Koufax

Willis > Rhodes > Brown. But I agree these are 1a guys, and not the straight replacement for Willis. I still think Willis stays. His character issues are not bad enough that we get worse just to move him, and nobody is going to give us a deal that lets us be better in 2007 by trading Willis. I'm fully expecting to be surprised by some moves, but I'm definitely a Willis supporter right now.

Gandy is an UFA, so no news is good news . Right now we are Peters-Dockery-Fowler-Preston-Walker with Pennington, Butler, Merz, and Whittle as backups or competing to take a starting position, so I think that probably covers us pretty well for now .

They see that not having to run against the Ravens D should improve his numbers and make him a 1000 yard back. I remain on the record that I'm worried about losing an underrated (here on the wall at least) Willis without getting enough in return and forcing us to commit bigger resources to that position. If Marv can work something out that surprises me I am fine, but watching Willis go off for another team in his contract year while we have someone not as good and don't get to improve another position because of it doesn't add up for me.

Good move. We have enough young line depth behind our projected starters that I don't see him filling in at all. I think our guard signing this year will have a slightly larger impact than last winter's guard signing.

Okay. Let's all calm down a notch. McGee will not cover Moss. Last I checked the Pats were not five deep with scary receivers. Right now it would be Youboty covering Moss, and regardless of Moss we are probably going to upgrade our primary CB. This move will make the Pats better in 2007 if it happens, no question about that (Randy will drink the cool-aid), but will likely make them worse in 2008 and definitely worse beyond that.

Here's the simpler answer: We don't need a RB. So we only give up Willis McGahee if we can get better by doing it (not going to happen), and not because Marv doesn't like him. Willis will be a very good Bill this year, and we will have to get a new RB next spring for the 2008 season.

Agreed that we still need depth, and we will add more LBs. But I think right now I expect Crowell to outperform London at MLB this year. Maybe just a hunch, maybe not close to right, but I am not concerned about MLB if Crowell plays there. I think Spikes 2007 will be better than Spikes 2006, and I really hope to keep him. So Ellison and new guys have to pick up the slack for Crowell's old spot, and provide depth.

I love Crowell at MLB, although I think we clearly need to add somebody whether a day one pick or June. But I think having Ellison / Crowell / TKO penciled in as the linebackers and Youboty / McGee at corner and Triplett / McCargo / Kyle at DT does give us the option to decide on the best players and the best ways to upgrade this team. I think we get better faster if we can sign June and not use #12 on Willis, so that's my early favorite scenario.

I agree that absent knowledge of problems it would have caused, Marv's promise was not a smart one. If we could have had Nate happy in camp and playing well without the promise we shouldn't have made it, and even if not, I don't think the promise was a great one. But once made, it should have been respected, and no way we want to pay Nate 8/80. So Nate is gone and we are technically worse for it, but financially better (and can spend that money on both sides of the ball). I still think the brain trust thinks we will be better without London for level of play reasons, and it was not a financial decision. Still not sure on how that plays out, but I can see it happening.

Too much. He is not enough better than Willis (if he is better than Willis) to worry about it. He is unrestricted next year, and will be an option to replace Willis after he walks if we want to do that. But I really wish the Henry/Lynch/Turner stuff would die down. Marv might have his mind made up and pull the trigger on Willis, but if so I think we are a worse team in 2007 and better in 2008, so I hope he does not.

I like keeping Willis, and drafting at #12, then again in the 2nd and 3rd. I think that makes us a better football team. LB and CB on day one, with a DT possible, but individual picks decided based on the guys we like the best who are available when we pick, not based on a pre planned wish list. Don't get so caught up with our 2008 running back. 2007 Willis playing for his big contract (one chance only for most RBs) behind our new line is better football value than we can get trading and drafting. Stand pat Marv! Get the best players available Marv! Go Bills!

Wow...this discussion is bouncing all over the place. I think right now we are a worse defense than last year because we have nobody filled in for Nate and London. So I'm going to ignore the "now" questions and focus on the "on track to be for the start of the season". Nate is a very good player. We will be a better team without him than if we had paid 8/$80mil. So I'm sad he isn't in a Bills jersey, but not signing him was the right move to our defense. But with improvement elsewhere we can make up for the downgrade from Nate to Youboty and be a better defense overall. London was a great guy and a good player. He's getting old and I don't think is quite the player he used to be, and that is why he (sometimes unfairly) gets all the "7 yards downfield tackles" comments. I think we will do our best to get a better player than London, a better fit for the D, and that is the reason we did not sign London (who would have signed an earlier extension and we definitely had the money since Walker was not essential). The thinking is we are a better team with the alternative. I don't know that we will get a guy who in 2007 be better than London all by himself (not sure how London vs. Willis vs. June will play out, but there doesn't appear to be a guaranteed 1/2/3 order, so it remains to be seen). But there is a chance we will have a 1 to 1 improvement at MLB over London, but more likely our improvement will be overall on the linebackers (healthy Spikes or cut for money for someone else, Crowell improved and maybe moving to MLB, Ellison competing for a spot but probably the #4 guy). So I come back to thinking that we are on track to be a better D because: 1) Kyle, McCargo, Dante, Ko, Spikes, Ellison, Crowell, McGee, Youboty, Hargrove would each be expected to contribute MORE individually this year. 2) Denney, Schobel, Kelsey, Tripplet should be expected to perform at a similar level. 3) We lose Nate and London (and maybe KT), but we also will be adding people in draft and free agents and especially in the draft likely somebody able to make an impact and contribute from the start. 4) The young D enters year 2 with relatively little turnover, and would be expected to learn and play better as a unit. I think those pieces add up to a better D than last year, and if things go right with the additions we make could be a good D instead of a bottom of the pack D. Am I wrong on some of my four points? Or is my math of adding them up wrong? Sure looks to me like we are getting better on D.

Obviously with very little information, but since I'm not as down on our D-Line as others I think this could be a good deal...better than the options that will be available with the 3rd round pick. Allowing an ideal goal of LB/CB in the first two rounds. Much better than the relative cost of getting a siminilar talent for CB or LB in free agency at this point.

I was not stating that Ellison should be the starter (not sure on that). I was stating that our expectation should be for our LB corps to be better next year: Ellison should be better in year 2 than year 1. Crowell should be better as he continues to mature and without the injury. Spikes will be better or will be replaced with someone better than the 2006 Spikes. Fletcher clearly was let go with the plans on bringing in a better player (whether moving around guys or just a straight 1 to 1 replacement). So my expectation is that we will have better play at Linebacker in 2007 than in 2006, as well as at DT (McCargo and year 2 in the system for everybody else) and safety (a year of experience for the two rookies). DE seems to be a push with the same guys (maybe a little older), and CB will clearly be a downgrade of some sort unless an exceptional #12 pick surprises us. But I think the improvements at DT and LB and Safety will offset the penciled in downgrade from Nate to Youboty. And if we draft someone good #12 (not my first choice) and start Youboty with McGee at nickle, I think our DB rotation could actually be better than last year (even though none of the individuals will equal Nate). One quick comment: The discussion thread is are we the worst defense now. Not about improved team or team to start camp. As that we can't count guys we don't have yet, but that sort of makes it a BS question that many of us have edited into "with the changes made so far, are we on track to have a better defense than last year".

I sure hope that Ashton gets some playing time, and if we add a first round pick DB, I would rather see McGee move to nickel and have his legs a little more rested for returns (I don't think McGee is a great cover corner, but Youboty could become one). But, I'm fine starting camp with Youboty/McGee/KT. I don't think we will, and I think that a first day pick will definitely be spent on a corner, but if not I don't think it is the end of the world. It's okay if we have a weaker pass D without the $80million man, as long as our run D is better. If our day 1 picks are better spent at LB or DT I am fine with Youboty/McGee being the starters.

Yeah, I don't see any way we sign or draft someone who is instantly better than Price. It wouldn't surprise me if we take a day two pick and go after a larger receiver somewhere (hoping he is the next Colston ), but not anybody who starts camp above Price on the depth chart. With better pass protection I think JP will get Price the ball more often, and I also see Roscoe being a bigger factor, with Lee continuing to explode talent wise, but probably getting more attention freeing up more room for the other guys.

No. The Bills do not have the worst defense in the NFL. Let's go over the basics: D-Line, Kyle should be better, McCargo is back, Larry is in his prime, and we might add somebody else better than Tim Anderson, line better than last year. Linebackers we lost a player who is a great guy, but was not being an impact player and was mostly making tackles 7 yards downfield. Wait and see, but I don't think we let him walk because we couldn't afford him, but beacuse we expect to get better at that position. Ellison and Crowell would both be expected to contribute more next year than this year, and TKO will either contribute more (my hope) or clear some cap space. DBs, Ko and Dante have a year under their belt and should be better, Terrance had a bad year and should rebound at least somewhat, and right now we have Youboty replacing Nate (a downgrade) and hope to resign KT. I would have to give DBs a push or only slight downgrade, because of the experience factor of the safeties. But with the draft we will get an impact corner or an impact linebackers (I hope LB). And we could still sign someone on D. I think that without a question our D is better next year, especially considering it is year two of a new scheme for what was a very young D. Experience for everbody (only Spikes would be on the decline), adding McCargo, adding Youboty, and some good draft picks will make our D better than last year and nowhere near the worst in the league.

Agreed. I wish London the best, but I don't think this move was about money...I think this move is about getting a better player at that position. Remains to be seen how, but the issue with London was not dollars. If they wanted him back he would have been signed much earlier, but this is a football move. So this is unlike Nate who we would have definitely kept if not for the dollars.

I'm excited for Dockery, and can't wait to see him play. I'm not sure that he isn't going to be as good as Dielman and Steinbach, but I don't know that we would have landed either of those guys for the same money. Who plays RG now? Preston was disappointing last year, Marv mentioned Butler moving inside (which with Walker would seem more likely). I am not interested in signing Gandy or drafting/signing any other O-Linemen at this point. I think we have depth and great starters, and really only one position battle available (RG), with Preston and Merz able to try to push Fowler on the depth chart for the future.

It depends on who we replace Fletcher with...that's what it comes down to. Walker is clearly better than Pennington/Butler (or we screwed up), so the question is do we also get better at MLB or do we get worse. I love London and was a big fan, but he is getting older, and was a downfield tackler. I think we can find a way to be better at his position AND be better at Walker's position. If we don't get another LB it would come down to would you rather have Pennington and Fletcher starting or Walker and Ellison. But I think we add another LB impact player (Willis/June) and start camp improved at both positions.

If we take a third for Willis, we are a worse football team in 2007. We will have to tie up better than a third round pick to replace him, so even if we get Lynch, we are using a pick that could have gone elsewhere. I think Willis is underrated right now, and no reason to sell low. I would think about a second and take a first, but otherwise I want him to play. The downgrade in 2007 is too important for the upgrade in 2008-2011 (when the third round pick would be a Bill and Willis would not), because this team needs a good 2007 to progress. If we could get Henry or we really think there is a better back than Willis in the second round I can live with a lower pick trade, but otherwise I'd just as soon he suit up, play for the contract (not many running backs get two contract years, so Willis knows this is the biggest year of his career), and help the Bills win in 2007. People say the Colts did well losing Edge. I think that is an inaccurate comparison. They let a free agent go and used a first round pick. Willis is under contract so you need to get more for him than you expect his production under contract to be.

I don't think the $25 million dollar man competes with two low rounders. They are both backups and Butler could compete at guard (Marv's words) until further notice, and Walker is the starter. I don't think we can take a first day OG given our two big signings and our needs elsewhere (LB/CB/RB/FB). I wouldn't necessarily mind all that much, but I don't see it happening,

Maurice Jones-Drew (2) Frank Gore (3) Tatum Bell (2) Julius Jones (2) Clinton Portis (2) Brian Westbrook (2) Travis Henry (2) I think there is some pretty good talent established after the first round at this position, so I'm not too interested in a #1 pick to RB unless the right guy is there. Between RB/LB/CB/DT I think we can take the best guy available. Willis is still on the team, and if he doesn't get moved we aren't going to pick that high. I might be crazy, but I wouldn't mind Henry pulling a Peerless Price and coming back if Willis is moved, but I see Willis having a big 2007 and us worrying about our next running back next off season.

The Walker Fletcher comparison is an obvious one given contract similarities. But I think that the Bills are planning on being better at *both* RT and MLB. The RT one seems pretty clear. It is now up to them to get a LB better than Fletcher. I really like London and always have, but I'm not sure he is the impact player we need, and that we won't have someone better starting either from a free agent, or now more likely a first round pick like Willis. Crowell/Willis/Ellison might be a good trio for our D, although I am still a Spikes fan and hope to see him recover and have a great 2007.

Everything I have read (but not seen, haven't seen a Skins game in years) indicates that Dockery will be a huge addition and was just barely below Blalock and Deilman. I am very happy with this, and this is not Hutchinson money unfortunately, not with inflation. A lot has changed this year with the cap changes, and while it isn't exactly saying Niefi Perez's contract is bigger than Willie Mays, the numbers need to be adjusted mentally. This seems like a good way to spend our available funds based on what is out there and our needs. Walker is a little more confusing to me, but to spend that kind of money Dick and McNally must have decided that he is clearly better than Pennington/Butler. I trust their judgement much much more than mine, but will remain a little leary until I see him play well. Keep in mind we never ran to the right and Pennington always had blocking help, so it might just be that Terrance is not as good as we had hoped.