SuperKillerRobots

I would actually be upset if we cut anyone prior to the end of mini camps. You don't have to pay a player a penny of his contractual salary unless he makes the final cut. Normally the only reason guys get let go now is because the team knows they will cut them eventually and the team feels they owe them the opportunity to find another team. Since the Bills have no one on the team that they should feel as if they owe, all the cuts should come when it makes the absolute most sense for the team.

Damn right - I want that particular thug as well as a few others. And by the way, there's nothing worng with chillin' in the Mercedes and smoking blunts. The gun thing is ugly, but from the stories I've heard, the gun was not on him, but actually in the car (trunk?).

You're right man. Haynesworth has really helped them win and make the playoffs while he's been there. They don't do much as a team without him, but how much have they done with him? He strikes me as an !@#$, me-first type of player, who could easily decide part of the way into a contract that he doesn't want to play for the team or contract anymore. Also, how good do you think he'll be when he's 32? I'm not saying I'd rather have Williams and Johnson, but I have a problem with getting some one like him where there is a real potential of him only playing 6 or 8 games and the Bills only being competitive in those games. I'd rather build a team that will play 16 games than one that will play 8.

I think that story had to do with raises going into the uncapped year. Basically it said that you couldn't pay a player more than 130% of his previous year's cap number in the uncapped year. Meaning that if Haynesworth wanted $12mm per season, you would have to pay him something like $9mm in the first year of the deal. It was commenting on how most teams will give the player a small salary and large signing bonus int he first year and then a large salary after that. Teams will not be able to do that this year. Because of the pending CBA issues. If I remember correctly, the article actually mentioned the Bills specifically and how they had set themselves up to have a lot of room to make moves this off season.

Brian is actually really good at researching his opinions and backing them up. Really insightful pieces and not the same old thing everyone else is talking about. It's refreshing.

I like Hood a lot - especially after the Senior Bowl everyone kept saying how he continually blew up the centers in practice. I hope he lasts until our pick in the second.

The only thing I could think of when I heard about the Bills' interest in him was tha tthey would try to get him by trade instead of signing him to an RFA offer sheet. Kind of like what the Pats did with Welker that one year, except I think they actualyl gave up something extra so the Dolphins wouldn't match. You never know if Houston (for whatever reason) doesn't want to sign him and would be willing to listen to trade senarios that didn't involve a first round pick. maybe next year's two and this years three?

Come on man, I liked Corey Moore - didn't he do something once? Seriously though, the idea of a situational guy coming in at the top of the draft actually sits well with me. I really think that the team is missing some of the more specialized players. Who's to say that is they took Maybin and have him play 3 downs, but two as an LB and one as a DE. He's kind of a situational guy, but still plays and contributes. I don't really care if the guy doesn't have a true, single position, just as long as they get him on the field. I think in the past with these types of players, the team has tried to make them into a single position player, thus elimintaing their redeeming qualities as Fewell calls them. A guy who moves around to a few different positions depending on the situation allows the DC the ability to cover up their weaknesses by putting them in situations they can excell at and not asking them to do things they will fail at. It sounds simple, but the Bills hardly do this.

Amen to that man.

Already here man. Already here.

I think what he was driving at (and I think Sully's an ass too) was that Mitchell should be our 3rd best LB instead of our 2nd best or best. He gets exposed in space and has trouble keeping up with faster players. He's perfect for the WLB since he can hold up against the run and blitz. In our defense the WLB is the guy the play is directed to and should be free from blockers to make the play. He is good at that, but would be terrible on the SLB in pass coverage.

Butler played pretty well last year and if he is a liability, then we need to turn over about 45 guys on the team. Scott played great last year, especially when considering what he had doen prior to that. He is specifically a good cover man for his size. Ellison is fine player as long as he isn't starting or playing more than 70% of the plays - he being on the team isn't the problem, it's him starting. No reason to get rid of him. As far as Parrish is concerned, he does make more money than his production merits, but when you are $35 million under the cap why get rid of a good player to save a few bucks? Especially when you are trying to keep as many vetern receivers as possible and trying to win games next year. It would make sense for the team to keep as many vets as they could, regardless of salary, going into the season so they have experienced back ups. Not saying that they will do this with all the positions, but I'll bet you see a more vetern team than in past Jauron years.

There you go. The WLB doesn't cover in our defense. That's why Mitchell plays there.

There's no reason to release some one until you have a replacement or actually need their cap space. At this time the Bills fall into neither catagory. You can't release players without a contingency and even with that, it sometimes doesn't make sense for the team to release them immediately unless they feel they owe the player something. No one should be cut until training camp. Though Kelsey is bad, if two ends go down, I'd rather have him starting than Copeland Bryant or the defensive end equilalent of Leon Joe.

The offseason they made this pick, I remember Marv talking about his drafting philosophy and what type of players he targets. His response was the "good character guys" one, but he laid it out as players with football character and not necessarily personality character. By this he meant does the player love to play football to the point that he will re-arrange his personal life around it. Thurman Thomas was a good example - he loved football, but was mess outside of it, something he fully admits now. This situation with Marshawn fits that sort of profile. I think for as much emphasis that is put on high character guys, I don't think anyone in the Bills organization really gives a rats ass about what these guys do in their off time as long as they don't wind up in media (a la Marshawn). Also, I think that if they see enough in him and like him as a player, they will make it a point to try to keep him and work with him until the situation becomes irreparable.

Agreed. That sounds like a hell of a way to relax.

He lives on a nice street - that hosue would definitely be worth taking a look at. He might take less than market (and a lot less than he paid) just to get out of here. I think he lives off the street near Children's Hospital. If I could get his house for under $100k, I'd be OK with his wasted years and the Bills wasted investment.

That's a great idea.

If I knew any player as guaranteed to be dominant, I would take him. The draft is a crap-shot.

This whole thing sucks because no matter how you cut it or what they do, the Pats are going to get better as a result of this. I'd love the see NY give up the 2 firsts for him, but I don't want the Pats to have 2 extra first rounders. It's a conundrum.

I wouldn't mind bringing in another guy to compete on a one to three year deal as long as he wasn't in the way of getting the young guys on the field. I think a vet would make a big difference on a hand full of plays a game - maybe in the more clutch circumstances. I also think that a better TE option does the same thing as getting a vet WR and probably more. The money would be better spent on the TE.

I still think Steve was driving and Marshawn covered for him - they were buddies and on a rainy night, in a Cayanne, they probably look pretty similar. Steve never would have made the team had he been the one driving. Everyone loves Marshawn, so he took it. How's that for a crazy theory?

I love the GOP. Those guys can run the country into the ground over 6 years in office and then in 3 months turn around and blame it on some one else. It's almost like Ralph running the team into the ground in the late 90s, early 00s and then firing (blaming) coaches like there was a line of them out the door.

I think this is basically correct. Discounting whether a guy will pan out or not I would say that a great percentage of players who are "big, athletic" guys go in the first round. It doesn't even necessarily have to be a lineman, because players of any position who fit the "big, athletic" label go early unless there are serious concerns about their ability to play. For every UDFA like Jason Peters or Antonio Gates there are probably 15 guys who go in the first round. The moral of the story is that if you want to take a chance on a guy like that, you have to spend a high pick. It makes a lot of sense to go after one of those players when you have the chance. They are they type of guys who get your draft labeled crap after the first year and then brilliant after three or four. We need one of those brilliant after three or four years drafts to get back into it.

It's always a concern when drafting a tweener type guy when you don't have that position on your defense. I like the idea of basically having another DL on the field, but would hate to think of him in pass coverage during the first few years. If we had signed a LB last offseason who could cover, then I could see making a play for a guy like this to play the weak side, but it could get ugly watching him play the strong side and having to cover a TE or even worse a slot WR in our defense. Not to mention our SLB does not blitz much and is required more to cover and play the run. If we were going to draft a DL as a LB, I would rather get a guy who goes about 265, played well against the run, and had soem speed (to hopefully learn how to be serviceable in pass coverage).