Koufax

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.

I agree with the line of reasoning showing up here. From the limited games we saw Pennington and Preston line up next to each other I got the sense that Preston was the weaker link, in addition to being older (less room for improvement) and less physically gifted. I trust McNally more than my eye, but if you have to ask me I'd like to see Walker at RG and Pennington at RT.

Wow. I really hope we don't go WR in the 1st. There is no WR with the impact of Willis, and I consider our need at LB to be much greater than our need at WR. While getting a bigger possession receiver would be cool too, I think that Price, Reed, and Roscoe all have upside and working with JP in the second year of the offense behind a better line should really help. One play does not make a receiver, but with the catch Price made against Houston and the catch Roscoe made against Jax, both for victories, and having Lee as a bonified #1, I don't see WR as in the same planet as LB or RB in terms of need.

I don't think so. GMs with limited budgets (and car collectors with limited budgets) should spend the minimum possible. That's how dealing with markets should work. If you buy Microsoft today when it was at $80 and you pay $200, you still made a bad deal even if it is worth $1000 a year from now, because you could have gotten the exact same thing for less. Misallocation of resources is an issue for everybody except the salary cap free Yankees. If Walker turns into a pro bowl RT I will still think we will have overpaid because I think we could have still had him for less. Overpaying isn't as painful when people excel and exceed their cost, but it is still a mistake. Where exactly that price level is that defines market value and overpaying remains to be seen, and isn't what we think it is. But if we are going to talk about cars and other analogies while discussing GM theory, paying $100,000 for a car that was "worth" (in market value, not necessarily player value) $25,000 you have made a mistake.

Nobody is giving away the offer sheet requirement of a 2007 1st and 3rd for Turner. This is not going to happen. It will be a trade for less than that if he gets traded anywhere. I hope the Bills get Turner if we can without overpaying in draft picks or dollars. But if we can get him without a 1st round pick I am likely going to be okay with the deal. If we give up a first or sign a big free agent-type contract I will be disappointed.

If the first is next year's I can live with giving up the #32 pick Let's wait and see. Getting Turner would be great, but I hope we don't give up too much in terms of picks and dollars to get it done. Turner and Willis and I am happy with the offseason if the rest of the details aren't terrible.

Because, that would lead a member of the national media to write an informed comment about the Bills which would break a long long streak of uninformed inaccurate reports.

I don't see anybody other than Lynch or Peterson who appears to be a better bet than Turner. So I would gladly give up the #43 pick for him. The issue is that you don't have to just give up the #43 pick (assuming AJ would take that in the end, and I think he would), but you have to pay for an extension. The price of that extension and how much more it is than the four or five year contract for the alternative backs taken at #43 is probably what matters most here. But I think #43 and 4/15 for Turner would be an outstanding deal. Turner is unproven as an NFL starter. So is EVERYBODY else we might get, including Peterson. What Turner has shown is that in some extensive backup duty he consistently gets well beyond the line of scrimmage before being tackled. Throw all the "just when games are blowouts" or "anybody could run behind that line" stuff you want, but when he has been given the ball against NFL defenses he has excelled. I would not take him over the top 10 backs in the league, I would not give up a 1st rounder for him, and I would not pay him top back money. But if we can end up getting him for a second and sign a fair extension, he is probably a better overall gamble than anybody except for Peterson. And considering Peterson probably will be off the board at #12, and drafting Willis at #12 to go with Turner is a better LB fit than drafting a LB in the 2nd to go with Peterson, I think a Turner trade if the details can be worked out would be a tremendous benefit to the Bills.

Yeah, I think we can get value at RB in different places in the draft, and I think A-Train is good enough for us not to need a Peterson/Lynch at all costs. But I still would prefer if LB & RB are addressed with the first two picks unless value isn't there. I'm normally a big fan of taking the best players, etc., but we have painted ourselves into a corner where these two positions are much bigger voids on our team than other positions. I wouldn't mind seeing us come out of this with one of these combinations: Willis/Pittman Willis/Turner Peterson/Beason Peterson/Poz (probably asking too much, but if Peterson falls or if we decide to trade up TWICE it could happen) but it is really important to realize that there are a ton of ways we can end up addressing these two positions, and we have to trust Marv and DJ to do some good evaluating and dealing, and get us good fits at RB & LB while maybe getting us a day 1 CB too.

I like Turner for our second pick if there is a reasonable extension. I am highly in favor of trading up for either of our top two choices. Our needs to get a quality LB and a quality RB overshadow everything else. I might be dreaming, but it seems like most other positions already have some depth, and other than adding a corner with a third or fourth, I'm happy to trade up. So I'm very happy having only three day 1 picks if it gets us in better position to draft two high impact players. I don't want us to reach anywhere based on need, but I think that the success of this draft is how well we get impact players at LB and RB and achieving those goals in the best smartest value way outweighs depth. Best of both worlds is great too, but we don't need six starters to come out of this draft. We need two good starters, and whatever else we can get.

As I have said many times, I am not a betting man. But if anybody wants to take the under at 4.5 wins, private message me and I'll go big on the over It doesn't matter what Vegas says unless you are a gambler, and it doesn't matter what ESPN says because they aren't going to follow the Bills closely enough to know. What matters is that we are a good LB and a decent RB away from being a much improved team, and I think we will be in the playoff race until the final weeks, and hopefully find a way to make it in.

Yep. We need a starting LB too, but I think Peterson is a better overall football player than Willis, and would love to have him. Crowell and Ellison were both out of the first round, so I would love to find a way to get Peterson if Cleveland goes with Quinn, and fill our LB in round two. But it is still hard to see him getting past 11 teams, even with all the possibilities in the mock. Keep our fingers crossed! If we somehow get Peterson, who are the round 2 LB options? I definitely hope we use our extra 3rd to move up with one of our picks (to get Peterson higher than 12, or to move up from 43 for a quality LB.

Yeah, I don't see this making any sense if it is more than a second round pick to get him, and if we can't sign him to a 4/15 kind of contract. So if that sits well with AJ and with Turner this is a good fit. If that isn't real close for each of them keep our picks and our money, and get it done in the draft.

Yep, definite BS. No team will give up a first rounder for Turner (maybe the Texans ), much less a first and a third. The article says all of those teams (including the Bills) are willing to give up a first rounder, which we know isn't true. This isn't Marv's first rodeo, so let AJ play all the games he wants, and if we don't get Turner, no big deal. But I'm pretty sure that in the end our #43 pick will get it done if we decide to, possibly with a lower round pick too. The biggest issue is still the extension which if it isn't reasonably priced makes no sense at all to us.