2003Contenders

This guy was probably also a victim of Gallery's miserable failure at LT. The Raiders will have to move Gallery back to RT, which makes Walker expendable. If he can be had for limited funds -- and is capable of playing adequately, maybe not such a bad deal -- even if he is being relied upon as a starter.

Jon Kitna, who passed for well over 4000 yards last season.

Bengals.Com is reporting that the team may be interested in Takeo... Hmmm.

I agree. That's why I'm so interested in watching the fall-out from the trade talks. That is, it has to occur to Willis that he is not nearly in as much demand as he thought, which should be a signal for him to be on his best behavior -- as his ultimate goal is still to hit the big payday. I expect the Bills to acquire a RB to challenge Willis REGARDLESS of what his status with the team is. If he sulks and pouts -- that's fine. He'll just muddy his own water. If he does what he needs to do -- and regains some of the passion he showed back in 2004, he'll either find himself franchised or re-signed by the Bills. All of this is just to say that the Bills should NOT take anything less than a Day 1 pick for Willis, even if he and his agent demand a trade. We hold all of the cards in this situation... Also, if we're going to draft a RB with the pick that we hypothetically acquire for Willis... Why wouldn't that hypothetical trading partner just sit tight and make the same selection. After all, that's what the Cardinals did back in 2005 when we were in talks with them about Travis. Sad for them, that pick (for JJ. Arrington) hasn't worked out.

What about Landry? Or is he more of a fit at safety than CB?

Don't think the Ravens would be interested in Willis. He didn't exactly make a good impression on them in the season finale.

I'm starting to think that Willis may in fact be the Bills' man. On the NFL Network last night, one of the scouts commented that he would be a perfect fit for the Cover 2 defense, thanks to his instincts and ability to roam.

Whatever... 1. Anyone whining about "Cash to Cap" and calling Ralph cheap should take a close look at the contract that Kelsay just signed. 2. What was Jauron supposed to say? If you read his quotes, I think his answer was spot-on. That is, the Bills do not HAVE to trade Willis, but if an offer is presented to them that is too good to refuse, they will listen. FYI, it was the Giants front office that let the cat out of the bag that Willis might be available, not the Bills. Personally, I am excited that the team is interested in finding an upgrade whether Willis remains on the team or not. 3. If we have a draft in 2007 that approaches what we did last year, it will NOT take 3+ years to be truly competitive. And, if some of the guys who didn't perform from last year's draft (McCargo, Youboty and Butler) manage to step up this year, all the better. Just what UFAs are we losing? Fletcher? I don't think his probable departure has as much to do with money as it does with his age and the fact that the coaches want a different style MLB. Clements? Well, TD tried in vain to r-sign him -- and Marv was forced to slap the franchise tag on him. The dude is bound, set and determined to test the open market, which is his right. Not much anyone can do about that.

Don't think that will happen now that Kelsay has re-signed.

Isn't that why revenue sharing is supposed to exist? To help the smaller market teams support an NFL franchise, right? Remember, that until recently, the Bills had one of the highest payrolls in the league. (That is one thing that TD did do -- clean up our cap problems.)

I always thought it was odd that TD saw fit to sign McGee to a big-dollar extension, but never did so with Nate. I honestly blame the current situation with Nate on TD, rather than Marv.

Actually, the thought of moving Williams to the left side did NOT seem that far-fetched at the time. Remember that he had protected Chris Simms' blind-side in college. Also, Jennings was transitioning to LT at the time, and he was pretty effective when healthy. Thus, taking Williams, who was a RT -- which was really the greater position of need at the time -- but who still seemed to have the upside to eventually move to LT should Jennings not be up to the task (which he was) or eventually fly the coup (which he did 2 years later) made him a compelling selection over McKinney -- who made it known ahead of time that he wanted a big payday. Yes, Williams turned out to be a bust. But I won't point fingers, since I was on board with the pick at the time myself.

Right now -- without knowing what kinds of moves they will make in free agency -- there are a huge number of directions that the Bills could go with that #12 pick (including trading up or down). However, drafting Brady Quinn is not one of them.

The only good thing about possibly having so many key holes to fill is that the best player available at the time we pick will also likely just so happen to fill a position of need!

I know I am in the minority, but I STILL do not think it is a foregone conclusion that Nate is gone. I think the point is that he REALLY wants to test free agency (which it is in his best interest to do) -- and will keep the Bills in the loop about his negotiation status. I believe that the team will have the opportunity to match the best offer he receives. If that offer truly is over-the-top, then the Bills should in good conscience let him go. It's funny that Mort was critical of the Bills front office for not signing some of their top free agents to long-term contracts BEFORE they became free agents. He has a point. However, it was his buddy Tom Donahoe that screwed the pooch on the Nate deal, as Marv inherited the situation last season, when he was forced to use the franchise tag.

I kinda agree with you here. With that said, I also think that there was a bit of arrogance on the part of TD, where he decided to make risky picks to wow everyone, rather than doing what may have been the smart thing at the time. I've never beat him up for taking Mike Williams, because I thought he was a good/safe pick at the time. However, when he drafted Willis, I was upset, because I felt at the time that -- even if Willis played as well as hoped -- the risk simply was NOT worth the reward, given the holes we had elsewhere. With Henry on hand, there was simply no compelling reason to make that move. Of course, I also did not like the Roscoe pick in 2005; although he actually showed some promise last season.

Unfortunately, I think a move from 12 to 3 would require A LOT more than just Willis and a 3rd rounder. In fact, I doubt any such move would come with less than an additional first round pick -- which we can't afford to give away. I could, however, see Marv waiting to see if Peterson drops out of the top 5-6 and then trying to move up.

I agree. The only point you are missing is the player's role in all of this. Henry forced the Bills' hand -- and now Willis is saying that he will sit out if the team doesn't sign him to a long-term deal. When I first heard the reports that the Giants had approached the Bills, I was excited. Now it sounds like the Bills are shopping Willis, which is more ominous in terms of being able to get anything worthwhile in return. Whether a trade is made or not before draft day, I'd like to see the Bills bring in someone (either via the draft or free agency) to at least challenge Willis for the job -- and provide some insurance if he does hold out.

And let's not forget Bruuuuuuce.

Actually, it seems that Nate was/is bound, set and determined to test the free agent market. Thus, he was unlikely to sign a long-term contract with ANYBODY last season. That would explain why teams were uninterested in trading away anything for a player, who was set to become a free agent at season's end. Although the Bills did hold all of the cards -- and Nate eventually would have avoided holding out -- the deal that he and Marv reached (not to re-tag him in 2007) was to ensure that he reported to training camp on time.

I know you were saying this with tongue firmly planted in cheek. But, believe it or not, Norv has more playoff wins as a head coach over the last decade than Marty does... And Norv only ever led his team to the playoffs ONCE!

Good points... Call me crazy, but I am not overly troubled by this notion of not being able to spend a crazy amount of money in free agency this season. This year it is a player's market -- and we have enough holes to fill that I'd rather not load up for bear on a player or two -- and mortgage our future. Maybe it's not such a bad idea to build the nucleus of the team through the draft and with prudent moves in free agency. Of course, the caveat here is to make sure that you find a way to keep the young players you do want, which means signing them long-term BEFORE they become free agents. That's why I would advocate getting a long term deal with Lee Evans done right away.

Excellent point about the replacements for those players. Although we are unlikely to find an immediate replacement for Nate, we can live with a bit of a downgrade there (someone like Philly's Hood), provided that we upgrade other areas of the defense, most importantly the DL. Without coming out and saying it, I think the coaches were not as high on Fletcher-Baker as many of us were. It will be interesting to see how they plan on filling his inevitable vacancy. I'm also not convinced that Kelsay is a goner. However, even if he does bolt, I don't see Hargrove as a downgrade. So, maybe I'm just drinking red, white and blue cool aide -- but I am not too worried about losing these players. In the best of all possible worlds, I'd like to keep Nate. However, if ownership is serious about not shelling out large signing bonuses -- and keeping him means that we lose out on upgrading 3-4 other positions, I think we have to wave goodbye. Remember that we are not talking about trying to keep together a world championship defense here. This defense has ranked toward the bottom of the league in each of the last 2 seasons. Thus, no player on that side of the ball should be viewed as a sacred cow.

I agree that it is unlikely that he lasts that long. Honestly, if he slips out of the top 10, I would imagine some team further down that REALLY wants him would seriously consider moving up to get him. It's funny how fluid projections are for RBs. Two years ago, 3 of them (Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, and Cadillac Williams) went within the first five picks of the draft -- and none of them thus far has proven worthy of going so high. Meanwhile, Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson -- both of whom WERE considered the best in their class coming out of school in 2003 and 2004 respectively -- fell toward the end of the first round. Those two guys are now among the top 5 RBs in the NFL.

God knows I loved Thurman, but he wasn't ALWAYS such a great leader... he had a tendency to stew every now and then. And, aside from that great performance in the first Super Bowl, he came up very small when we needed him the most.