Koufax

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.

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.