Koufax

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.

Yeah, good deal by us to get rid of him, but I've mentioned that if you can't play and have to carry a clipboard you probably would rather do it for a team that has been to the conference championship almost every year than for a team that hasn't made it to the playoffs this century. And if he thinks he can be the backup and find a better chance of playing, more power to him. I'm happy to have JP and Nall at 1 and 2 on our depth chart.

And no Virgos or Lybras either. Evaluate each player individually, and if we could get Beason and Turner with our #12 and take a corner at #43 I would be happy, but I still like Willis at #12 as the better impact, and get Turner with our second rounder or take a RB in the second. Or Peterson at #12 and trade up to get Poz.

I agree with many of your points but not with your conclusions. Overpaying Walker and Kelsey were not good deals, and there is a lot of pressure on Walker now, and I really hope he lives up to it, but have my doubts. If we can get any sort of running back added to the roster our offense is clearly better than last year. A much better line JP and Lee maturing, JP getting better chemistry with Price and Roscoe (who each one a big game for us last season). Even if you are a big McGahee fan, average running backs running through good holes or a good one running only outside to the left because their are no holes? I think we will not just be a better overall offense, but I think we will be a better run offense too. On D we have a huge hole to fill on LB and will probably do so with Willis or Poz. Until we fill that huge hole, this is a major major concern. But CB we take the downgrade from Nate to Youboty hoping it won't be to severe, and our line is clearly better. If we can address LB with a solid starter, I don't see how our D is worse. I just don't see the downgrade of Nate->Youboty as not offset by additions of Walker and McCargo up front and a year experience for everybody. If TKO does great in Philly we will fill silly, but the Crowell-Fletcher-Spikes2006 starters we had last year (considering Crowell's injury too) don't seem so much better than Ellison-Crowell-Poz or Ellison-Willis-Crowell. For the fans that are a little gun shy after Norwood missed and no playoff appearances this century, fine, be cautious and wait to see the results. But if you want to honestly appraise a football team without the emotional baggage, the Bills are a decent RB and a good LB away from being clearly better on both sides of the ball. I don't think a decent RB and a good LB is too much to ask for in the draft, and I hope we trade up (losing draft depth for draft impact) to get both of these impacts in the 1st round.

Yeah, I see a trade up as making much more sense than a trade down. We have two big holes that exceed the importance of any other deficiencies. The most important think of this draft is to get a starting LB and RB. Then possibly a CB. To trade down you have to either have: 1) Willis isn't available, convinced Poz will go later, not interested in an available RB 2) Willis is available, but convinced Poz will go later, not interested in an available RB, and think that the Poz plus whatever you get to trade down is worth more than Willis.

Nice to see Duke getting bigger. Hopefully it is not all off season bad eating habits and is instead a little extra work after Marv kicked him in the butt. I have been down on him for a while, but I would love him to be the surprise at camp, as a more powerful and experienced player. Interesting also the observation about the DT pairings. It would seem that McCargo is looking a little more like a nose trying to get ahead of Kyle on the depth chart. By the way, have you heard that Hargrove is the new RDE and Schobel is going to be playing nothing but blitzing MLB?

Thanks for posting. I guess VGB knows it all, but I hadn't seen many of these plays beyond the LSU one. I think Willis will be an excellent player and is just below Peterson on my draft board, but not because of anything particular seen here. Obviously highlight films aren't going to show missed tackles, so it is assumed anything that makes this tape is a tackle.A Josh Reed highlight film would lead you to believe he has hands of gold (and probably also leave you time to go get a sandwich before your five minute break was up). The things that I want to know more about Willis to know whether he will excel in the NFL are how well he can get off a good NFL block, how well he can move in coverage, how well he adjusts to the game when everyone is bigger stronger faster than in college. From what I know I am currently high on him on all of these things, but while seeing him pick up and slam the LSU running back is fun, I don't think it is a big indicator of his ability to be a successful NFL player.

I think Kirwans had us taking Bunkley last year. Their shots in the dark aren't even as good as our shots in the dark, but I still really like Willis.

All joking aside, since he knows he is going to be a backup the rest of his career, absent any allegiance to Buffalo (hard to imagine for us, but reasonable for a journeyman backup), would you rather be carrying a clipboard for a team that hasn't seen the playoffs this century or a team that goes to the championship game every year, has been to a Super Bowl recently, and managed to make the playoffs even after their franchise QB went down for the year? Sure maybe he would rather play for Detroit than carry the clipboard for the Patriots, but since playing isn't an option being in a place that wins all the time is probably a good fit and a happy change of scenery. I don't see anything terrible in his comments or overly critical of Buffalo. The joke is on him, however as we continue to get better and Philly already peaked. Don't worry Kelly, JP has your address and will send you one of those ugly hats with the tag still attached in a couple years...maybe even a matching T-Shirt (but not the commemorative DVD). We are next in line after the Broncos and Patriots and Red Sox and White Sox. The past is not an indicator of the future: just ask any of those four non-winners what it felt like to just play the game, build a great team, and win it all after being tagged a permanent loser.

You said it yourself. He is not worth a #1 pick because he requires a contract extension, so he costs more and over the course of his contract that effects your team negatively in other areas in a way that a draft pick does not. That is also the reason that any deal we make will have to be made before the draft, not after. There are three different Michael Turners we can get, and which one it is determines what he is worth to us: 1) Michael Turner without an extension - certainly not worth a 1st or 2nd...we are building for the future not just blowing it all for 2008, and a rent a player for a top pick that would be under control and playing for us for five years? No chance. I don't think we would do this deal without an extension for anything that AJ wouldn't just laugh at, so this is not an option. 2) Michael Turner with a reasonably priced extension. This is the deal we are after. We don't want to pay him like a proven starter and we don't want to pay him like a free agent. He is not either of those things, and we would want a reasonable deal to make that happen. That means more than Josh Reed money, but less than London Fletcher money. 4/15 or something would be reasonable. 3) Michael Turner with an expensive extension. He wants to be paid like Gore or he wants to be paid like a proven starter to avoid waiting for free agency? No thanks, we are looking for bargains. So this isn't really an option. He could have a reasonable extension, and some incentives and escalators, but not just a big fat I'm a superstar contract. If this is what he wants, then no deal. So really there is only one option that we will consider, and that is #2 above. Trade conditional on signing an extension that isn't overpriced. I think that is worth our second round pick, but probably not our first. A swap of 1sts is also an option or other picks elsewhere, but I think that what makes the most sense is the second. More and we aren't getting a good deal, less and AJ isn't interested. Would AJ take our #43 pick? I think he definitely will if he doesn't get a better offer elsewhere, and I don't think he will get a better offer. Would Turner sign a reasonable extension (4/15 or something like that)? That is the big wild card right now. We don't know how much Nate Clements he has in him, what he thinks about getting to be the starter vs. losing another year behind LT, etc. I do think Turner is likely to be better than any of the second round backs so if money isn't a big negative I'd be very happy to trade our second rounder as above, but do it before the draft. Waiting to see if Peterson fall unfortunately doesn't leave time for an extension, so isn't really an option.

I also find a little flaw with the phrasing of the question. I think we are worse at this point because everybody is out of practice and Dockery doesn't know the playbook yet . I think what matters is we are very much on course to be better. If we can fill the big hole at LB (which would have Wire starting at the moment...) and add a decent RB to share time with the A-Train I think we are likely going to end up much better. But right now A-Train is 25 carries and Wire is starting. If you add Willis and Irons or Turner to this team I think we are vastly improved. I think the natural growth and experience of winning some close games for our young players will make a huge difference. We saw against Texas what Price can do and against Jax what Roscoe can do, and we all know what Lee can do, so with all three with an extra year of doubt free chemistry with JP and playing behind a stable and vastly improved line our offense will be better even before we add a RB. On D our Line is much better (McCargo and Walker plus a year experience for everybody else playing together in this scheme), or LBs are worse until we add someone, and our secondary will be better. Yep, I said it, a better secondary without Nate. I think Youboty will surprise people, but not be as good as Nate. McGee will play better or lose his spot to KT, Greer, or a 3rd round draft pick, and both safeties will be benefit tremendously from not being rookies. So we improve at three of the four positions in the secondary, and the downgrade at the other one isn't as big as people think, and the sum of those parts will be a better secondary. So who knows if we are better or worse at this point like the question asks, because our current RB and LB situations are significant. But I think we are on track "at this point" to address both of those and be a much better team for the season opener.

Definitely Leaf for me. I was living in Washington at the time so got all the hype as he came out of WSU, and then with the fact that he was considered as a possible #1 over that more rigid guy with the weaker arm from Tennessee (Peyton sombody?), and then that he didn't only fail as a QB, but failed miserably without even a couple weeks of average, and with emotional blow ups. Mandrich was fun too, but nobody holds a candle to Ryan Leaf.

Two things I think are very definite: 1) AJ doesn't think he can get a 1st and a 3rd. He put that tender so no team could just take Turner, and he would either keep him or get to pick the team and the deal to trade him for less than that. I think that #44 could probably get it done, but AJ will wait and see. 2) Turner is likely to be a better back over the next 4 years than anybody we could get at #44. The issue is he is not under contract after this season. So the only way that a deal can happen is if we can negotiate an extension before it is final, and if that deal is priced as an extension for an unproven backup, and not as a free agent deal for a star. I would still love to see this deal get done. We need to make an offer that is better than any of the other teams (although if Cleveland picks him up it increases the chance that Peterson falls so could be a win-win), and is worth more to the Chargers than 1 year of insurance against an LT injury (because the Chargers are at their talent peak, and don't want to miss a chance if LT pulls a hammy, etc.).