Koufax

Right now we have one hole. RB. I don't expect we will have any holes by draft day because I think we will have signed one or two RBs before then (including A-Train, and then Rhodes/Dillon). I think CB/LB/DT are not holes but positions to receive primary consideration for upgrades. Youboty/McGee with KT or Greer at nickel doesn't make our secondary terrible, just not as good as it can be. Ellison/Crowell/Spikes with Wire on the bench doesn't sound too terrible at LB. Triplett/McCargo/Kyle/Hargrove isn't a void at DT. So this puts us exactly where we need to be. Several areas to target, but after we sign a veteran back or two in the next couple days, no crazy glaring holes we have to spend #12 on. That's the best place to be on draft day. If by then we decide Okoye is the best fit and there is CB depth in round 2, we do that. Or we sign June and like Revis better at #12, RB in the second, and get a later pick DT to add depth. Lots and lots can happen after we sign a back or two, and we can find the best value to improve RB/CB/DT/LB and potentially other places based on what is available. Heading to the toy store to get the best toys around, and not needing a Tickle-Me-Elmo no matter what is really the best way to have a Merry Christmas.

I think you are correct. Unlikely that we get enough out of a low 3rd rounder to offset Willis's potential upside. So we aren't going to be making the Ravens look foolish, but we might just be a better 2007 team for it. And we are definitely a better 2008+ team getting two day 1 picks for a guy who was going to leave after this season. If we get a nobody with this year's 3rd rounder and Willis has a good year and we struggle at the RB position we will look foolish at the end of the 2007 season, and I guess there is some chance of that. I don't give too much weight to the 2008 stuff, and think the decision should be made based on 2007. But if it proves even close to a 2007 wash (Willis stays a 3.9 yard back who forgets downs, whoever we get does well) then this proves a great trade long term because while not getting worse for year 1, we get two additional day 1 picks to help our team over the next couple years.

Interesting quote from DJ: Asked if McGahee had requested a trade, Jauron replied: "That's a good question for you to ask him." Could be something more behind this, but even if not, it is the move we made, not a terrible one. I had hoped we wouldn't trade Willis without getting a much higher pick, but he's gone now, and we have to replace a guy who has played average (regardless of whether he is better than that or not) in the most replaceable position on the field. I'm still excited about this team, and with the right final pieces this can become a great deal. And since we weren't going to sign him after this year we get something...I bet we wish we had gotten two first day picks for Nate right about now.

The deal doesn't really phase me, because I was looking at Willis as a 2007 option, not considering him for 2008 and beyond. More power to him with all the money. It will be interesting to see how playing for a winner and with Ray-Ray will be balanced off with not having a contract year to work for. I predict he will have a very good year, but we won't cry over his absence and will be a better team in 2008 and beyond, and very likely better in 2007.

Too soon to tell, but I don't go to PTI for my great sports info. If we don't add any backs this will be a huge error on our part. But obviously we will add other backs, and it depends on who we get. I thought this article was interesting, and is something I have thought for a while (although I woudn't mind Dillon if not too expensive): http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10047765

Marv mentioned in his Willis interview the thought of moving up. Depends on who the dance partner is, but it certainly is an option with the extra day 1 pick. Last year we moved up with only three day 1 picks, and I could easily see moving up this year if the players we want are right. If Willis falls to later in the first round that could be tempting for us, as well as getting one of the top corners later in round 1. Most interesting is moving up from #12 to go after a Peterson at this point (the only guy I think we would move up to get). There are a bunch of teams in front of us who are not in the market for a RB, so some of the top teams could pass on him and some of the next teams could either pass or be willing to trade down.

To be fair we got a 2nd back for Henry so it was Willis and a 2nd (and now two 3rds) for Travis and a 1st in the bigger picture, but that second came two years later and the 3rds come 4 and 5 years later. But I agree with your general reasoning. Having Travis on the roster and having Willis need a year off meant that a whole lot had to be done in Willis's next three seasons for it to be a good move. He didn't do enough to make it a good pick. I still think he could go either way and become an excellent back or just an average guy, but his time with the Bills and the circumstances in total make him a bust.

No question this makes him a bust since we closed the cycle at this point. Taken ahead of LJ, missing an entire year, playing a position with an established starter (we did get a 2nd for Travis), his numbers do not add up to value at his draft pick. Not a huge bust but you need more our of a #1 than a year off, two solid years as a decent player, and then a disappointing inconsistent year. I don't think it was all his fault, since some of it was circumstance, coming off the injury, getting jerked around by MM, playing behind a troubled line and breaking some ribs last year. But he was not a star, and with Larry Johnson and Eric Steinbach shortly behind him, it would not have been hard to get more value over four years than we did.

Says only moving Willis if they got value, which they did. Likes having extra picks, and that they can be used to move up too. Likes the various Bills options from 2006 team, but with a big smile we certainly will not rule out bringing in a free agent. Not locking on to ideas on players in the draft at this point, but evaluating.

Not sure on the whole three backs, but I really wouldn't mind seeing Dillon play for us. I know he is old, but 2004 is not that far away (1635 yds, 4.7ypc), and he has been 12+ TDs for three straight years. He will need someone to help him shoulder the load, but won't sign as just a backup, so could be a great fit paired with a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Last year he performed pretty well in a more limited role, and I think the reduced carries in three of the last four years will translate to a little more fuel in the tank than people are expecting. Remember, the Pats didn't let him go for their reasons, but granted his wish after telling him he would be #2 and 10 carries per game behind Maroney. I know he isn't the perfect fit, but if the team tells him he is the #1 with 15-20 carries a game planned (depending on who we pick up to back him up and how he does) he could do well with the something to prove factor running behind our improved line.

yeah, I see too many good players at #12 to give up what it would take to move up. I prefer we stay put and get some great players at each spot. Signing a free agent RB would be nice too (and is going to happen). If we sign a free agent RB, and have Ellison-Crowell-Spikes as the penciled in LBs and Youboty-McGee as the corners and Kyle-Larry-McCargo-Hargrove at DT, we don't have any one position that is wide open and we have to reach for, and we can just improve all of those positions in the best way the draft allows us.

Lynch falling to #12 could happen, but Marv won't like the character issues. Willis dropping to our second rounder seems unlikely. But moving up like we did for McCargo with one of the extra picks is very possible if the personnel are right. I would be very very surprised if we come out of the draft with those two, but it could happen.

One good bit of news is that Willis will be slightly less motivated not being in a contract year after the extension, so I'm less worried about him exploding (although I still think he will have a very good year). The 7th is close to worthless because it is like three picks before UFA, and the 2008 3rd is worthless this year. So looking at this in the short run it will be hard to have a 3rd rounder be more valuable than Willis. But since his cap hit is also off the books, a third rounder plus a free agent signing could make us a better team or close to it especially when you factor in the babymommas-torontopenthouse-underachiver-pickedbeforelarryjohnson-illiterate-workoutskipping nature. Bills character got better today. 2008+ Bills got better today. Remains to be seen with the low 3rd round pick and the cap space/free agents whether the 2007 Bills got better or not. I think there are some free agent backs out there who could sign and help close that gap and make this a good move. I might be in the minority, but I like Corey Dillon's upside in particular.

Since we didn't trade down with Leinart and Cutler on the board, we are not going to pick or trade down with Quinn on the board (doesn't matter he won't make it to #12, I'm just saying), so our best case scenario is for as many players as possible who we don't want in the top 11 pushing down more choices we are interested in to our pick.

Flowers is just about to turn the corner....I feel it in my gut. Get him into camp now Marv or we will regret it! Some players just take a little longer to develop. I don't think Milloy is a huge bust. Got us a 31-0 win over the Patsies and first place in the division going into week 2.

No value no trade! Willis should play for the Bills in 2007 and we can draft someone high next winter or maybe a 1b in the middle rounds this year.

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.