Koufax

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.

I like this idea too, but will take it as it happens. I thought Preston was weaker than Pennington last year, and would appear to have less room for improvement. So if Walker can do either just as well, I'd rather see him nail down RG and let Pennington battle Butler for RT.

Yeah. I agree with this. You only take Lynch if you think he is going to be a better football player over his first four or five years than Willis or Okoye. I am not a Lynch expert, but I don't think he will be better than both Willis and Okoye, so I put him lower on my board and only consider him if Willis and Okoye are both gone. I'm going to stick with my current order of the 7 usual suspects above as I learn more, but I expect Peterson to be gone and us to go with Willis or Okoye if one is available.

I agree with Trooth. I think Turner can be had for a lot less than the no-way-in-hell RFA price, and our 2nd rounder would probably get it done. As to the we shouldn't because it hasn't worked well stuff, I don't think that the sample size is big enough or the situation similar enough. The problem with the McGahee pick was we got the wrong RB (LJ?). We need to try to get the most valuable football player available taking into account 70% ability and 30% his position (not drafting need, but with our weakness at a number of positions drafting an O-Tackle or WR doesn't make sense unless he is without a doubt the best player available). Here are the RBs who went #10-19 in the last 10 drafts (to remove the top-5 pick factor or the guys who end up closer to our #44 than our #12): Nobody since 2002. TJ Duckett, William Green, Ron Dayne, Shaun Alexander, Robert Edwards, Warrick Dunn. Clearly a small group with some sketchy names compared to guys who slide to the 20-32 picks or guys who fall out of the top round. Since only two players are given a top 15 grade (Peterson and Lynch) I think our staff has to be very high on one of them to consider them at #12. I have Willis higher than either on my draft board right now because I think Willis will be a better player over the next five years than either (and not because of my opinion of Ellison starting is worse than A-Train starting). But if OBD decides that Peterson (probably not available) or Lynch is likely to be a better five year player than Willis, I'm fine with trusting that judgment. What we cannot do is get a less valuable player at #12 because we feel forced into it after the McGahee trade.

Yeah, I saw him work out at the combine and they said good things. Could definitely be worth a day two pick, but I'm still behind Willis at #12.

Interesting article. Hard to figure out what is best right now, but I'm starting to head more strongly into the Willis camp counting on McCargo, Youboty, and a 2nd round running back (along with additional help with our third round picks).

Ha ha ha. That's a good one. Remember, we over focus on the reality that is the Bills, and the mock draft guy just shuffles around the top guys without really paying attention to lots of the teams. We might get a surprise that we aren't excited about right away (Whitner instead of Ngata), but it sure won't be Landry.

I believe the rumor is Quinn not Ginn. I haven't seen anybody saying Ginn would ever go top 5, and probably not top 15.

I do think Bush is interesting, but I don't like him enough to trade unless we find someone anxious to trade down. I do think we use a day 1 pick on a RB. If he is available at #43 (or Leonard) I think we look at him long and hard assuming we haven't taken Lynch/Peterson at #12.

Important to have draft boards that take into account the unlikely, not just the probable guys. You can leave off Thomas, Russell, and Johnson, and I think we need to put an asterisk next to Quinn or leave him off, but everybody else should be on the list. One of the wild cards seems to be the three DEs (Adams, Carriker, Anderson) and the safety (Landry) currently considered top 10 picks, because while not going straight need, it seems unlikely we can afford to go after one of those guys either, so I'm going to exclude them (since I think they would be lower on my list anyway...) Peterson, Branch, Okoye, Willis, Hall, Revis, and Lynch (as well as any lower projected picks people want to add in a la Whitner last year). I put those seven in this order: 1) Peterson 2) Willis 3) Okoye 4) Branch 5) Lynch 6) Revis 7) Hall I think there are very few chances that all seven of these guys are gone, so it is either one of these seven or a surprise with one of the 8 top 10 picks I'm leaving out falling (which could happen with one of the three DEs, and we really would have to decide that all three are below our #7 of the above guys, or consider taking one), or somebody off the radar turning into a top 12 pick when Marv says so. So if none of the excluded 8 fall (which they could), who else might enter into this list as a sleeper, or are we definitely looking at one of these seven guys? I don't see anybody crowding out one of these 7 unless we were to trade down.

I like him at nickel, but if we don't draft someone I think he should have every change to beat out McGee. But you are right, he is one INT behind Ellison and one INT behind Ngata.

Yeah, we are worse at RB, and that is something we will have to address, but the line, QB, and receivers have to be considered better through the upgrades and the maturing of young players. If we get another good back to go with A-Train (doesn't have to be Peterson/Lynch, but that's a possibility), I really have a tough time seeing how our offense is not clearly going to be better. Do you not think this line is better? Do you expect less from JP behind a better line? Do you not expect Evans to be better, and his attention drawn to open things up more for Price/Roscoe/Reed? Do you not expect the year of playing together in a new offense to not yield better chemistry and results in general in the passing game? Do you not expect our tight ends to be better weapons since they won't have to stay in and help Pennington every down? So I think without any more additions we are a better offense, and that we will add a RB on draft day 1 that will make the O a no brainer. Now on to the D. I think that our ends are pretty much the same, but none of them should be expected to fall off dramatically. In year two of the system we could even expect some improvement. I think our D-tackle rotation is better adding McCargo in, getting Kyle into year 2, Triplett in his prime, and a full year of Hargrove over Tim Anderson. But I think we will also likely add another presence in the draft, and this could go from slightly better to much better (Okoye and McCargo added to last year's tackles?) I think our LB play is the biggest unknown. But we didn't get great play last year, and it won't take much to improve. Crowell over Fletcher (if we don't draft Willis), is a big unknown, but I was disappointed with London last year and think this could end up being an upgrade. Spikes 2007 over Spikes 2006 is a no brainer for anybody who understands achilles injuries, not to mention being sidelined/hobbled with the hammy too. No guarantees here, but I think that if we keep him Spikes will make a greater contribution next year than last. The downgrade if we don't add anybody is moving from Crowell to Ellison, but really I don't see Ellison-Crowell-Spikes as a big step down from Crowell-Fletcher-Spikes. But adding someone would be nice. Safeties should clearly be better in year 2 of the system, and I think that will help offset the clear downgrade at corner. As many, I have high hopes for Youboty, and don't understand why a top corner from last year with a year of experience is thought so lowly of while unknown draft prospects are supposed to be the answer. McGee struggled last year, so either he takes a step forward or he loses his spot to KT or a draft pick. Nate played great last year and I think we will get less out of our #1 corner whether Youboty or a draft pick, but I think the other three parts of our secondary will take a step forward to help offset that loss as a unit. So without any draft picks I think we are better on O (even with A-Train getting all the carries), and break even on D. Add in four day 1 picks including an impact starter at #12 and I think there is no way we aren't a better team. But after that optimism: 1) I'm disappointed about the Walker signing. I expect him to certainly be better than Pennington and an improvement. But I have doubts that he can be $25 million than the better of Pennington and Butler, and would have rather seen that money shown to June or someone else. I do trust Marv and McNally with these evaluations, so will keep my fingers crossed. 2) I think we lost on the Willis deal for 2007. A happy healthy Willis playing for a contract and then walking is clearly more value than a low #3 pick (because the 7th is worthless and next year's pick can't play for us this year). We clearly gain on this deal for 2008-2010 when those picks could contribute while Willis would have been gone for nothing. But still it is a blow, and one that could alter our draft and affect our ability to get better elsewhere.

Last I checked the 2003 draft went like this: 1 23 Willis McGahee RB Miami 2 48 Chris Kelsay DE Nebraska 3 94 Angelo Crowell OLB Virginia 4 111 Terrence McGee CB Northwestern State, La. 4 127 Sam Aiken WR North Carolina 5 151 Ben Sobieski G Iowa 6 187 Lauvale Sape DT Utah 7 228 Mario Haggan OLB Mississippi State

Good post by Pyrite Gal. I think McGee will get every chance to compete as a starter with the inside track, but if we draft anybody any good, and even if we don't and KT plays well, Terrance could very easily find himself in the nickel. I wouldn't mind this because he has never been a great corner, the nickel is still an important role, and his legs would be kept fresher for kickoff returns.