Koufax

Wow, I'm really happy with the two signings. I wasn't sold on Pennington or Butler even though I had my hopes. The only question right now is who plays RG, since Duke is clearly the weakest link. Adding McCargo to the D-Line and these two signings really improve our trenches. We will have to see what happens with Willis, but LB and CB are our no brainers in the draft, although picking up another DT, or the right WR/TE wouldn't hurt. I'm not scared of Ashton/McGee/Thomas as the CBs if we don't draft one high, so I am definitely all eyes on LB for the draft. But getting two solid linemen on day 1 (and don't forget Walker for the Bills top special teams...he's a kick blocking monster) really makes me excited.

I'm very excited about this signing. Wait and see on the dollars, but getting one of the top three guards is a huge move for us and way more valuable than re-signing Nate to keep Ashton on the bench. A nice first day, although London was a great Bill and I'm sad to see him go.

I don't think the Colts or Bears or Patriots or Saints were going to offer Champ Bailey money. He is still young and can take a longer look into a place he things will be fun over the next five years, but certainly also wanted some big money. I can't fault him here, and wish him the best. He wouldn't have made sense to us, and I hope his departure is offset by the signing of one of the top 3 guards.

I am very excited at the possibility of upgrading guard, which I think is our most important position to upgrade from last year's team (followed by DT which we upgrade with McCargo, and not counting the holes left by London and Nate). I think this guy could be a great fit if Steinbach and Dielman cost too much. Clearly is better than Mike Gandy, and having a plus guard to go with Peters really makes the left side strong. I'm still looking for the guy who keeps Preston on the bench, because I think Duke performed worse than Gandy last season (although is younger and less experienced, so has more room for improvement).

No way I want to pay market value for Clements, which is in a different league from this. I have my doubts on Kelsey. I like him but would have been fine with Hargrove/Denney and not spending money that could prevent us from having enough for another valuable player (not Clements in my mind, because I don't think he is as good as his contract will be expensive). But now that we have him, just like the Price signing, not big deal, not a huge impact, we are a better team with him than without him, and these aren't crazy dollars.

I think we will be a worse off team if we take a 3rd or lower pick for Willis, and I have my doubts of us being able to improve by taking a 2nd rounder for him (depends where in the round I guess). 2007 Willis is worth a lot in my mind because he will have a better year looking for the career contract, running behind a better line and on a better O. That's going to be a lot of production to replace. Clearly when with Willis gone in 2008 and even a 7th rounder still on the roster, we are better in 2008 if we trade Willis. But I just have a tough time seeing us not get worse off by trading Willis unless some team is willing to overspend for him. I don't like the idea of doing something that makes us worse in 2007. It is important that this team takes a step forward in 2007 and makes a playoff push. So I really really hope we don't trade him just to unload him, and I would laugh and say no to the first pick in the third round without thinking twice. Accept a first rounder most likely, think about a second rounder, and turn down anything else.

What we really care about (unless we are targeting a singel player, which in my mind it is too early to do) is how many guys make it into the top 11 that we wouldn't want anyway. Those guys push guys we would want down to us. When they fall out and we have to take them or pass on them, it doesn't help us. Just like if Cutler and Leinart both went in the top 7 last year we would have had two more top players to choose from along with Whitner and Ngata. So seeing Ginn and Landry and Anderson and Quinn in the top 11 is important to ensure we get one of the guys we really like at #12.

Good signing and reasonable levels. Please remember that not all running is right at the DTs and that ends matter against the run too. I wouldn't have broken the bank for Kelsey, but this does make us strong, four deep (with Hargrove), and is reasonable money. Two comments for what others were saying: 1) This is not $13 million of our cash to cap this year 2) We could not get Nate for a few more bucks If Kelsey is above average to good over the next couple years, this is an excellent deal. If he is not it isn't a huge bust. I agree that we can probably cross another position off of our off season list. Other than backups or practice team: no safeties, no QBs, no P, no K, no LT, no C. Still looking to get better at OG, DT, LB, CB, WR, TE, RB. I can live with that shopping list for this point in the off season with the money and draft picks we have. I think we are in good position heading into the off season. Losing London, Nate, and maybe Willis (I still hope not) we are going to have some holes to fill.

Okay. But in your Method B the $25 million paid this year in a bonus would be spread over the cap for five years by rule? It couldn't be counted all $25 million this year, meaning the team has more space the following year? I guess I'm confused on what the "rules" are for signing bonus proration vs the "option" a team has. With the example $25 million bonus there are three things to determine, and I'm not sure what the flexibility and choice is for each: #1) When the player gets paid the cash #2) How the cash counts against the cap over the years #3) How the cash counts in the owners imaginary budget We know Ralph is going to say that all of the bonus is this year for #3. But is #2 determined by rules, or can a team decide between counting it all this year vs spreading it for either #1 or #2? Are #1 and #2 linked to each other or does changing one not necessarily change the other? I'm pretty sure there is a healthy dose of Ralph being cheap when the dust settles, but there also seems a healthy dose of smart future planning and avoiding getting into bad situations a couple years after a signing. Without guaranteed contracts this might not be as big as the bad deals are in baseball, but would seem to have its advantages. Maybe we can be smarter and better for it. But I hate the thought of a Billionaire penny pinching and not trying to win one before he passes away.

Maybe he can drop a few pounds and play DB for Nate! I think he will be better at what he was in 2006. I like him as a player, and still wonder if he can contribute more than as the #4 DT and #4 DE (each of which he is right now). Can he be a better tackle than McCargo/Triplett/Kyle? I don't really see it, so at tackle he is more of a role playing #4 for passing downs. (#5 if we sign someone else to replace Anderson and stop the run). He could certainly see more time at DE too and push Denney for #3. I think he is really an interesting guy and hard to figure out how he can best help the team.

Outstanding. That's the funniest one I can think of, but we do need to keep in mind that mock drafts are never close to the real thing even in the best circumstances, and once you get out of the top 10, people don't have time to actually do their research or put thought in, so it becomes sort of "well, let's see...this guy's probably pretty good and the right position". Too bad we couldn't have just taken Bunkley or Justice instead of Whitner like we should have.

40 speed is a nice luxury addition for a RB, but relatively low on my priority list, well behind actual running ability. A lot of guys run faster times than Emmitt Smith ever did without being anywhere near the player. It is nice to have "and nobody is going to catch him!" speed in the open like Barry Sanders and LT, but it is a secondary perk to being a great explosive runner in the first 5-15yards. 40 times matter much less for RBs than for WR/DBs simply because the much lower percentage of football time actually running in the open field.

Marv would not have drafted Willis...we all know that...maybe we would have gotten LJ, maybe we would have gotten a second round talent DB instead. Willis is not a good guy, a smart player, or a role model. Marv certainly looks forward to him not being a Bill. But unless we get an offer that makes us a better team, he should be a Bill in 2007. Willis in a contract year with an improved line and overall offense is going to be a good back (he hasn't been as bad as people say the last couple years), and letting him go leaves a huge hole at RB that a 2nd or 3rd round pick is going to have trouble filling.

Okay. I'm confused. Do we get more cap dollars over the years if we do big prorated bonuses now? Or does not prorating crazy bonuses give us flexibility and more cap room in future years? Are we being blamed for not taking advantage of a loophole that let's us spend more now but forces less later (when prorated bonuses force us into cutting players and having less to spend). I don't see how not mortgage our future is a bad business decision, and I think it instead is a strategy that will allow us to be MORE competitive year in year out. I can't believe we are getting blasted for letting a very good but soon to be overpaid corner walk, and potentially an older linebacker who worked hard and I would love to keep, but was not an impact player this year and will only be a year older. We will undoubtedly be weaker at corner and possibly weaker at LB (but probably stronger when the dust settles), but will be a better team by putting available money elsewhere. But if we trade Willis for anything less than a first at this point we will NOT be able to get his 2007 value in return with whatever pick we get, so if we do that it is based on Marv's character stance or the idea of valuing 2008-2010 improvements (when that draft pick is with us, but Willis would not be) over 2007 talent. In the words of Stephen Colbert....Tell me where I'm wrong....

Yep. Those words mean nothing. If the Giants can't trade for someone else they would give up a 2nd rounder for Willis in a heartbeat. And Willis will have a better 2007 than whoever is picked in that slot (and probably better 2007 than who they would pick at #20). They are a team that has to value 2007 contribution more than 2008+. We are a team that can accept a slight downgrade in 2007 value (not much) for increased value beyond 2007. This is a good fit in both directions if we decide to move him, the question is what compensation would be fair for both teams meeting in the middle, or if one team gets the better of the other.

Like McCargo and Youboty and Butler? Contributing early is definitely a value over a project, but if you do anything other than draft the best football players available based on your estimation of their five year contribution to the team, you are choosing to get less total value from the draft than you could have, and you are prevent you are hurting your team in the medium-long run. Draft great football players to build a great team. Draft needs to build a mediocre team with fewer holes. However, first year contribution is one part of the five year contribution, so getting more out of the player in year 1 can offset more talent and potential that is raw. I'm not sure who between Branch and Okoye will be more valuable over five years, and I'm not sure if either will be available at #12, but I wouldn't feel terrible about either. I still like Blalock and Willis as well, and know we will get a good player at #12.

I think Willis is being underrated again. I don't really like him, think running backs are generally replaceable, and don't expect him to be with us in 2008, so I am open to trading him. But Willis is a very good back, and that has gotten masked by the events and circumstances of the last couple years. Like the Canadian Dollar, there is an exchange rate to playing on the 2005-2006 Bills. Willis was having an outstanding 2005 despite the issues at the halfway point (790 yards, 4.3/carry, three games over 130) when MM started playing de-motivational speaker, and not getting to be in on 3rd downs in general. The 2006 season was the first half O-Line disaster followed by a run only to the left offense that definitely made things tough. Plus the broken ribs. I'm not saying he is as elite as he thinks he is, but his 2007 contribution with a better offense in a contract year (he gets up for the Jets, he can get up for the dollars like Nate) is MUCH greater than anything we would get from a second round pick, and would be very tough to duplicate at the #20 spot. Those picks would be cheaper and contribute much more in 2008-2009-2010-2011 (when Willis will be gone and old somewhere else), so there is an upside and I would make the deal for a first rounder. But I think Willis will be very good in 2007 wherever he is playing, and I think he is being undervalued here and should not be given away lightly for "whatever we can get".

If anybody else wants to overpay Kelsey I am fine with Denney/Hargrove at that spot. If not and we can get him back at a reasonable price, I'm happy with him back. This isn't a big deal or a key to our offseason, but he is a solid player who I'd be happy to keep if it falls into place.

Forget need and try this: Willis / Revis / Okoye (and more). Who is going to be the best football player over the next five years? I don't know the answer, but I like Willis > Okoke > Revis based on what I know right now. Draft needs to try to move slighly higher in mediocrity and patch the holes in a leaky ship. Draft great players to build a great team. But if you are going to look at need, is Revis going to be enough better than Youboty or McGee to justify this pick? Would he take any punt returns away from Roscoe? Doesn't seem like the best pick for either need or talent to me.

Can we sign this guy? http://www.criticalbench.com/bench-press-world-record.htm

Working against him: he has been a high energy guy for a while now, so it isn't like he has been dogging it in the college weight room and we should expect miracles this year. Working for him: he is a high energy guy, and no reason he shouldn't be able to maximize his athletic performance curve over the next several years as his body matures and become more physical. Remember, our D, for better or for worse, does not have room for Ted Washington because of how it is designed. We don't need him to go from 295 to 325. But going to 300-305 and getting stronger and smarter in the process could really make him a better player. I'm a big McCargo fan too, and think he has the higher ceiling, but I think Kyle can be our #3 DT, a fan favorite, and a big contributor over the next five years. Not bad for a fifth round pick considering our recent fifth rounders are: Eric King, Ben Sobieski, Justin Bannan, Marques Sullivan. McCargo, Ashton, and Dante have the jury still out on our first three rounds, but you have to think we did pretty damn good rounds 4-7 right now when you look at what normal drafts yield.

I firmly believe TKO will be better at the start of training camp this fall than he was at any point in 2007. It remains to be seen if he can ever get back to where he was, but I think starting an off season healthy and being able to work all off season beats the heck out of starting the off season in an immobilizer boot and not doing full workouts until late in camp. Many injuries like this also have you able to play 1 year later, but not yourself until two years later. It could be something he never recovers from, but I'm an optimist, and think he will be a starter for us in 2007 and much better than he was this season. Sure beats the alternative...

Yep. Just not by us. He will command more than his value to us. He needed to be signed by now for it to have any chance of making sense. Spending $1 more than the dumbest overspending GM is a BAD way to build a football team. Let's take on the 2007 season with Youboty, McGee, and KT. We will have weaker CBs losing Nate and starting Ashton (or even a #12 pick CB), but I expect when the dust settles we will be stronger at safety (a year experience), stronger at LB (wait and see), stronger at DLine (Kyle better, McCargo healthy, Larry settling in), O-Line, RB (contract year Willis behind a better O-Line), QB (another year experience), receivers (another year of maturing for Lee, and hopefully pick up another receiver), and at worst a push at TE. Sounds like a better team. So I'd like to use Nate's dollars to sign Lee and JP to extensions, and upgrade positions of greater value. We will start a weaker corner in Nate's absense, but we will be a better team than if we break the bank for him.

If Kyle's high motor goes all season in the weight room, he, Larry, and McCargo could be a good first three, and we just need to replace Anderson with a slight upgrade to be much stronger at DT. Which is why we don't have to force the #12 pick on a DT if that isn't the best player available (just like I'm fine with Ashton, McGee, and KT as our three corners and don't need to force a CB at #12). We'll have to see what he turns into, but I think he has a lot of good upside as he continues to learn, get stronger, and work hard every play.

Actually, we were 19th out of 32, which doesn't sound too terrible. Some of that is stadium dependent, and we have a nice big stadium (so more room to increase attendance as people get excited about an improving team). But attendance largely is a reflection of the PREVIOUS year (other than serious playoff buzz), which is why we were 9th in 2005 with a miserable 5-11 aging team, and were 19th in 2006 with a fun exciting, nail biting loses 7-9 team. Don't get me wrong, this is a very important year to take another step forward and not plateau or fall back. But that's because we are building a winning franchise that will be run right and compete year in year out. If you can't improve in year two of a system with more players coming in and your young players getting better than something is wrong. As for Nate being the 12th best corner, I think he is clearly better than that. But even if he were #1, I don't think we can afford him and I think resigning him at open market prices (meaning more than the craziest overspending GM, since he isn't going to sign at a discount) would hurt this team. He is gone, let's get over it and get ready for Ashton, McGee, KT (I hope), Greer, and whoever else we might add this off season. We will probably be weaker at the CB position but better at: safeties, LB, D-Line, O-Line, QB, RB, WR. Sounds like a better team to me.