2003Contenders

How did that work out for Cleveland with Tim Couch, Houston with David Carr or (so far) Oakland with JaMarcus Russell? That doesn't even count tons of guys like Leaf, Akili Smith, and Joey Harrington that were top 5 picks. It is all a crap shoot.

That's why, in the final analysis, I think Peters WILL get what he wants.

I think that Mayock may be perhaps overrating him because he is something of a bit of a rarity in this year's draft: a genuine bona fide DE that can play LDE in a 4-3. Mayock sees that as a precious commodity. If we were a team like New England that was set with most of our positions and didn't have needs at TE, OL and LB -- not to mention a real pass rush specialist than can compliment, spell (and eventually replace) Schobel, then I wouldn't mind adding a guy like Ayers to the mix. For example, he would probably eventually make the overpaid Kelsay expendable. If we didn't have those other glaring needs, in fact, Ayers would probably be an enticing choice. I think he will turn out to be a good all around player, but he is not the pass rush specialist that this team needs right now.

I am choosing to remain optimistic about this whole thing. There is a great deal that differentiates this off-season as it relates to Peters from last season. For one thing the two sides are at least talking. Last year the stance that OBD was taking is that Peters was currently under contract, and they expected him to honor the existing contract. This year they have made an attempt to reach out and off him a more reasonable pay increase. Now, this may still be well below the market value that Peters and his agent(s) perceive ($3 M per year according to Gaughan). However, at least negotiations are in the works, and if the disparity is between, say, $9 M and $12 M a year, you have to figure that there is a middle ground somewhere. With this in mind, I see no reason why Peters and his agent(s) should make this more contentious than it needs to be. After all, Lee Evans set a nice precedent last season by showing up for all of the workouts and slowly working to get a contract extension that didn't actually see the light of day until after the start of the regular season.

So what would Jauron do if Stafford somehow fell to #11?

Posturing. In the same interview Dick also said he would be more than happy to go into the season with Ellison starting at SLB.

Was it ever confirmed that Gonzo nixed a trade with Buffalo? I know there was speculation about that, but I also heard that, while the Bills had the best offer on the table (a 3rd rounder), the Chiefs were holding out for a 2nd. I know it was rumored that TG really wanted to go to the Giants, but I don't recall him ever publicly saying that he would not play for the Bills. Nor do I remember hearing that the Chiefs had ever agreed in principal on a trade with the Bills.

Actually this could be good news. In the last decade of ineptitude against the Pats, our two best performances against them (the 2003 wonderful 31-0 blowout and the only victory we have had over them since 2000 and the 2006 near-win that came down to a safety) were both in Week 1.

Has the off-season been perfect? No, there are still spots to fill. However, some points I would make: 1. Hangartner is NOT a backup. He played well for Carolina, and they wanted him back but couldn't re-sign him due to cap problems after tagging Peppers. I believe that he will be an upgrade over Preston/Fowler. 2. I think the TO signing trumps anything else they could have done to help the staggering offense. Provided that Owens doesn't turn old overnight, he and Lee form one of the best starting WR tandems in the league. And, now that Reed is the #3, he suddenly becomes an even better asset. 3. By releasing Dockery, the team did seemingly create a new hole. However, given that they released him because he was vastly overpaid for his contributions, it was decidedly addition by subtraction. I am not convinced that the team is done looking for interior line help. I expect that they will take a long look at a C that can also play G in the first 3-4 rounds of the draft. Moreover, there are still options in free agency. Worst case scenario: I can live with Chambers as the opening day starting LG, but the team certainly needs additional depth. 4. Not sure why everyone is so up in arms over Greer being allowed to leave. The fact of the matter is that either Greer or McGee were bound to leave regardless. If Greer could have been had at an economic value, then he would have been retained, which would have sealed McGee's fate heading into next year. I liked Greer, but I am fine with the guys we have: McKelvin/McGee/Florence/Youboty/Corner. 5. I agree that the team has not adequately addressed the need at OLB. It could be that they are waiting for the draft, as rookie LBs, like RBs, tend to produce right away more so than other positions. I don't think they view Thomas as a viable starter -- and probably signed him for depth and for special teams. I know there are still a couple of guys out there in free agency too (like Cato). 6. The real wild card remains Jason Peters. If they can't resign him -- and suddenly we have two major hols on the left side of the line (not to mention a new starter at Center), things could get ugly fast. Personally, I think that a deal will get done, since the Bills are at least open to redoing his deal and have already presented a proposal.

Actually, the WORST thing that could happen is that Trent turn in a JP-from-2006-like performance. That is, that he plays decently at times, but also shows a tendency to stink it up. In that way, we know no more about him than we do now -- and we head into 2010 STILL not knowing whether he is the QB of the future or not. Of course, in hind-sight the coaching staff probably DID know what they had in Losman after 2006 -- after all, they drafted Trent the following year. I view 2009 for Trent as being like Rob Johnson's 2001: this is his year to prove that he is definitely the QB of the future. The team has given him every opportunity to succeed: no other QB looking over his shoulder, a deep WR corp and a quality RB tandem -- the only question is whether or not the OL can hold up.

Is Ralph in the business to make a profit? Of course, he is. He does not want to lose money on the franchise. However, if you don't think he cares about winning, then you must not have been a Bills fan for very long -- or you know nothing about the owner.

I can see the team possibly taking a look at a late-round QB in the draft, but I think the Bills are done at the QB position for 2009 in terms of free agency -- unless someone gets hurt. I believe that the front office and coaching staff have a great deal of confidence in Trent Edwards. They brought in Fitzpatrick, because they view him as an ideal backup: smart, knows his role and has starting experience should Trent get hurt again. (Think Frank Reich.) Now, if Trent doesn't progress beyond what he showed us in the second half of last season, then then 2010 off-season will be much different. However, for 2009, you can save yourself a lot of time by overlooking the QBs that are available in free agency or are possibly on the trading block.

Foster is still out there, right?

Also, I could see the team going OL if one of the big ones not named Andre Smith (Monroe, J SMith, Oher) happens to fall.

What have been the nature of Jennings' injuries with the 49ers? Is he damaged goods?

It isn't always about sacks. If the DE consistently applies pressure to the QB, disrupts his timing and forces errant passes, he is doing his job. I am not advocating a selection of Ayers. However, I really get the impression that the Bills are not sold on Maybin -- and if they can't trade down from 11, both Brown and "Rack" are already gone, and the team is dead set on drafting a DE, Ayers is probably the guy.

Funny that you should mention the Cleveland game. Yes, that was certainly the worst performance of Trent's young career. And yet... and yet... he had the Bills in the position to kick the game winning field goal. Cutler has a PATTERN of making horrible mistakes at crucial times.

Don't know about what the announcers said, but this is definitely NOT my recollection of what happened back in 2006. Marv made it clear heading into the draft that the team was NOT going to select a QB in the first round because they wanted to see what they had in JP AND they didn't want to place undue burden on a highly drafted rookie QB. I think these quotes were based on what would the Bills do if Leinart or Young fell to the #8 spot. AFTER the draft, Marv admitted that they had Cutler ranked as the top QB on their board. So, if they HAD drafted a QB there it would have been him. Right or wrong, the front office was very high on Whitner. Remember that they reportedly turned down one or more trade-down opportunities in order to stay put and draft him at #8. If the conjecture that Ralp promoted Modrak because of his being "right" about Cutler is true, it could be that he is acknowledging Modrak for his accurate draft board, where he had Cutler ranked ahead of both Young and Leinart -- not that he was necessarily advocating that the team select Culter over Whitner.

Cutler's natural talents are unquestionable. However, he seems to make the worst mistakes at the absolute worst times. Did anyone catch the Week 16 game last season when the Bills went into Denver and came away with a victory, thanks largely to bad decisions made by Cutler? That was a must-win game for the Broncos too. I will have to say that I came away from that game more impressed with Edwards than I did Cutler. Yes, I know Cutler has a much stronger arm. However, Trent made clutch plays down the stretch in bad weather in a hostile environment, while Cutler threw a back-breaking interception with the game on the line.

JP scored really low (like a 12) on his first test. He claimed that he had to pee so bad that he raced through it just so that he could go to the bathroom. He retook the test and scored in the 30s (I believe) the second time around.

Don't be so sure. Ever heard of Leonard Little?

It could be true that all indications WERE that the shp had sailed. However, when Crowell saw that he wasn't getting any serious offers elsewhere -- and the Bills saw that there wasn't a reasonable replacement for him, perhaps the ship is on it way back into port?

You aren't missing anything. Even the Bills acknowledge that the man deserves a richer contract. The key thing to me is that both sides are talking and the front office is doing its part by putting its best foot forward and proceeding with an extension. In exchange, Peters should at the very least be willing to show up for OTAs and training camp this year.

That was my immediate reaction as well. Actually, I saw this as a good sign because it tells me that the Bills are NOT trying to low ball him. Based on the parameters in Gaughan's article, it sounds like Peters wants more than $12 M. That means that the Bills are offering at least $9M. You would have to think that the two sides could come together on something in the $10M or $11M range.

Now I am just waiting for someone to suggest that Hardy will move to TE. LOL