Koufax

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.

There is only one pick you can be set to make before draft day. That is the #1 pick. Other than that you can get your priorities and evaluations in order, get to know some of the likely options even better with a private meeting, and wait until the team before you picks. I think Lynch is one of our options. Anybody in the top 20 on our draft board needs to be looked at carefully so we can put them in order and get the one we like the most when 12 roles around (or trade up/down before that based on our evaluations). So let's find out where Lynch should be on our board compared to Willis and Peterson and Okoye and Hall and everybody else. But forget about getting "set to make marshawn lynch their pick".

I don't think that a 3rd will get it done. San Diego doesn't have enough holes to fill to need extra picks just for the sake of extra picks. But I would definitely put AJ on speed dial and push that hard. I would definitely rather have Turner than most of the 2nd round running backs, with the caveat being the contact issue I mentioned. If we give up a 2nd to get him, we have to also know we will keep him without breaking the bank. When do you sign that long term extension? Before he has ever started a game? Halfway through the season, hoping he doesn't want to test free agency after all? After the season when he might start to cost open market prices (and we could have waited to sign him anyway, so gave up a 2nd for a one year rental and an inside track on a free agent)? Just as a player I would rather have him than the backs we are considering taking with our #44 pick, but the contact issue makes it trickier. That said, all things considered I would try to push for this deal and see what might happen. Maybe bring the idea of a swap of seconds into play? That worked for the Jets. Swap of seconds and a lower pick? Get somebody on it Marv, and don't stop trying to find a good deal for us until draft day.

No, but the abilities that allow you to run that 40 time well matter to your football speed (although not an exact correlation), and matter more to a corner than anybody, because he has to be able to keep up or he is in trouble. You mentioned a lot of WRs in your list. A WR doesn't need to be as fast as the CB. He can run routes and get open. But a CB has to keep up with the receiver he is covering, and 4.6 ability can indicate a problem (but a 4.6 combine time does not indicate 4.6 ability). As for the mock, I don't like how quickly TKO is getting dumped. He might be done, but I still doubt it. Year 2 is the important year for an Achilles recovery, and he might get closer to his old self than people are expecting, and even if not he can be pretty good. I like Peterson/Willis/Okoye at #12, and really hope we don't get too caught up on individual position need, but get the best player available at one of our four positions that could use some help. I don't think Hall is as good a DB as Peterson is a RB or Willis is a LB or Okoye is a DT, or I would have included him as well. Trading up again to the low first could be completely fine if we find the right player and the right deal. If we don't get Peterson (or Lynch) with our first pick, we probably should look carefully at the best RB available at #44 and take him unless there is another position clearly better. We should still maintain flexibility. I would like to come out of day 1 with a LB, a DT, a CB, and a RB, but the exact order they come in, and if we leave one out until day two depends on what other teams do, and not a blue print heading in.

I've been saying this for a while. The 1st and 3rd stuff has nothing to do with getting Turner. Offering the Chargers more than one year of a backup RB is worth is enough. While he is a good insurance policy for an LT injury, that's all he is to the Chargers and that probably isn't worth more to tham than the #44 pick. I follow the San Diego media here pretty closely, and he doesn't have the reputation here that he has elsewhere. I would absolutely offer our higher third for him without even thinking twice, and make it clear that offer is on the table. Giving up our 2nd is trickier. You really have to think he is going to be better than the other players we would get in the 2nd for one big reason: contract. Obviously we aren't trading for a one year rental, so we would need to pay him a lot more than our #2 pick to keep him around for the five years our #2 pick would be in town. So his play has to be expected to be enough better than the players available at #44 to offset his significantly higher cost over the same years. I think our football team needs to keep 2008 in mind with all of our moves. I don't say this as a pessimist, and I expect great things of 2007, but the Willis deal helped us get better 2008 and beyond. Giving up our 2nd rounder for Turner is a big commitment, and signing a long term deal before he has played as a starter is very risky. So a third in a heart beat, which would make us better by also allowing us to spend our second rounder on D. But the second rounder could be a little steep and needs to be weighed more carefully between contract and talent evaluation.

I love McGee as a nickel, and think he can rebound and perform better as a #2 as well. He has never been a great cover guy, but he did have 7 picks in the two years before going INT-less last year. And he is a very valuable return guy. I think we might be a better team if he drops to nickel, but if he starts I think like TKO he is very very likely to have a better year this year than last year.

I don't think McGee gets anything handed to him, and I think he will have to battle KT, Greer, and a draft choice (hopefully just a third rounder, as I think #12 could be used more valuably) to be the #2 behind Youboty. I don't view this as a bad thing. McGee has never been great in coverage, and having his legs more rested for kick returns is a positive. Don't forget that we also have two safeties who weren't starters breaking camp but played all year who will have a season and an off season and a second camp under their belts. I think that we will get better play out of Ko and Dante in year 2, I think we will get worse play out of Youboty than Nate at #1 corner (but not as big a drop off as people expect), and I think we will get better play at #2 corner than McGee 2006 with the winner of the competition between KT, Greer, McGee and a 3rd round pick. So I think that the sum total of our secondary will be BETTER than 2007 despite Nate's departure even without a #1 pick. Just to clarify, I'm not handing Youboty the #1 corner spot. I just think it is an open competition that he will win easily like JP over Holcomb. I'm on record now saying I think Youboty and McCargo will both be good players if healthy, and next year we will feel silly for worrying so much. If you want a roster full of sure things go to the Bronx and visit Yankee stadium. Every NFL team has unknowns, and I'm very comfortable with Youboty as one of our unknowns we are expecting a lot from.

I haven't seen the various round 2 backs enough to really have a good judgment, so I hope that they are heavily scouted and properly evaluated, and if we don't get Peterson or Lynch that we get a steal by picking the best fit second round back. Last night I had a dream that Peterson fell to 12 along with Willis and Okoye and the Bills picked a CB whose name I had never heard. Must be the post traumatic stress of hearing Whitner's name for the first time when we picked him last year, so my goal this year is to know something about every single player we could possibly pick at #12 and not be surprised by Marv.

I don't get the Youboty doubters. The kid can play and will play. Hopefully he will earn it in camp, but he is going to be a good corner and we will only worry about whether it is KT, McGee or a draft pick lining up next to him. I personally hope we don't take a CB before the third round this year, because I think we are going to be fine at that position with some added depth, and we don't need Leon Hall to keep from embarrassing ourselves.

I don't see Houston taking Peterson either. Too much money in Green to be the main back, and too many holes to fill for a bad team. Now that I've said that about Houston, I don't think we have many "holes" to fill. LB: We are talking about the player that will put Ellison or Spikes on the bench. I definitely want to improve at LB and really like Willis, but not because we have "holes" DT: Triplett, McCargo, Kyle, Hargrove for two spots. I know everybody wants Ted Washington back, but it isn't happening. I think we can add someone here as well, and Hargrove could go back to end / special teams / depth and Kyle could drop to 4th in the rotation, but it will take a quality player to do so, not just someone to fill "holes" CB: Youboty / McGee / KT / Greer. Doesn't scare off a lot of teams, but I think Youboty will emerge and fill more of Nate's shoes than expected. We are a much better team with a new starter and McGee battling KT for nickel, so I do consider this pretty close to a hole, but not one that can't be filled with one of our 3rd rounders. RB: Yep, this is a hole right now. I think A-Train will have a good year, but he needs to split the load with some young legs. I don't think Peterson makes sense but would be tempting at #12, and I'm sure Lynch will be considered too. But this just screams 2nd rounder to share the load and hopefully turn into one of the many 2nd round RBs who excels in the NFL. So we have a hole at RB, should really add a decent CB, and wouldn't mind a LB. I don't think we rule out trading up because we can't afford to sacrifice a pick, but instead because the cost of moving up exceeds the added value we would get out of that player.

Actually, neither LB, DT, CB, or RB is a desperate situation that forces our hand at #12. I fully expect us to get better at all four (although if the decision is made to go with Triplett, McCargo, Williams, and Hargrove at DT it wouldn't break my heart), but we can get the best guys overall. I'm not as big on Hall, and think that Okoye/Peterson/Willis will be more valuable football players, but Hall could certainly fit as well. Right now I'm pretty excited about Willis and think Peterson and Okoye might both end up being gone. I would like to get a LB, a RB, and a CB all on day 1, but how they work out is very flexible to who is available.

While I think it is too soon to call bust on Branch, I agree that there is some writing on the wall to be not as good an NFL football player as his current draft stock would indicate. He is definitely below Willis and some others on my draft board, and if the personality and passion aren't there he has a large potential to be a bust. Being 325 is often enough in college, but it isn't enough in the NFL if you don't want to work.

I would rather have JP than Eli (obviously, I think we are all in agreement about that now). I think we should lock up JP and Lee as early as possible. We know they are good, and they are only going to get more expensive. Aren't you all glad we locked up Peters before now? He would be a little more expensive right now, don't you think? Don't lock up mediocre players too quickly to bad deals, but guys you are pretty sure about should be locked up early, giving them some early security in return for giving us a discount under market value that we would get if waiting.