Koufax

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised so see fewer formations with a full back, and more three receiver sets (Rosco getting more playing time. I also don't consider CB or DT places that are holes. We have McGee/Youboty/Thomas/Greer as the CBs/Nickel/Dime, and we have Triplett/McCargo/Kyle/Hargrove in the tackle rotation (for two positions). Either of those can certainly be upgraded, but I think it is more likely to be picks after the first two rounds. I think we definitely need to add a RB and a LB and I have a feeling those will end up as the first two picks in the draft and definitely filled with day 1 picks (if another position is higher on our draft board at #12 or #44). Other than June 1 cuts, there are still a lot of lineup filling free agents available, but I'm not sure of any who will bump Hargrove out of the tackle rotation or Greer out of the CB rotation.

Yeah, it is fairly common in different sports to have education paid for (especially for minor leaguer baseball players who sign with a much longer uncertain road ahead of them). I like Ellison, and would love to see him put some weight on and still be fast but be stronger. I still hope the TKO rumors don't end up happening, but if they do, having a guy like Ellison is going to make a big difference. Also was and anti-Vince Young on the Wonderlic: "Prospects who excelled include Ohio State OC Nick Mangold (35), Tulsa TE/FB Garrett Mills (35), Oregon LB Keith Ellison (36), Cal-Poly State DE Chris Gocong (36), Cornell OL Kevin Boothe (37), Virginia WR Marques Hagans (37), Stanford DT Babatunde Oshinowo (37) and Boston College OT Jeremy Trueblood (37)."

I've moved from not caring about Willis to genuinely rooting against him. I'm not too bent out of shape, because I already didn't like him, but what a crappy guy. I was in the group that said "he may be a loser, but he can have a good 2007, so let's keep him and let him walk after", but I am now genuinely happy he is out of here, and really really hope he doesn't have a good year. It would be so nice if he runs for 990 again while the Bills thrive in the multi-back setup.

I'm still doubtful we will get the value back in a trade or release of TKO that we will lose in the player who could surprise people and recover more fully in year 2 after the surgery. Cap room or a day 2 pick just doesn't seem to outweigh the potential upside we lose. But if he is more hobbled than I am acknowledging and we do something useful with the cap room or can get a decent pick maybe I will end up being wrong on this.

Willis is right there with Peterson as my choice at #12, so I don't have a problem with that. I think #44 is a high for Irons, and represents a reach based on need, which I am never in favor of. I haven't seen him play, so am going by only the draft info I read, but I obviously would much rather pick up Michael Turner with our #44.

Yeah, I am very glad that Bunkley and Justice didn't enter Marv's mind like they entered the board here. We were not going to take a QB, so Ngata was the only real option that would have been considered that we might like better than Dante. But if we had taken Ngata at #8, the next SS option was Roman Harper at #43 who played pretty well for NO before tearing his ACL in week 5. So Ngata/Harper and still having the extra pick we gave up to move up for McCargo or Dante/McCargo. Too soon to tell right now, but just about as happy with our draft now as I was stunned last year when Whitner was announced. Might not have been the perfect draft, but they never are. I think you can only rate our draft as very good or better, and if Youboty and McCargo can have the year 2 upside we hope for it will really go down as an excellent draft. So who is this year's Bunkley that we are spending lots of time talking about but will be a dud for someone else in the end? And is there a Whitner this year who goes from off the radar screen to a possible pick at #12?

I have no idea, and have only seen highlight tapes of him (which usually don't include the drops), but RBs tend to have fewer hard to catch passes, so receiving stats themselves aren't a great indication of hands.

Yeah, can't win without stopping the run....oh wait...Indianapolis says hi... Joking aside, I think doing better against the run is important, but I fully expect us to already be able to do better now than last year before adding anybody in the draft (and I think we will get an impact DT or LB in round 1). I think 2007 Larry-McCargo-Kyle-Hargrove is better than what we had last year, and I think 2007 Ellison-Crowell-Spikes is better than what we had last year (counting injuries, which isn't quite fair). Getting better against the run is important, but that wasn't London's strength, TKO was not the player he should be in 2007, McCargo missed the year, and the whole team was in the first year of a new system that relies on the pieces working together in sync. But I do think this is a big enough worry that I would love a front 7 guy if we can at #12. Willis/Okoye + 2nd round RB makes us a better team than Lynch + 2nd round LB/DT.

Wow. Please nobody search my previous posts, because I had been very favorable of Willis before the season and during the season, but watching those clips only one word comes to mind: REPLACEABLE I like the BuffaloBills.com cam angle sometimes to see some different stuff (and watched all the clips on it during the season), and watching it makes me realize how much I like Jason Peters. I don't have enough free time, but I have half a mind to go and splice together an un-highlight reel as well (including the opening week 4th down). He cut back a couple times, but even his good plays just screamed average. Might be living in San Diego and seeing LT run each and every week and raising the bar, but I have to think he is replaceable and whoever we get will be able to have more success behind our improved line.

I say we go with Vernon Davis! Actually I wouldn't mind a dynamic tight end, but don't think he is a fit at #12, and really think that we can get more impact at LB, DT, or RB. But if after careful evaluation we think Olsen is actually the best football player available (say Willis, Peterson, and Okoye are gone and we aren't high on Lynch), then I could live with this. But I think as solid a prospect as he is, he is not going to be the top guy on our draft board when we pick, and not being a need position I can't see us reaching.

I largely agree with you, but I don't think that the Patriots have realized something new after being in the dark about it before. I think they are just using their dollars (which they have plenty of) wisely adjusting to a new situation and trying to be a better team for 2007.

Not necessarily worse (although could be), but definitely not enough better to justify two second round picks and a downgraded first. Remember, those second round picks would still be in uniform and expected to be pretty good players at pretty low salaries in 2010-2011...instead they get nothing. Shaub better be an instant stud (I doubt it...Vick would be the better fit with the line they have...get the heck out of there!), or else this is a trade that will be having a negative impact for years to come...