Stiffler

Agreed. The currentl unis (the home darks especially) are terrible. The light blue throwbacks with the standing red buffalo need to come back!

Developing Edwards by giving him talent is your best argument for a WR at #11. But WR is less important for the Bills than just about every other position. Teams have gotten into the playoffs and won the SB without having two great WRs. Teams do NOT get into the playoffs or win the SB without great OLines and defenses. Drafting a WR at #11 is a mistake for that reason, and the fact that 1st-round WRs often bust, and just as likely take two years to develop, just in time for their price tag to increase.

This is my point. You cannot separate the trade from the contract. Once we trade a 2nd or a pair of 3rds for Turner, he is not going to be happy with sitting on the contract he has. Nor are the Bills going to want to let him walk after 2007 season. Therefore, an extension would immediately follow the trade. As such, the contract, imo, will resemble the one that McGahee, who also had one year left on his rookie contract, got from the Ravens. Bottom line: Turner is going to be expensive. Then again, as you stated Dean, I probably know less than most people.

Love it. The over-arching point I want to make is that when assessing value, or worth, one must look at two things: 1) talent and/or potential to succeed in the NFL and 2) contract. For example, comparing Turner to McGahee's value: 1) talent: Turner a slight edge because of his huge potential to be great whereas McGahee is a known solid commodity. (2) Contracts will be about equal: Both had one year left on a rookie contract. Thus, Turner's value is higher. To your points: 1) You can and should compare trades. Although not perfect, completed trades set a market value for running backs. Granted, as we both stated, all RBs are different; but that does not mean you cannot compare. It would be negligent not to. McGahee was worth 2 late 3rd-round picks. If the Bills, like most of the league, see Turner as having more value than McGahee, then he will command a better draft pick. Another relevant trade to look at is New England giving a late 2nd-round pick to the Bengals for Corey Dillon. He was a proven RB in his prime (with character issues) making a big salary. Is Turner the same value as Dillon back then? I'm not sure, but it seems to be close. Again, these trades aren't setting an exact market price, but they do give a good idea. 2) Yes, cheaper is better value if the two players are of comparable talent and potential. If they are not, and I assume you are saying that Turner has a better chance to succeed, then of course, the analysis involves a trade-off between price and talent. 3) Paying extra for more sure talent is fine. But I think your premise that it is only an extra million a year is far on the low side. Turner is going to want McGahee money or more; a Lynch could be had on the very cheap. The difference (including bonuses) between Turner and Lynch's contracts could be 3 or 4 million a year. (I don't want Marshawn, I'm just sayin.) McGahee's contract is essentially 4 yrs / $20M. Addai and Maroney are essentially 5 yrs / $10M (see links below). That's a difference of more than $3M / year! 5) The best teams don't pay for the RBs. Henry's deal was 5 years and $12 million guaranteed. Not expensive at all. Turner will get much more than that. New England and Indy used first round picks because they get four or five years of cheap service and they get production right away: NFL rookie RBs can contribute immediately. http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=2265 http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...NFL&id=3642

Dog, your posts are usually spot on. But your theme of worth/value is not as murky as you think. McGahee has higher value than TJones, thus the Bills got more for him in their trade. Turner has more value than McGahee, thus will get more in a trade. Is it a 1st-rounder? Doubtful. But equating Turner to TJones and WMcGahee is erroneous. Yes, I agree that Turner would be a mid-round 1st-round draft pick if he were a rookie about to receive a rookie contract. But he is going to be much more expensive than the comparable 1st-round pick, thus the comparable rookie 1st-rounder is more valuable (higher worth) than Turner. You cannot compare rookie salaries to free agent salaries. Rookies taken in the draft are beholden to the teams drafting them for 3-4 years. The fact that they cannot be bought in the open free agent market is why their salaries are so low for the first four years. Adrian Peterson would likely get more money than McGahee if he were a free agent right now. You speak, and many of the posters speak, of a "crapshoot," a "gamble," as if it is chance. While there is an element of chance involved, the overriding theme is maximizing value (worth). Trades and draft picks are calculated decisions based on what will help the team most in the short and long term (read: what gives the team most value). In regards to trading or not trading for Michael Turner, the question is not difficult: What are you willing to give up for a very good running back who is comparable to 1st-round talent, (Talent, not value.), who has only one cheap year left on his contract, and who will likely be expecting a big contract upon trading? In my opinion, the long-term value of an unproven, lots-of-potential rookie RB that can be had on the cheap for four years vastly outweighs the returns of an unproven, lost-of-potential NFL RB that will command a big contract. Look at the best teams in the league and their view of how the RB position should be handled: Denver: RB is expendable. Use a mid-round pick or a cheap FA pickup and plug into great OLine. Trade or let go when price too high. New England: use young RBs, spend money on QB, O and DLines; traded for Dillon with late 2nd-round pick. they, however, were ready to win right away in the short-term. He was a 2-year rental. Indy: let Edge walk when he wanted $$$, draft cheap RBs, let Rhodes walk. No one is talking about how much Turner will cost. He will demand a big contract-- essentially another free agent contract-- and we will be giving up a 1st-day draft pick. If we give up more than a 3rd, it is a bad trade.

Changing my mind. I still do not trust Levy's ability to run an NFL team. But the arguments have been persuasive-- some negative and sarcastic-- but persuasive. In the end, Marv is just doing his job in seeing if there is a market for a RB that will be an UFA after this year. And I suppose a guy like Willis is going to play hard regardless if his name pops up in the trade rumors. So... good job, Board. (I wouldn't trade him for less than a high 2nd-round pick.) Now, please lop on more sarcasm, I'm ready.

I never said he was a bust. Not at all. I am simply saying that taking him at #8 and passing on more Day1 draft picks was the wrong decision. As far as his play goes, I hope he improves. But many other touted safeties came in the league and excelled right away. Donte is not one of them.

Money is a motivator. More for some players than others. McGahee is one for which it is. Look at his history after his knee surgery: the motivation was incredible to stay a 1st-round pick and get paid. Now it's contract time again. He and Rosenhaus have been waiting for this for a long time.

Man, it's a good thing Dickens didn't go with his first copy: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. Marv should have traded down." The world would have missed a good book. Not sure what you were watching last year, but Donte Whitner didn't look anything like a "sure thing." I didn't see one game-breaking play, nor evidence that he was a game-changer a la Polamalu, Bob Sanders, Ed Reed, Roy Williams (who all showed such ability in their rookie year). I did see him, however, get burned often and look very mediocre. It was a bad decision. The 2006 draft was loaded.

Great post. Some over-the-top sarcasm for my taste. But still well done. But to your points: Leaks in the NFL are common if not to be expected. Even if Reese kept his "trap" shut, Marv should not have even been discussing a trade. For a mid-round pick? No. I do not claim to know the future. Like anyone, one can only predict based on past results. As such, McGahee has always wanted a big, long-term contract as has his pal/agent Drew Rosenhaus. The surest way to ensure that is to play his butt off this year. Regarding last year's draft: Would Whitner have been there if we traded down? Likely. For sure? No. Would they have gotten a comparable player AND extra day-one draft picks? Yes. Is that WELL worth it in that draft with Pro-Bowlers coming in the 2nd, 3rd rounds? Absolutely. With Clements last year-- there have not been many franchised players that held out the whole year. Have there been any? Any hobbyist listing my mistakes would be very, very busy

Willis would have had a great 2007 season: JPLosman is more comfortable, the OL is stronger, and, of course, Willis wants the big pay-day (and yes, for a guy like Willis and his pal, Drew Rosenhaus, this is a big big motivator). Apparently Marv thought that the trade discussions could proceed with complete secrecy, hence the "Bills officials annoyed" reports. This is just more proof of Marv's inexperience. I agree that this will not sit well with McGahee. He has a record of being unhappy about his contract and Buffalo. So now, instead of having a good offense led by a motivated, talented RB that knows the offense, we'll either have: a disgruntled McGahee that could potentially be a team cancer all year if Marv doesn't trade him or an extra mid-round draft pick; and Bills are forced to use an early draft pick on an unproven RB Do we get nothing for him after 2007? That's right. But is a 4th-round pick worth all the negatives? No. Oh, (and just to stoke the fires even more), Marv's other two huge mistakes: Agreeing last season NOT to franchise Clements for 2007, avoiding a preseason holdout. What did we get? A full team all pre-season. What did we lose? A top-flight CB for all of 2007. Inexcusable. The draft: should have traded down and landed Whitner later, picking up extra first-day picks; should NOT have traded up and gotten McCargo (the third best D-lineman on his COLLEGE team). Inexcusable in any draft, but worse in a deep draft. Marv Levy, HoF coach, has once again proved his inexperience at being a GM.

Both the Broncos and Vikes were calling. The Broncos gave up a 3rd round pick up move up to 11. The would have given up that or more to move to 8.

I was so happy to see an Economics 101 post as an Economics major... and then I soon realized I was dealing with someone that clearly was in over his head. First of all, neither "supply and demand" nor "value" were the overriding economic principles in play at the draft. The ECON the the Bills needed to concern themselves with, and unfortunately neglected, was opportunity cost: Opportunity Cost is the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action. The Bills passed on a trade that would have landed them draft picks better than those received by St. Louis in a trade with the Broncos. Let's say a third and a fourth rounder. In such a deep draft (as compared with last year's), those picks are valuable (see TBD gushing over Youboty and Ko). So, we had three possiblities at #8: a) Draft Donte Whitner. b) Trade. (If available) Draft Donte Whitner + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality c) Trade. (If not available) Draft (near)-Donte Whitner-quality player + Youboty-quality player + Ko-quality By choosing A, we passed on B or C. I would have prefered either B or C (even if we weren't able to get a 4th from Denver). And based on the fact that such quality guys as Youboty, Jean-Guills, Pope, Watson, etc. were still around in the 3rd and 4th rounds, I think most would agree. Another economic principle at play here with some of you TBD folk is Value of Ownership, where people value an object (or a player) more than the market simply because it (he) is theirs. (A little girl wouldn't sell her beloved ragged, stuffed animal for $1,000.) Everyone now loves Donte Whitner, and while this is great, and makes everyone feel all warm inside, the value some of you are placing on him is artificially high because now he is ours. If we had drafted Tye Hill or Chad Greenway, everyone surely would be gushing at our guy. I like Whitner. But let's not lose focus of the mistake made.

Excellent!... We got an 80-year-old first-year GM on a learning curve! In a few years, he might just completely figure it out! Seriously though, I like most of Marv's moves thus far. But he screwed the pooch in the first round.

Again... obie, why are you so concerned with 2006 starters. . . do you think 2006 is the year for the Bills. . . please