Koufax

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.

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.