Koufax

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...

Wow...so they got nothing for Carr. So they think Shaub is enough better than Carr to justify two second round picks and downgrading their 1st. Ladies and gentleman the Depressing Houston Texans organization just ensured they will get worse. I wish Shaub the best of luck, but he isn't the answer all by himself and they paid a steep price.

Okay, I need to say this one more time: 1st and 3rd is not what the Chargers are asking for, and it is as make believe as saying "a hundred bajillion dollars" (okay, maybe not if the Texans are interested after they got ABUSED by the Falcons). The 1st and 3rd is what the offer sheet signed required a team to give up if they wanted to sign him without talking to the Chargers, which effectively made that avenue a non-option, and forces teams to negotiate with AJ for a different trade if they want him. So if AJ accepts a 2nd and a 4th, he is not "coming down" from his previous trade request, but he is merely making a deal to trade a back that will otherwise not be signed as an RFA and will play for the Chargers. I would still like to see this happen for our 2nd rounder if we can work out the details for a contract extension that isn't breaking the bank and is tied to incentives and performance.

I agree with this strategy if the opportunity is there. I think unlike last year, we don't have as many starting spots to fill with the draft and would trade some draft depth for draft impact. We need a RB, either a day 1 pick or a trade. I think we would be a better football team if we can pick up an impact LB, which is why I'm currently high on Willis if SF doesn't take him. Giving up a 2nd and a 3rd to move back to the first sounds like a good idea if the right players are available (and if whoever we pick doesn't break his foot and miss the year ). If we ended up with Willis, Lynch, a 3rd round corner, and a 4th round DT for example, I would be very happy. But as with most trade ups, it would have to be a last minute decision after we have picked at #12 and knowing who is actually available at the spot when we move up.

I still don't know about #12 or if a 1st round RB is our best bet, but I like Lynch as a player. And I don't think Willis would have ever driven the cart. I know it won't every happen at Orchard Park, but I actually like what the cart driving says about the guy.

So you are very short winded over and over and over again without getting the point across? Or were most of those 7K focused on evaluating on-topic posts with an off-topic word count? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Now let's get back to talking about the Bills. PG has been a ramblin' a little recently (something I do myself which is why my post count is low, but my word count is off the charts!), and she will have to clean up her act a little before taking that job as White House Press Secretary, but I think there are some great points and insight about Crowell. I personally think that based on the past, Angelo will be very good at any of the three linebacker positions, and the most important thing is figuring out who are the best two guys we can have next to him. Right now they are Ellison and Spikes. I want to see TKO stay and I have high hopes for Ellison. If those three don't end up our starting line, it will mean adding an impact rookie and Willis is the obvious choice, although I can see the front office surprising us.

Build a winner the right way and for the long term. I want to win in 2007, but expect 2008 to be even better, and don't want the team to make decisions that will mortgage 2008+ for a slightly better chance to win this year. Would you give next year's #1 and #2 for Michael Turner? Nope, because we care about 2007, but we also care about 2008 and beyond. We want to build a team that can compete year in year out, and that is done with smart choices and not a sense of urgency.

I think TKO will recover in year 2 after the injury and be a good linebacker, and not an overpriced veteran who we wish we didn't have. I have less info on this than the Bills, so if someone who knows more than me thinks otherwise based on careful evaluation of the information I can live with that, but given our lack of depth and impact linebackers, I think it is a $4.5 million dollar risk that I would take, and at least until training camp proves otherwise. I would listen to any offers we can get, but I think that a trade we could make now or cutting him will make us a worse 2007 football team than keeping him. The worst situation is to burn some bridges in the process with the trading block rumors and then create some bad blood and have our hand forced.

I don't see Carriker dropping to 21, so very little chance this mock proves 32 for 32

95% faster? Wow...that's really really fast

I don't worry about Michael Turner not having proven enough to be our 2007 starter way ahead of the second rounders available in the draft or arguably Peterson/Lynch. My issue is has he proven enough to get a big contract extension? You can't trade a second for a one year rental in a building year (not a rebuilding year, but if you think 2007 will be a better team than 2008 I think you are crazy). So if you trade you need to sign him. How much will that take and is he worth it. While that second round pick will be blossoming and making very little in 2010, Turner will be in the third year of a more expensive extension. If I could give up the second to get Turner and an extension at the dollars that the second rounder would be signed for it would be a no brainer. The difference is the dollars to get four years out of turner like we would get out of the second rounder.

But it is fuzzy draft chart imaginary math which in the end doesn't seem to make us as good a team as just sticking and drafting good players where we are.

If we could get Turner for our 2nd, I think it is a great 2007 move, and a better 2007 move than anybody we can draft at #44. The issue is the contract to keep him around longer than that. How much money will it take and when to get him to stick around as long as that #44 RB would? I think he is definitely more of a proven commodity and more talented than our alternatives in the second round, but he is only under contract through 2007, and those other guys would be locked up through 2010 or 2011. So it is all about 1) will AJ let him go for #44 (I think so) and 2) can we get a reasonable extension that isn't too much money for a player yet to carry the load? Interesting thread in SD: http://forums.chargers.com/showthread.php?t=40851

On the flip side (being in San Diego and getting all the Chargers games), he often plays when defenses are beat up and demotivated from chasing LT all day and having the game out of reach. I still like him a lot, and would consider the 2nd carefully and in the end probably make that offer.