so far. The only caveat is injuries and busts due to poor evaluators. Hopefully, our talent guys know what they're doing with Dockery and Walker. I like the moves, alot. But it'll probably be mid season before I say the moes were truly the right ones.

I think there's a few points here that several people are dancing with. Do you build the OL through the draft or through FA? That's the primary question, and I would offer that the proper answer is... Yes. I think there are examples of teams building a solid OL both ways. Although I do agree with Bill, it seems the best (perhaps most assured is a better way to put it) way to get a stud LT is through the draft. Clearly either way you go, you have to have good coaching and good talent evaluators. But, I think the tandem question here is... How quickly do you want that solid OL? Building through the draft is a longer process, because the players will take several years to fully develop. However, the idea is that a 3 or 4 year FA has already gone through that learning curve and can contribute in his first year with the team. I think for the Bills' purposes, building through FA was the best option. We have a decent QB going into his 4th year, a great WR, adequate back up receivers, and a good RB (provided he stays or we trade for someone comparable). So, we need a sold OL next year, not in 3 years. Hence, Marv gets alot of credit (IMO) for recognizing our need, recognizing the best way to address it, and paying the money to the players to get them here. Either way you decide to build the line, I think you have to commit to it and that was TDs failure. He got a few picks on the line. He got a few FAs. But, he never said the OL is a priority and I'm going to draft 2 or 3 guys a year until we get our starters. Or we're going to pay top dollar and bring in quality FAs and get our starters. He dabbled in both with no clear direction and the results were painful to watch. Marv, on the other hand, stuck his finger in the dike last season with a few guys; allowed McNally to shuffle them around and see what we had. Then he went out this year and brought in the guys he (or someone) wanted and the team needed to finally progress the line. With luck, the talent evaluators did their job and we'll see a much better line performance next season. What should that tell most people? That Marv is trying to field a team that will be in the playoffs next year, not in 2 or 3 years.

Good point. And, believe me, I'll never pretend to know the ins and outs of these player moves. If its done properly, I can definitely see your point and would agree with them whole heartedly. I'm just saying I like many of the moves Marv makes because many seem to be good for the team and they're done with character and class. And that makes me prouder than ever to cheer for Marv and the Bills.

You're absolutely right. But, as another poster pointed out... Nate and Dockery have the same agent. Dockery signed with us without visiting any other team. So, maybe Nate (or at least his agent) did thank us? Who knows, but its an interesting thought.

I agree with exactly what you're saying. But... if you see something that's wrong and you disagree with it, do you do it too just because everyone else is doing it? Or do you take the high road and lead by example? I try to do the right thing regardless of what every one else is doing, and I'm glad Marv is running the team by doing the right thing and treating players as people rather than just as commodities to be traded, bought, and sold. I know it's not the best business sense. I know it often puts the team (and myself) at a disadvantage. We lose players like Nate with no compensation. But, I can sleep better making bad business decisions albeit good personal moral choices. Maybe Marv thinks similarly. And maybe one day the good karma will turn around and shine on our team.

Rosesnpimp knows exactly what he's doing. Imagine the pay raise Willis gets if he stay in Buffalo for 1 more year, shuts up, learns the playbook, and runs for 1500yds - then hits the open market.

I've gotta say I don't completely nuy into this whole notion that the Bills won't extend a player at some high salary. I guess we'll see in upcoming years with JP, Evans, Peters, etc. But, the Bills could have re-signed Nate if they wanted. They've pretty much spent that much money already. The question is do you spend all that on 1 player when you need 6 (or more)? In a few years, that may change and we won;t have holes all over the place. Therefore we can spend huge bucks and re-sign 1 or 2 players. But, to say "we can't/didn't re-sign Nate because its too much" is not telling the whole story, IMO. It would be more accurate to add "when we have so many other needs" to the end of that.

exactly

If you're playing for 2008, you don't spend roughly $75 mill on veteran linemen. You draft guys and let them develop for a year.

I understand what you're saying. But, look at the monies invovled. Marv had a choice: spend money and attempt to upgrade the O-line or spend money and resign Nate and London. I think we can all agree that we couldn't do both. So, Marv chose to address the O-line. Was that the wrong decision? We'll get an idea of that after the draft and we see all the moves. But, we won't know for certain until sometime next season. For myself, I like the moves. Neither Nate nor London did much of anything to stop the run last season. So why not change those two position up? And we certainly needed an upgrade on the line. Like Marv's choices or not, one thing is clear. They targeted 2 guys and got those 2 guys. So, now we'll see if they were right.

So without Clements our defense is worthless? I know he was a good CB, but the defense doesn't begin and end with Clements. I think what people are saying is that its better to have a great offensive line, than a single great CB.

Excellent correction. Thank you sir.

Couldn't we word this another way and still be somewhat accurate in the spin... One was an aging LB on one of the worst run defenses in the league in 2006.

So you're saying we need a LB, right?

Now, you've really lost me. Where do we find the answers if not in FA or the draft? Space Aliens? Clearly I'm being fecetious, but really what do you suggest if we don't have players on the team good enough, we can't sign FAs that are good enough, and we can't draft players that are good enough?

Very much agree with that statement. It's not like he sucked either. I wonder why he's not re-signed already? Perhaps he thinks he can take advantage of the free money as well? I can easily see us getting a later round CB, but if Thomas or not FA signing comes in, it could be much higher in the draft than I've been thinking.

I thought about that and wondered what he would have to say abot this. But my guess is that he's reasonable enough to see those numbers and realize, Nate just couldn't fit into our plan like that.

Yeah, I see your point. I wasn't thinking about that. I was thinking more just in terms of talent. Not so much numbers. I'm still hoping we sign K. Thomas back as well. So that would help a little with numbers as well.

I'm not sure I'd say that. I think too many people are cutting Youbouty short. They drafted him last year for a reason. Just because we, as fans, see him as a big unkown (and therefore tend to discount him); I'm not sure the coaches see him that way. I guess time will tell and I may eventually change my mind here. Although I think CB is an area of interest, I would rate our biggest need right now as LB. I know many think DL and I could make a strong arguement for that as well. I think the braintrust see Triplet, McCargo, and Williams and say we have something there. Not that it can't use some more talent mind you. But, in comparison to LB (especially if TKO is on his way out) I'd say the DL is marginally better. Now, if Willis is traded; I might change my mind and call RB our biggest need. I mean who do we have after Willis? A whole lotta nothin.

I knew I liked you and your posts. Excellent post! Finally, the line has been given some proper attention. Regardless of how it turns out, at least Marv has tried.

No... you've missed it. Now that Ralph actually spent some money, they're on the "Ralph wasted his money on bad players" horse. See either way they come out bitchin. No FAs signed today... Ralph is cheap. FAs signed... no problem, what a wast of money on those no bodies that I haven't heard of. See the perfect circularity of thought.

I completely agree. And as Dibs said a post earlier, we just signed one of the 3 best FA guards. What more do people want? All this talk about Reyes, the one thing that some people are forgetting is... what did that bad decision cost us? Not a whole lot. So, in the end, it wasn't that bad of a decision at all. It was a shot, that's all. Now Walker and Dockery could be big mistakes, given the amount of money they appear to be getting. But, for anyone to come up now and say they're undoubtedly big mistakes is just BS. Dockery by all accounts appears to be a solid player that the Redskins wanted to keep. We just paid him more and got the guy we wanted. Walker is a little more of a question mark for me, but until I see him fail in Buffalo, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he'll at least be a little better than CV. Some people just can't be happy. There's little doubt that we just seriously upgraded the talent on our O-line today - even the "experts" on ESPN, NFL Network, and Sirius recognize this fact. Yet, some people would rather find fault. It's actually a fairly pathetic attempt to garner attention, IMO.

Total Access reported he's been talking to Seatle all day.