Koufax

Some pre-season observations: 1) Clearly McCargo is a bust. Whitner and Reed can't play through pain so are too soft for the NFL 2) Peyton Manning can't play through pain either, so is sort of a wuss, but that is okay because Quinn Gray is leading the league in passing yards, and likely to keep that up through the regular season. Word has it Gray has already filmed his Disney World commercial for after the Super Bowl as well. 3) The Patriots 22nd in scoring and go 0-16, making the 16 game year to year an unbreakable record...at least that is the pace they are on. 4) Trent Edwards will fail to pass for a single touch down, and JP will return to a starting role as the Bills fail to improve in any way and finish 7-9 again. 5) Marcus Mason and David Clowney will lead the league in rushing and passing, but neither will be able to beat out Mkristo Bruce and his NFL record 40 sacks for league MVP. ...or... it is just preseason. I am mixed on McCargo, but not based on one quote and one pre season game. I still think he has a lot of upside, and look forward to him being a valuable Bill this season. If you want to discuss front office draft strategy you can evaluate him as a first round pick, otherwise you just evaluate him as a football player, and one I am happy to have right now. Probably not the best pick to help our team in a perfect world, but certainly someone who can help this team win football games now. And I am going to lay off the Edwards stuff. He didn't look good in the few plays he played, but I'm going to base more of my opinion on what he did last year than on the first couple snaps of a practice game. The team has to play better, and I look for solid progress through the preseason, and hope we get Peters back, but let's just take a deep breath and base our insight and thoughts and analysis on more than a pre-season opener which consistently year after year are not a great indicator of the actual state and ability of a football team.

My general draft philosophy is that taking the most total expected contributions over a five year window is generally a good idea, and that over drafting based on need helps you get a little more contribution in year 1, at the cost of less over 2-5 (assuming the need pick is an inferior total football player, and that needs change with other draft picks, free agent signings, etc., so the year 1 need isn't a year 3 need necessarily). But to push this out and say that the Bills are making a mistake based partly on the contribution you don't expect in the 2013 season seems a little much.

Guys...4th round pick...not a place we are going to get a sure fired stud, so getting someone our scouting department thinks is good is fine with me, and if he can bump anybody down on the depth chart we are a better football team for it. I agree with the earlier comment about NE passing at will on us, and while our two picks aren't guaranteed to shut anybody down right away, you have to think that our secondary just got better and deeper. But what is surprising is most ratings I have seen don't have him close to the best CB left on the board, so hopefully our scouting is better than the "I run a draft website" crew.

Since the hard drive issue has removed the last 100 times I've said this, I will say for the FIRST TIME EVER: Draft the most football value you can in the draft. That means something like the best player available or the most useful of several similar players. And do it based on what kind of contribution you expect over five years. Filling specific holes is a bad situation to be in. Sometimes it works out well like last year, sometimes it bombs. I think last year you could make a case that both of our picks were the best players available when we picked them. If we can find a way for it to be a big tall WR I love that idea, but if we are going to get more 5 year value out of a DT, out of a CB, out of a DE, out of a TE then we make that move. The thing is, over a five year window there will be a lot of player movement and your needs will change. If you have taken an inferior player because you think you need him more in 2008, you are often giving up too much. I'm not saying we should take a RB or QB, but the draft should be more wide open to who we think will give the best contribution and football impact over five years as a football player, not as a patch for a flawed team.

Turner is an outstanding player, and I would be very happy to have him as a Bill. The fact that he was a 5th round pick is a mistake by all 32 teams like when Brady went in the 6th. The fact that he is a backup is like blaming Steve Young for backing up Joe Montana. The fact that he didn't go to a top 10 school has to do with choices made when he was coming out of high school, and not with the player he is now. But back to the point of the thread and article...the Chargers don't have all the power, and the article was ridiculous. The Bills did not trade McGahee to force them to have to land Turner. The Bills traded McGahee because they were happy finding the best alternative in round 1, round 2, or via trade to go with Thomas. Turner is a great fit for the Bills, but only if the trade makes sense and is fair. Similarly the Chargers don't have to trade Turner, and he would be a very valuable member of their 2007 team trying to win the Super Bowl. So neither side holds all the cards. Both sides can benefit greatly from a fair trade, and both sides are fine walking away if the deal available isn't fair. I think this settles down (pending contract extension demands) to mean our 2nd rounder + another lower pick (this year or next). If the Chargers are okay with that we get a great solution to our RB situation. If not Turner enjoys SD for another year and we head into the draft deciding between the two round 1 guys or the round 2 guys.

Crowell, Ellison, high draft pick (A little worried, but I don't think we will be worse than last year with 8-yard Fletcher and hobbling Spikes) I hope Michael Turner, but otherwise A-Train and a draft pick ranging from Peterson to Pittman Yes, Youboty is ready to be the full time starter. I don't get the doubts surrounding him. Maybe he will be a star, maybe he will struggle a little, but he is a starting corner and we can stop worrying about it. Sure he has to "win" the spot in camp, but we all know that is a forgone conclusion, and Marv will probably consider bringing in a 3rd rounder to compete with McGee and Thomas for the other starting spot. I just don't get all the worries. If the season started before the draft we would be in trouble somewhat with Wire and Thomas both starting. But it doesn't and we are looking for TWO starters out of the draft this year, one of them at the most interchangeable position in football (RB). Last year we got Ko, Dante, Kyle, Ellison, and Pennington as guys who started.

The difference is that having seen them both play a lot over the last couple years, I think that Turner is going to be better than Willis, aside from lower contract demands and better attitude. I could be wrong, and am not the best NFL talent scout. But I have a feeling Marv and DJ probably would agree with this. I would have traded MaGoofee for Turner straight up with no second thoughts, and don't mind spending slightly more than we got for Willis.

Yep, exactly right. I saw every Turner game all year, and he is tremendous and I would gladly give up our second for him. Dismissing him because he is a backup to LT (which Larry Johnson would be, and every other RB in football) makes no sense. I'm not saying he will be a HOFer, but I think he is a top 10 NFL back. I would give up #12 for him if there wasn't the contract extension issue which increases his total cost to us.

I was looking at Carr's numbers for that horrible team called the Texans (I was hoping to use them to show how much better JP was), and I don't think he is as bad as some people think. I think that the Shaub deal will go down as a terrible one (small upgrade in QB for a ton of draft value that should have been spent elsewhere). And I think Carolina just got a good backup who could be their starter if things go that way.

This year's second plus a third this year or next seems very fair to me. Turner is more valuable to us than MaGoofee and will be a better player, so I don't mind spending a little more, but would really like to stay away from anything in the first round. But my main question is since when is "has went" reasonable English that first 10 responses don't take a second to make fun of? TSW has way too many threads to begin with, with people starting new ones instead of adding their insight to another relevant thread, but at least we can hope for some quality grammar. I am not bold enough to start "The Official Michael Turner Trade Rumor Thread", but that wouldn't be a bad idea either.

No. Marv will not take AJ to the cleaners because AJ is very sharp, but Marv will not pay more than what he thinks Turner is worth no matter how good AJ is. That doesn't mean he won't overpay (Walker) or make a less than great decision, but I'm pretty confident he will do fine, and nearly certain how good AJ is will not play a part. And I'm fine giving up more than we got for MaGoofee. Turner is a better back right now (I saw all of SDs games last year). I just don't want to give up more in cash and picks than makes sense, when Willis would really help a lot and we could get a quality RB later in the draft.

I would take Peterson in a heartbeat if he falls to #12. The reason you can't equate giving up the #12 for Turner with giving it up for Lynch is the contract difference it will take for the next four years. I fully expect Turner to outperform Lynch. I'm still hoping for Willis at #12 and anything but the first for Turner (meaning our second and possibly something else). But if we don't get Turner done before draft day and Peterson falls I would be a very happy camper. If he can stay healthy (my one concern) he is going to be tremendous. And I don't see his injury history as necessarily pointing to an injury future. Peterson is higher on my draft board than Willis, and I think most people agree, which is why him falling to #12 would be a shocker, and nobody mentions Willis going in the top 10.

Wow. I'm glad you aren't our GM. Turner is a stud player and will be great whenever he gets to start. I watched him all last year (living in San Diego, that's about all we get), and he is a legitimate talent. I would give up our second in a heartbeat if I weren't concerned about how much more than Lynch/Pittman he will cost to sign for similar length.

Is that a negotiating tactic, or would you really not give up #43 for Turner conditional on negotiating a reasonable extension? Maybe it is just me being in San Diego and seeing every run the guy made this year, but I would be very very happy to give up the #43 for Turner if he doesn't break the bank to sign.

Thanks for the video, and I do like Pittman. I don't think the highlights on the video necessarily show everything, since a lot of them were huge holes and straight runs. From this video I didn't see the agility or elusiveness he would need to be an absolute stud at his size, but I think he could be an excellent pickup, and is why unless Peterson falls I would rather go with a round 2 back and take Willis at #12 than break the bank for Turner or draft Lynch.

Don't get too caught up with the point charts, but I agree in concept. But I don't think the Chargers would go for it. If the contract is right that would be a good fit for us, while giving the Chargers (in theory) more than our second pick is worth. I also think there will be better LBs available at #30 than at #43. So if he isn't getting huge free agent money for the extension I would do this, but I don't see it happening.

We are all free to talk about anything, and I am someone who easily gets off topic as well. But I think his general point is valid and would help make TSW better and more valuable and interesting to us all if we had fewer and more focused threads. So people can look for the "Will Peterson drop to #12" discussion before opening 15 different threads on that subject, and in this case finding or making a good thread to talk about Lynch, or Lynch vs. Peterson. But in practicality talking about Lynch in a discussion of Willis vs. Peterson doesn't seem too far off topic because the differences between Lynch and Peterson have a lot to do with any evaluation of Peterson.

The question posed was not will Peterson be available, it was just Willis or Peterson. I already voted, and I voted Peterson, because I think he will be a better player. But I think Willis is close behind, and I wouldn't be disappointed by either. But both of these "holes" we have at LB and RB we created intentionally, and I think taking an inferior player because he fills one of the holes we created doesn't make sense. So it comes down to who is the better player of the two. I think there is a reason most people think Peterson will go in the top 3 and nobody has Willis in the top 10. Peterson could be a bust and Willis could be as big an impact as Merriman, but we could also find Thurman in the second round and Brady in the sixth. We won't know any of that at #12, so I think the decision is who the Bills think is the better football talent, and that edge goes to Peterson right now.

I agree completely with your list and your appraisal, but not necessarily that that means no Okoye at #12. While getting a starting LB and a starting RB are absolutes, that doesn't mean we have to pencil in Willis or Lynch at #12. If we think Willis and Okoye are about the same level of players then I would definitely take Willis based on our need. But if we decide that Okoye is a much better player then we definitely would take him. My hope is that we have a LB or RB (Lynch or Peterson) available that also is viewed as the top talent available, because letting a clearly better player go because he plays the wrong position and taking an inferior player because he plays the right position is a way to trade a little gain in year 1 for a big loss in years 2,3,4 and build a mediocre football team.

Do you think Carriker is a better football player than Willis? Obviously LB is a bigger hole, so if we were to take Carriker instead it would because the difference is clear and significant. I still like Willis at #12 more than anything else. I think CB and DT are luxury picks that we can consider in the 3rd, but our top two needs are LB and RB, and the only reason I go away from those is if someone much higher on our draft board is available at another position. I don't consider drafting a CB or DT in the 1st because of need, only because they are the absolute best player available. Only LB and RB get any need bump in my mind. Lynch and trading up for a late round 1 LB could work, but I'm not as sold on Lynch as Willis right now as becoming an outstanding football player.

They are both terrific players, but by all accounts Peterson is an even more special talent. There is a reason nobody talks about Willis going top 5, but everybody talks about Peterson going top 5. While I agree that our need at LB is even bigger than our need at LB, we will pick up a player for each. The question is whether Peterson and a 2nd round LB is better than Willis and a 2nd round RB. I will be very happy with Willis, but if I can choose Peterson I do it in a heartbeat. Willis 1 Peterson 1 (after my vote)

If he does sign with Tennessee it is probably for the best. I have a feeling the picks and contract will not equal a good value for the Titans if the deal gets done this week, so I'm glad it would get taken care of before Marv would get a chance to be tempted to give up too much. I like Turner a lot, but I don't think he is going to be a good value, so liking him a lot means about as much as liking Peyton Manning.

And neither under contract for 2008 I love Briggs and Turner, but I think that between picks given up and contracts to keep them, we don't want to try to outbid the Redskins in mortgaging the future. If we can get Turner for our #43 and sign an extension I would be very happy, but I don't see Briggs fitting in at all right now, and certainly not both.

I saw Turner run all season long out here (hard to get the Bills on TV here), and he is very very good. The O-Line is good, and Gates is outstanding, but you also have to take into account that the WRs aren't very good and the opposing D stacks against the run in general and knows they are going to run in later stages, which I think more than makes up for the O-Line strength or any "blowout against the backups" factor.

I think Turner will be better than Lynch. But he also will be more expensive, and in a salary cap league, that means he diverts resources from another area on the team. His biggest issue is his contract, which is also the most unknown situation. I think Marv and DJ will do something smart. Talent wise I'd be elated to have Turner, but as to what picks and dollars make it seem like a good deal, it is hard to tell. The man is going to get paid, whether before or after the 2007 season, and while he will probably be worth what he gets to somebody, I don't know that AJ's draft pick asking price and Turner's dollar asking price adds up to a good value for the Bills. But if we could somehow come out of the draft with Willis and Turner I would be very very happy (as I would with Peterson and Poz). But I think we are all playing April Dreamers, and we will probably end up with something much less glamorous and exciting, but hopefully that helps us win football games just the same.