Koufax

Losing 4 starters and not replacing them would cause us some serious trouble. Good thing we are entitled to free agents and a draft. I don't think picking out four out of 22 starters and acting like losing some guys is the end of the world. The NFL shows that almost anybody can be replaced (Colts - Edge, comes to mind right now). Nate: not coming back, too expensive, Ashton can start. I hope we don't draft Hall #12, and would prefer McGee/Youboty/KT as our first three accepting the downgrade, but having resources to improve elsewhere. London: Quality player, but again replaceable. I still wouldn't mind seeing him come back, but know it isn't likey. But there are free agents and draft picks who can match his contribution. Kelsey: Hargrove takes his spot, and I don't think we are much worse off with Hargrove/Denney than Kelsey/Denney. Possibly a downgrade since Kelsey is a quality player, but wait and see. Spikes: He was not a great player last year. We either replace him with a better healthy Spikes, or we replace him with a different player because we think that play can outplay him. Either way I don't think this is going to be a downgrade. What matters for any good GM is finding the best value to build the team. I think Marv will make the right value judgments on these four, and any of them we lose is because we can be better with alternatives instead of paying their price. This is how football teams are built with a salary cap. I would be MAD to read tomorrow that we signed Nate to Champ Bailey money. It would make our team worse. I would be HAPPY to read we signed Nate to a hometown discount deal that makes him a good value for us. Otherwise I'm prepared to let Marv make the right decisions. Turnover is part of the NFL...the teams that do it best see the results.

I think your post is right on, and I don't think Blalock will make it to the draft with much chance of being the best guy available at #12. If Blalock is available in the 2nd or 3rd, that would be a good fit for the guard you say we could take in the 2nd or 3rd. I don't think Mertz, Preston, or Butler is really a candidate for starting guard, with it not being the best position for any of them. They can definitely be backups, but I would like to draft at least one guard we think could be a starter now or in the future.

You mean the Vernon Davis that caught 20 passes for 265 yards and 3 touchdowns compared to Robert Royal's 23 passes for 233 yards and three touchdowns? Just kidding mostly, but Vernon Davis is still a top flight talent, and not yet a top flight football player. But I don't put much more into this being our pick than the mocks that have us with a QB. I want to get the best player available at #12 thinking about total contribution over the next five years. But if I'm giving any slight edge to position it is G/DT/LB, and not a skill position. But if by draft day he is viewed as the best football player available, I will be fine with it.

I am very disappointed that Preston is getting a vote of confidence somewhat, because I thought he was our WORST lineman last year, and didn't have the youth/inexperience excuse that Pennington did. Hopefully I'm proven wrong by leaps forward, and I misread his weakness That said, I think the Butler over Pennington competition is a good one, and I'm happy with whoever emerges, but remember that there is a reason the Bills picked Butler two rounds earlier than Pennington, and the shoulder injury might be all that allowed Pennington to get above him on the depth chart this year. If you look at the tape last year, Pennington was not very good, but he is young enough to improve. It wouldn't take a whole lot for Butler to be better this year. I'll take whoever wins the competition, but I think we are settled at the tackles. So that would seem to point to Gandy being replaced, Somebody brought in to compete with Preston, Butler/Pennington at RT, with Peters and Fowler set. It could be worse. We need to add one very good guard, and I wouldn't mind seeing Blalock as our #1 pick if he is the best player available when we choose, but otherwise I see a 2nd/3rd round pick or a notch below Steinbach free agent.

Yeah, Nate was already gone. Since tagging him was not an option (I'm not sure that was the best promise to make, but breaking it would be worse and isn't happening). The Pats would not have signed Samuel or Nate as a free agent, because they are smart enough to know that would hurt the team. Nate is gone, and Ahston and Terrance are our corners until a lower level free agent or a draft pick proves otherwise.

Nate is gone. Let's live with it. There is no chance we will be willing to pay what someone else will pay, and we are not going to tag him, which would be going back on Marv's word, and also would not help the team (the holdout / unhappy stuff talked about). Right now we have Youboty and McGee on the roster, and KT as a possibility, along with some other minor names, free agents and potential draft picks. I for one do not mind Youboty/McGee/KT as our first three, and would settle for this downgrade in CBs if it allows us to be a better team because of upgrading elsewhere. But Nate is gone, and we have to start to accept that.

Or we can just make smart moves to become a better team by upgrading some positions while accepting necessary downgrades at others. We need to figure out our corners if Nate leaves, but I look forward to Ashton playing. We definitely need to figure out MLB if London leaves, and I'm not sure we can do that without adding personnel. If Kelsey leaves we have Hargrove and Denney opposite Schobel, which I think is pretty solid. With Kyle maturing a year and us getting McCargo back DT needs a fourth guy to replace Anderson, but he doesn't have to be an overpaid big name. OG is still by far the position I worry most about. Other than the two guards (one if you think Gandy can be solid, but no way Preston of Villareal should start for us) what we have is a fairly balanced football team, with a lot of positions that are kinda average and not exciting. That gives us the flexibility to go after the best players in the draft, and the best values in free agency. If we get a tremendous LB and a pretty good corner, that is fine. If we get a pretty good LB and a tremendous DT that is fine. If we get a pretty good DT and a tremendous WR that is fine, etc. Lots of positions can use an upgrade, but lots of positions have decent players filling them right now, so we can let the market and draft decide what positions we pick up where, getting the best talent and value, and not go in with a road map we have to follow.

I am not a huge fan of Willis as a person, and don't feel any strong attachment to him as a Bill (much like Nate). But he did not get a fair shake this year. We had an offensive line disaster to start the season, and could only run one way in the second half, and he had various injuries, and he kept taking the ball and running hard. He is not an LT/Barry Sanders who can do it himself regardless of blocks, but I think he is a very talented weapon in a balanced functioning offense. In addition to playing with his injuries, he also missed three games: GB and INDY where A-Train averaged over 100 (and I expect Willis would have too), and Houston which is not a powerful run D and he would have had a good game. I'm looking forward to Willis having a huge 2007 contract year, and then we will see what happens.

Okay, I personally do not want a first round CB, because I don't think that will be the the best value or player available at #12, and I think Youboty and McGee can be fine, and KT or a lower pick or another free agent can be in the mix. I don't think Marv will reach on a first round CB because we "have to", so I don't see us picking a CB first unless he really thinks he is the best player available. We also are not going to let Nate walk because CB isn't important or we don't need a star. We are going to let him walk because the money he will cost will be more valuable to us if spent on other positions. Alex Rodriguez was the best shortstop in baseball and any team would be better off with him, but when the Rangers spent $252 million they ensured they would be a worse team because of it and are still paying the price for it. It is part of the business, and sometimes you are forced to lose very good players to replace them with less good players in the quest to be a better team by improving in other places

I don't think drafting a CB in the first round should be our choice, and I don't think it will be the best way to improve the team. I think that we need to get the best player we can at #12 (and at with pretty much every pick), and not try to patch perceived needs, which are very often not the real needs over the course of a season much less 2 or 3. I would like to go on record as saying that I'm fine with Youboty and McGee at corners and KT or someone else at nickel IF Nate is too expensive and the most talented football player at our first couple picks is not a CB. I also don't buy the DT #1 as a necessity, because McCargo, Kyle, and Larry are good, and while we need a 4th guy to replace Anderson, he doesn't have to be our top off season pickup if that isn't our best value. I wouldn't mind seeing it at all, although I'm personally more concerned about our two guards. bflodan said it well, don't reach because you are desperate. Relax, get the best players available, and over the years you are a better organization for it. Free Agency is the place to fill I-Need-It-Now. The draft is a place to get the most football talent and value you can year after year as lots of needs and holes change. Talented draft picks over five years are worth way way more than perceived year one impact.

We are not picking a left tackle, QB, punter, kicker, or safety first. Every other position is possible if that represents the best improvement for our team. I don't think Brown is the kind of super talent or Pennington the super weakness to have this be the best fit, so I don't see it happening. But other than that we should be looking for the best football player we can get. Our #12 draft pick will be wearing a Bills uniform in 2011, and we have no idea what our team will look like then. Draft an inferior player to fill a need and you hurt your team in the long run. PART of a draft pick's value is how he upgrades your team in year 1, so I'm all for looking for the best talents in positions that less fully covered and giving a small advantage to that in case of close calls between several players. But more of a draft pick's value is spread over his first five years of contributions, and to get the most value there you need to try to get the best football players. People will point to Whitner being a need pick, but I don't think he was. I don't think it was about needing a strong safety in 2006, but I think Marv thought that Whitner was the most valuable and talented football player available at that pick from a broader perspective. Assuming that we weren't taking a QB, the next five players picked were: Sims, Ngata, Wimbley, Bunkley, and Tye Hill. The jury is still out, but despite all the outcries I think that 1) Marv drafted the player he thought was the best football player available 2) Marv might prove to be right. I think that Brown is one of the players that COULD be the best football player available at #12. I also think that Okoye, Leon Hall, Adrian Peterson, Alan Branch, Marshawn Lynch, Dwayne Jarett, Patrick Willis, or others could be that best player, but it depends on a lot of information gathering between now and the draft, and how the first 11 picks go.

I don't think this is surprising, and I don't think this is a bad move. Living in San Diego we get the Marty soap-opera every day of the year. The issues between him and AJ were as bad as I've seen in pro sports, and I was very surprised he wasn't fired right after the NE loss. The reason clearly was having two exceptional coordinators and a 14-2 team with all the talent in the world, why rock the boat. But losing those two coordinators and needing to replace them meant that the coaching staff is going to have major turnover, so why not get rid of a problem area at the same time. If Wade had stayed Marty would have too, but replacing both coordinators getting a new HC is what made sense. I think Martz would be the logical fit, but it is too early to tell. I don't think they can go with a rookie HC coming off 14-2 and with all their talent and expectations. They just need someone with experience winning to come in and not screw things up too much. Losing Wade and Cam were blows to the Chargers, but losing Marty will not be a negative.

I hope not. I hope we don't draft for needs but can work on getting the best football players available.

I would love to have Steinbach from a fan's and coach's perspective, no questions asked. I also think improving our play at guard is probably the single most important part of our off season, but still one of many. But, much like Nate, I don't think that Steinbach will make financial sense and be a good choice from a GM's perspective. What we would have to pay him to come is more than his value over the next best choice is. And that would limit us in improving this off season. I point to baseball and the Oakland A's again. Clements is Barry Zito...a talented guy, but one who wants to be paid like a #1 without really being a #1. The A's let him go without really considering it an option (but certainly making their best offer early to be laughed at by the player). Steinbach is Alfonso Soriano...a very talented player who would clearly be much better than the guy the A's had playing the position, but just costs too much, and signing him would force the team to field a WORSE team by not having the resources to upgrade elsewhere. That's the same reason you won't see Steinbach in New England either. What is important for any team to realize, and especially a small market team, is that if another team is willing to overpay a player and make a BAD decision, you need to accept it and move on and find value elsewhere. I think that at least one team will overpay Clements and at least one team will overpay Steinback. If that is the case, go elsewhere and look for the best value we can find.

Getting big name players and great free agents is great, but this is a team game with 22 starters + substitutions + bench players. There is no Michael Jordan option there, so if that big name ties up too much of your available resources you become a worse team for it. I'd love to have Nate back, I hope we get Steinbach, but each of those might be more expensive than valuable, and prevent the team from making greater overall improvements with a combination of smaller name players.

If this guy surprises and plays and contributes, it is a great signing. If he out performs someone else for depth on the bench, that's cool too. If he doesn't do either and is cut, it is no big deal. Sorry we didn't sign Steinbach today, but this isn't the NBA of 12 man teams, and nobody is handing the guy the keys to the franchise. I don't think this is one of them, but if Marv works his magic and out evalutates other teams to find valuable players, we should hope we end up with a "who?" moment followed months later by "you know...that was a great signing". I know we all want those George Castanza deals where he has a plan to get Griffey, Bonds, and Sosa all for the Yankees, and throw a million names we've heard of at us, but the better path to success as a small market team is to make value acquisitions. Chambers is probably a cut/practice squad guy, but get ready for some non-exciting but very solid pickups in the next couple months.

Very very true. Paying players more than they are worth and following "have to" ideas and overpaying are things that will keep this franchise from succeeding. Samuel will cost more than Nate with zero chance of a hometown discount, and I don't think this team should have one of the top-5 highest paid corners...it will make us a worse team when we have less money to fill other places. I don't think we should look for a glamour off season, so it is up to Marv to find solid guys who are values and draft well, and not necessarily try to get big names that will make the fans happy in the spring. We want a balance of aquisitions that makes us happy in September-January, even if they don't have the glitz that would make people happy in February-June.

Right, this is EXACTLY why we can't pay a player more than his value. Nate is worth a bunch, and is a very good player, but he might not be worth what the market will make him cost, and if not we have to be smart and find other ways to improve our team by getting more value for our free agent dollars. If Nate is the best value we can get, sign him. But I don't think that the drop off from Nate to Ashton (while definitely significant) is as big as the upgrade from Preston to Steinbach on the line, and probably there are much less glamorous options to improve like the Patriots do every year (although hopefully not the Tutan Reyes-type stuff). So I hope Nate stays, but not if he costs more than his value, which is very probable.

Asante has already proven that he will be higher than Nate on the off season wish list. We don't need him to do anything else. What we want is Dan Snyder to settle on him and ignore Nate. That takes one of the big pocketbooks off of Nate and will decrease his value. Continuing to play better will cause Asante to get more expensive and that will raise the market for Nate, so we don't need any more heroics. Just need him ahead of Nate on Snyder's list, and take the biggest spender out of the market. Hopefully we can sign Nate early, but if he does hit the market there will be one less rich team interested. I don't see the Patriots paying what it takes, and I'm not sure if Belichick would want to lock up big money (or franchise money) in a CB. He has notoriously built his secondary economically and had his team better off for it. So losing Samuel will hurt their secondary, but signing him would hurt their overall team with fewer dollars for genius to spend elsewhere. So Samuel leaving NE and going to a big spender who might otherwise want Nate is a win win situation for us. We might take Belichick's wisdom and not lock up too much money in one contract preventing us from improving elsewhere, but at the same time I'd love to re-sign Nate.

I wouldn't take Price #12 either . If Ginn goes undrafted and is a free agent for a relatively small contract like Peerless I'd sign him up. I think #12 would be a little high for Blalock, but I think once you see this market we will probably be better off with Blalock than Steinbach who would otherwise be my top choice. What if we got both? How's that for an upgrade over Gandy & Preston?

Yeah, I think Samuel is a better fit for the Redskins, and will get more flash and attention because of his big INT number, and because of playing well in the post season. This might be the best thing for us keeping Nate, although I think to keep him we probably have to sign him before he hits free agency, which means his situation wouldn't really be too affected by Washington and Samuel.

I should just let this comment die on the vine without a response, but you have to be kidding. LT is the class of this league as well as its best player. He was not sour grapes because of the loss at all, but sticking up for his team and his team's house after a classless celebration by the Patsies. Act like you've been there before New England (wait you have, so you don't even have to act). Like Emmett Smith running TO off of the Dallas star, I think LT getting worked up and standing up instead of sulking off the field with his MVP trophy speaks well of him, not poorly. You can win and you can lose, but you do it with respect for your opponent.

I would prefer to go for it, and would be disappointed to see my team punt. But when it comes down to it, you have to compare your ability to convert a 4th and 15 vs. your ability to force a 3 and out. 4th and 15s are not easy, even though they had just converted a 4th and 10, and have that big 4th and 26 in their history books years ago. They did setup a 3rd and 1, and were one run stuff (in a 100% run situation, 8 men in the box) away from forcing the punt.

:w00t: Neither of these guys played adequately this year, but Pennington is young and big and had to play next to Preston. What's Preston's excuse? I think upgrading RG over Preston is the single most important move of our off season. Not saying that has to be #12 or a particular free agent, but we need someone not on the roster playing RG in 2007 so we can pass protect, and more importantly actually run to the right. And I agree with SacToBillsFan that releasing price isn't a good idea unless we get a value upgrade somewhere else. Price had a decent season, made some huge plays (Texas), and clearly has the ability to be a #2 receiver. I'd rather have a bigger possession receiver, but I don't know that Crayton is a big enough upgrade for the change, and I don't know we will find a big upgrade without locking up too many resources. If we find a great value I will be excited, but I also think we have a better receiving group than a bunch of the teams still playing this weekend, and improving other positions is more important than a marginal upgrade at #2 receiver.

Guys, Mock Drafts are fun to use to learn about some of the players you don't know, and have fun with the combinations, but they have zero relation to what is actually going to happen, especially a year out. Marv will not be drafting a 6 foot tall WR #1. I hope over the coming Months Marv really does his homework (remember last year he was new and worrying about a coach, and still had a good draft) and we get the single best thing you can get from the draft: good football players. And it won't be based on need. Our two biggest needs are RG and LG, but there is no way those are our top two picks, because it is pretty much impossible that those would happen to be the best football players available each time we pick.