Koufax

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.).

Agreed. I actually see him ahead of Kyle and McCargo until McCargo proves otherwise. I think he is a perfect pickup as a solid proven rotational tackle. I'm very excited to add him. Losing TKO is no fun, especially if he comes back to close to full health (which I think he will). He will be older at full health, so he won't be 2004 TKO, but he will be a very good player. Hopefully Ellison-Willis-Crowell will be the solution that doesn't leave us slapping our foreheads. While I am sorry to see TKO go and think he has some very good upside, I think this is overall a very good deal for the Bills, and better than I was expecting.

Trading for Turner without a reasonably priced extension doesn't make any sense. So I don't see how this trade can wait until draft day. I'm happy to give up #44 if Turner is a reasonably priced Bill for three or four years. But if he thinks he is worthy of big back money without having proved it as a starter, or if he would rather wait and test free agency and possibly be a one year rental, then I would take the best back at #44 instead. I would LOVE to read about getting turner for our second rounder, and a day two pick if needed as well, but only if it is conditional on an extension. For the AJ stuff, he will weigh two things: best offer he can get (#44 will be a good player who will be theirs for pretty cheap for five years) vs. a backup running back who they really hope stays off the field all year before walking. Now for a team with this talent and being right in the middle of things and wanting to win, we can't undervalue what a backup running back means (can't lose a year just because LT pulls a hammy and you don't have anybody to back him up). But when push comes to shove I think AJ would rather have the #44 pick than a backup running back, and if he can't do better from GB or cleveland he would make that deal.

Willis > Hall Youboty > Haggan/Wire (penciled in starter if we don't draft a replacement) Hall at #12 would make me very sad, but I trust in Marv and DJ.

Great post. I think Poz could be a great Bill, but not at #12. If Willis goes #11, I could see us grabbing one of the running backs and trading up and getting Poz with our second pick. By the way, I think we will definitely trade up. Our first two needs greatly exceed our depth needs. Getting a better second pick is worth much more than having a fourth day 1 pick.

I am sorry to see TKO go, and I had hoped he would have a great 2007 as a Bill. That said, until he proves he can regain his form I see a questionable TKO for Walker as not that unfair of a trade. So you throw in the salary dump and trading Holcomb for a draft pick, and I think this is a positive deal. However we really have our backs against the wall to get a opening day ready linebacker in the draft. And if Spikes does return to 100% (a big if, but one I'm rooting for even while he is wearing green) we will probably feel a little silly. I don't mind the media blasting us...I want us to earn our respect on the field this fall. I would actually rather be the surprise that catches everyone off guard than the media's dark horse inside pick.

Explain? Which of our starters (LB and RB excepted because those are our two main holes) do you want to see benched/cut? DT-I like our rotation with Walker DE-Have our rotation, and Hargrove back here for depth LB-Big need Safeties-No explanation needed CB-We have four decent guys...could use an upgrade, but Youboty will win the spot and it isn't a hole to fill OL-All our signings and our young guys...no big need here WR-Evans, Price, Roscoe, and Reed in our four receiver sets TE-Could use a playmaker, but we are fine overall RB-Big need QB-I like Nall #2 FB-Not sure...I think we will not use one very much next year ST-Very strong So I don't see how we have more than two holes, which would better be filled by trading up. Our other picks are for depth or upgrades (CB). So if we come out of this with the best LB and RB we can, and a day 1 CB, the other picks are less crucial. So if our 2nd plus one of our 3rds gets us a better LB/RB by moving up, I am all for it.

I see us as having only two holes right now. RB to go with Thomas, and LB to go with Crowell and Ellison. We need to get starting caliber players at those two positions, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us pick twice in the 1st round to do it. Every other position is one we will try to improve on, but are sitting pretty good, even CB, so beyond our two big needs, I think the rest of the draft is more about quality depth and players with upside, not people expected to step in and start. Last year of our picks: Ellison, Whitner, Simpson, Williams, and Pennington all started games (and technically Youboty becaused we opened against the Jets in the nickel). I don't think there is any chance this draft needs to yield five starters, and as such as long as we get a good LB and a decent RB there isn't a ton of pressure on the other picks. I think the Willis/Poz at #12 becomes very likely since that is both our biggest hole, and it is possible that one of those guys will be the top available guy on your non-need draft board. Although if Willis goes #11 and Peterson falls, I could see Peterson at #12 and trading up to get someone like Poz. But I do think Willis is probably our pick if he isn't off the board.

I'm very sorry to see TKO go, and unlike McGahee, I wish him very well. I think he has a good chance for a rebound season and to be a very good player for a few more years. But now that it is done, I'm glad to see Nall move into the #2 qb, and I'm excited to get a new DT. I think this severely reduces the chance that we will draft Okoye (who will probably be gone by #12 anyway), and puts more pressure on drafting an impact LB like Willis. I would now define us as having holes that need to be filled at LB and RB, and consider DT filled and CB less likely to get high round attention (go Ashton!). One Walker report I found: "Extremely strong. Can collapse the pocket and penetrate. Sheds blockers very well. Runs well for a tackle." I know Marv and DJ have a plan, but TKO we will miss you.

I like Willis or Peterson or Okoye, although all three could be gone by draft day. Remember though that although this year seems lighter in LBs the way last year was lighter in WRs, last year there were five LBs taken in the first round before DeMeco Ryans lead off the second round. Willis would be a great fit and the drop off after him appears to be significant, but when the players actually hit training camp not everything is how it seemed when we were doing mock drafts. I still think there might be a good chance of getting a quality LB later on day 1 even if Willis isn't our pick at #12.

I'm convinced too, although if Peterson falls we need to evaluate that too. My worry is that the Niners might be convinced as well.

I'm on the record as upset that we might lose Spikes for dollars. I don't think we are going to start three LBs better than what I expect from TKO in 2007, so unless I prove to be wrong about that, we are making the decision because of cash and possibly overpaying Walker, etc., and that isn't cool. I'll cheer like hell for whichever three we run out there. But I will be disappointed if Spikes isn't one of them and money is to blame.

I'm personally in the Peterson vs. Willis tossup phase. It needs to be based on two things, since we will add both a RB and a LB in the draft: 1) How do Peterson and Willis compare as football players in terms of total value over the next four years? Conventional Wisdom puts Peterson ahead of Willis, which is why you hear about Peterson maybe going #3, but Willis's high water mark is #11. Could be wrong, but it would seem that by most measures people expect more impact from Peterson. 2) How do the off position options compare in round 2? If we assume the above question is very close and we would get the opposite position in round 2 if possible, how do the LBs likely available at #44 compare with the RBs available at #44. How does a David Harris compare to a Tony Hunt? Here I would give the advantage again likely tot he RB. So which is a better choice at #12? Peterson and hope for a Harris in the 2nd? Or Willis and hope for a Hunt in the 2nd? (or a substitute elsewhere in the draft, it doesn't have to be 100% at #44). In terms of actual talent, it is hard to tell which is the better combo to replace these two positions. Right now I think we don't pass on Peterson, and our draft board (for the likely candidates, obviously we have people like Calvin Johnson even higher): Peterson Willis Okoye Lynch

DE would be a shocker, since we have three pretty good ones and it is Hargove's natural position, but if they like Carriker or someone more than Lynch or whoever else we are supposed to take I could see a surprise like this happening. I'm disappointed to see Willis drop down that far, with many more people thinking he is a top 11 pick. But of course I missed the mocks showing us with Whitner and McCargo, so I'm not too concerned. Mocks are fun to show which players we could end up having to choose from, but the people who make them don't follow Buffalo enough to know what Marv might do, and just plug in a name based on perceived need (i.e. no Nate, no Fletcher, no McGahee, bad run D last year). I'm still on the Willis bandwagon but think there are a bunch of possibilities that could really help this team at #12.