2003Contenders

One thing being missed by some of the Willis haters out there is that, coming off the sub-1000-yard season, WM's stock is lower than it will ever be. Thus, he has little in the way of bargaining power and can be had at a cheaper price (even with his overzealous agent) than would otherwise be the case. Marv missed this opportunity last season, when Nate was coming off a bad year -- and shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

Another possibility is someone like Justin McCareins, who the Jets are likely to release. He was a disappointment in NY -- but a change of venue could do him some good. He also fits the mold of the big-bodied WR.

I think Rich Gannon made some great points about Losman in the regular season finale against the Ravens. The kid has grown by leaps and bounds from last year to this year. His accuracy has definitely improved, as he completed a nice 60+ percent of his passes this year. However, his accuracy could still stand to improve in terms of hitting his receivers in the exact location to get better after-the-catch yardage. I also think that his pocket presence is getting better -- and should improve even more with better protection. The real key for him will be how well he starts reading defenses next season.

The funny thing is that based on the "NAME" free agents that were available last year, many of us would argue that the Browns had the best off-season last year. How's that look now? Some of the guys that we picked up were under the radar -- but made decent contributions: K Thomas, R Royal, Fowler. Thus, given the bang-for-buck, I'm not so sure that Guy didn't do such a good job.

Personally I agree. Nate was able to single-handedly shutdown some pretty good WRs (Harrison, A Johnson, C Chambers to name a few) this season, and he is definitely going to be better than anything that we would have on hand to replace him with. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and pay whatever it takes to lock him up for the next 5-6 years. As you point out, given our nice cap situation, money is not necessarily the issue. Indeed, I have a feeling that politics plays a role too -- and if Nate receives the kind of payday from us that it will take to keep him in the fold, he will become the highest paid player in team history. That in and of itself is an uneasy thought with guys like Lee Evans, Willis McGahee and JP Losman not far from free agency themselves. What's more, don't forget that this is a two-sided negotiation, as Marv supposedly parted with the Franchise Tag bargaining chip that would normally be at his disposal. (Let this be a lesson not to EVER do this again, Marv!) Thus, in order for Nate to continue playing here he has to WANT to stay here -- and I've heard conflicting reports that this may not be the case. In my mind, Marv screwed the pooch on this one in many ways last season. Recall that Nate was coming off a really bad season -- and his bid for free agency hit at the worst possible time for him. Instead of working a deal to buy low at that time, Marv essentially gave Nate another try at a contract year -- and this time he made good on it. Thus, he probably allowed Nate to price himself out of our market.

Given the success that Marv and Co had with virtually the rest of the draft, you do have to wonder what they may have been able to do with an extra 2nd rounder -- and without giving up that 3rd to move up for McCargo. The funny thing is that the pick that looked like the biggest steal at the time (AY in the 3rd) now looks like the biggest reach, given AY's relative lack of playing time in 2006. Of course, the verdict is still out on that pick just like it is on all of the others. For example, many of our Day 2 picks were rushed into duty by necessity. Does that necessarily mean that they were great picks? Maybe. Maybe not. I think back to the 2001 draft, which was TD's first (and best) draft for us. There were a number of players that were rushed into duty that year too. Some of them have gone onto have productive careers (Schobel, Nate, Travis, Jennings), while others (Edwards, Spoon) haven't. Mort -- who was still bemoaning the departure of TD -- always claimed that there was confusion in the Bills War Room on draft day. I'm not sure where he would have received this tidbit -- and none of us will ever know if this was indeed true. Perhaps there was some indecision on the part of the front office regarding the trade offers. Maybe they spent too much time analyzing what players would be left, if they decided to move down 6-7 spots, as the Eagles and Broncos were both supposedly offering 2nd round picks to move up. I think it is fair to assess that DW would have probably been gone by 14 or 15 if the Bills had pulled the trigger on the trade. Thus, maybe management was guilty of being overly fond of DW in their refusal trade down. Yet, I did not hear criticism at the time of the Raiders and Lions -- both of whom probably had similar trade offers on the table and also refused to trade down to acquire more picks. Given that Whitner was a starter from day one -- and played quite well as a rookie (Note that I don't remember him getting beat over the top very often in the passing game, and he helped the defense wind up with a top 10 rating against the pass.) -- it is hard to really dislike that pick. The only other player taken in that range, who could have conceivably been an upgrade (to this point) would have been Ngata. We know that there was a considerable amount of disagreement amongst the coaches and front office people about whether or not Ngata was a good fit. There was some perception heading into the draft that he was known to take plays off -- and even so, he was NOT a 3-down lineman. I have always felt that Whitner was a consensus selection -- that is a pick that EVERYONE on the staff was on board with and a low-risk selection at that. From that perspective -- and considering the overall "We Are Family" vibe that was to be a season-long motif, I think the Whitner pick may have been every bit as much of a symbolic move as it was a move to acquire an impact player. That is something that was lost on most of the pundits... Even those who thought the team "reached" for Whitner at the time, acknowledged that he was a pretty good player that was definitely a first round talent. However, the McCargo selection was greeted with outright sneers at the time, as some draftniks (like Kiper) had him rated as a 3rd rounder. I would compare the move to get him to what TD did back in 2002 to get Ryan Denney. At the time, our spies had the intel that the Steelers were all set to draft Denney at the end of the second round. Instead, TD moved up from the 3rd to swipe him right from under their noses. Maybe it wasn't in our best interest to move up like that, but if the coaches and front office really wanted him, that's what they were going to have to do. The same thing happened last year with McCargo. The Bills caught wind that the Giants were prepared to draft him at the end of the 1st round, so if the Bills wanted him they were going to have to move up to get him. Obviously the verdict is still out on McCargo; we have to hope and pray that he isn't injury prone, for example. Obviously, DT was a need -- and the draft was dangerously thin at that position in 2006. (Note that there was a major gap between the McCargo pick and when the next DT was taken.) We will not know for some time whether Kiper's assessment of McCargo as a 3rd rounder was right on or not; however, McCargo was something of a late riser. Lenny P had just written an article days before suggesting that he could go as early as the 1st round. If Marv, Modrak or whomever made that call turns out to be correct, then adding a single big body (which should be available in free agency or the draft, where DTs appear to be more plentiful this year) should shore up the interior for years to come. All in all, we headed into the 2006 draft with so many holes to fill that the draft could have taken any direction imaginable. Thanks partly to some nice choices in that draft, we are in much better shape heading into 2007. Thus, I expect this draft to be far more focused than was last year's.

Besides, this isn't legal anyway -- as a contract must be in place for a year before it can be restructured in the manner you suggested.

Actually, I predict a low key off-season from the 'Skins for a change. For one thing, the front office has received an incredible amount of criticism (rightfully so) for last season's spending spree that netted them some over-priced non-factors such as Adam Archuletta and Brandon Lloyd. Gibbs is on record saying that the team needs to make fewer "Wow!" moves this off-season and more astute minor adjustments here and there. There is even talk of bringing in a "real" GM to do a better job scouting around the league. Furthermore, the team's extravagant spending in years past has caught up with them in terms of the salary cap. If Nate really is too expensive for the Bills to have a legitimate shot at holding onto him, you would have to think that he'd be too expensive for Danny to get him -- even if he wanted to. Thus, I really think he has a better chance of staying with us than moving to Washington.

Isn't Hargrove himself a free agent?

The good news is that in today's watered down league, you don't have to be better than decent to make it into the playoffs. With what looks to be an easier schedule in 2007, we could make it into the playoffs with the team that ended the 2006 season.

The funny thing is that I had the absolute opposite feeling. I was hoping and praying that the Pats would lose, simply because Brady played horribly and DESERVED to lose the game. However, given the stupidity on the part of Marty and some of the Charger players, they gift-wrapped the game for him. Thus, we have another entire week to hear about how great Brady is... rather than what a goat he would have been if Troy Brown doesn't doesn't force that fumble.

I'd be inclined to wait a couple of years on Tags to see how this latest CBA works out. It sure seemed like he tried to force it down the owners' throats so that it could be done in time for his retirement. If it works out, kudos to him for going out in style -- and continuing his legacy of labor peace.

I too gave him a B. Although DJ made some bad game-day decisions, I also never felt that he was downright out coached this season, as his predecessors were on many occasions. In fact, he and his staff came up with some game plans that helped keep us in some ball games that we probably shouldn't have even been in. He did a good job hiring his assistants. He also has an air of confidence, sincerity and self-security about him that translates well to those around him. The number of penalties, which were a huge problem for both of the last 2 staffs, went down in major way this season. That's real discipline -- not the stupid bull-horn kind of discipline that GW beat his chest with. Jauron really does come across as a younger version of Marv, which is great as long as he continues to have quality people around him. My biggest beef with him was the shut-down mode that he often allowed the team to go into (on both sides of the ball) at the end of a half. How many cheap scores did we allow at the end the first half in football games this year? NY Jets, Detroit, SD, Tennessee... Those were all games that wound up being decided within the margin of said cheap scores. There were also far too many games that ended the same way -- or when we just couldn't get the ball back for that one last drive. Maybe shoring up the run defense will help with that.

I wouldn't read too much into Mort's comment about Willis. We are talking about a negotiation here. Thus, the Bills could mess up in a variety of ways, including overpaying for him or allowing talks to break down to the point where Willis holds out. If either of these things were to happen, then you could say that the Bills front office "messed up". I would not categorize letting Willis play out this final season without a future contract as "messing up" -- and Mort may not be either. Regarding the DT situation... I don't think many of us can argue that the team (both the last regime as well as this one) made some mistakes at that position. Although the early returns indicate that the Bills had a fine draft, given the production of the rookie class this season -- it is hard to argue that the DT situation would NOT have been better if they had drafted Ngata with that #8 overall pick. Of course, the verdict is still out on McCargo...

I agree that Reed will have to wait until after Monk... However, Reed is one player who may be unfairly maligned for the Super Bowls. Indeed, he actually put up some pretty good stats in those 4 contests, although everyone seems to only remember the infamous helmet slinging incident in SB XXVI. Compare his overall stats to Irvin's, for example.

London is a classy guy -- and a good team-first presence on the field. By his physical talent, he's probably one of the worst LBs in the league -- but his heart and guile server to elevate him much higher than that. The coaches were very vocal in their praises of him this season -- and Marv Levy went so far as to single him out as a Pro Bowl snub. Thus, there is plenty of respect for him within the organization. As for Fletcher's belief that he has been handled unfairly... Well, first recall that there was a brand new staff that took over last off-season. They clearly placed a higher priority on things other than extending the contract of LF -- or really any other players for that matter. My memory isn't always the best, but I can't remember any player's contract that they did extend last season. I know that Lindell's contract was recently extended -- and Fletcher pointed that out in his post-game interview. However, the Bills have supposedly approached Fletcher recently about a contract extension too -- and his agent has reportedly left them hanging. Thus, I view much of what LF had to say as gamesmanship, as he heads into free agency. Now... the real question is: Should the Bills break the bank on Fletcher? There are many reasons to want him back -- most of which have already been cited here. However, there is also ample reason to use caution, as he is 32 years old and on the downward side of his career. And as hard as he has played, as the middle linebacker he also has to accept some of the responsibility for the poor run defense that we saw this year. Furthermore, he plays at a position where you can usually find pretty good talent in the 2-3 rounds of the draft. As much as it pains me to say... considering that he is looking for one more BIG payday -- and is likely to find it SOMEWHERE given his productivity over the last few years -- I'd say that the Bills should instead invest that money on some of the younger players who are reaching their 2nd contract -- Nate, Evans, maybe even JP and/or Willis -- before overpaying for this overachiever's 3rd contract.

Maybe I can say this because it's Ralph's money and not mine, but maybe, just maybe this guy does deserve to be one of the highest paid corners in the league. Let's just assume that he and his agent do demand a $20 M signing bonus. Well, if the contract is done properly with representative back-loaded money and over, say 6-7 years, then the cap hit for this year could be as little as $3-4 M. That's just a small piece of the large cap space that it appears that we have headed into this season -- and it does give us plenty of room to extend the contracts of Lee Evans (and even JP) if the front office so decides. Thus, I am not sure why it is a forgone conclusion that Nate is a goner for money reasons. If I'm Marv I'd start by asking the question: "How much do you want?" and go from there. It's best NOT to ever let him even hit free agency.

The reality is that the Bills' pass defense finished #7 in the league. Thus, we were doing pretty well with the guys we had in there -- and the coaches did not feel that there was a need to make a switch, especially toward a player who had missed virtually all of training camp. I know that many will respond, "What about McGee? He was awful!" While McGee did struggle at times, his spot on the Active list was assured because of his KR abilities. (Even guys like Greer saw playing time because of their prowess on Special teams.) There are only so many players who can be on the active list each week, and AY lost out to the numbers game. Given the coaches' understanding that the running game was so suspect, extra LBs, DL, and players who were tabbed for run support were probably more at a premium than another CB. With that said, AY obviously turned some of the coaches heads, because he was active for the last few games. I wouldn't read too much into anything about the amount of playing time (or lack thereof) that AY had last season. As it was, we already had two rookies playing in the secondary -- more out of necessity than design. As there was never a great necessity to rush AY onto the field, he was one rookie that did what most rookies do -- watched and learned. Given that both Nate and Thomas are free agents, I suspect that AY will be afforded plenty of opportunities to reward the coaching staff's initial faith in him, when they drafted him on Day 1 in the April draft. I for one hope that he is not a bust, as we have other holes to fill than just CB. Recall that 3 of our first 4 picks last year were DBs -- and we can't afford to draft heavy for the secondary again. If Nate AND Thomas leave, then AY will surely have to step it up -- AND we will probably still need to bring in another CB to boot. In the best of all possible worlds, Nate stays, AY competes with McGee for the other starting spot -- and the loser of that contest takes the role (likely) vacated by Thomas.

The line is far from being set, but I am more encouraged heading into the off-season than I have been, really, since the early 90s. We all know that LT is by far the hardest position on the line to fill. That spot has mercifully been filled by Jason Peters, who performed even better than I hoped he would. He's only going to get better -- and I think he borders on Pro Bowl quality now. After LT, I'd say that the next most important line position to fill is Center. Fowler may not be an elite Center, but has developed a strong re pore with JP -- and by all accounts is highly intelligent. Thus, 2 of the most important 3 spots are in very good shape. We could conceivably use an upgrade at any of the remaining 3 positions -- and the good news is that those positions are easy enough to find in the middle rounds of the draft -- and usually in free agency. Thus, for the first time in a lo-o-o-ong time I actually would NOT advocate drafting an OL in the first round -- and maybe not even in the second round, unless the value was just too much to pass up. I'd much rather focus on DL and LB early in the draft, pending whatever happens with Nate.

He seems to wear out his welcome after about 3 years...

Alas, there is not much of a market for RBs in terms of trades in the NFL.

Given our 3-1 record against him -- and the one loss was almost a fluke that only MM could have presided over -- I'd almost rather that he stay. With that said, I have a feeling that if he does leave, then Taylor, Thomas and others are probably gone.

I agree with much of what you have to say here. Note also that Willis played hurt most of the season. I think the guy is pretty tough, despite the perception that he plays with little or no fire. Also, after the Jets debacle, he proved to be pretty good in pass protection, which is something that everyone forgets was always a problem for Travis. To me, the gamble that Marv needs to make is this: Right now Willis is coming off a pretty lousy season stat-wise, yet he and his agent are asking for a contract extension. We know that Rosenhouse is sure to ask for way more than Willis is worth -- but we also know that he and Willis have very little in the way of bargaining chips. Thus, this could be an opportunity for the Bills to buy low. Conversely, 2007 becomes a contract year for Willis -- and he will be highly motivated for a big payday. That could mean a great 2007 season -- and it could also mean that he prices himself out of Buffalo. Maybe I am naive, but part of what made the Kelly/Thurman/Reed trio so great for me was that they were home-grown, so to speak. I'd always advocate re-signing our own, provided that they warrant it. And if nothing else, it sounds like Willis really does want to be here, despite detractors who have suggested that he'd rather be in Miami.

Note that K Thomas only signed a one-year deal, and the word I am hearing is that he wants to move further South. Thus, even if Nate stays, AY will need to fill the nickel position likely to be vacated by Thomas.

I still think one of the main reasons we went with Whitner was that he was a consensus pick amongst the front office and coaches. That is, he was a pick that everyone could live with. As far as the notion that Ngata did not fit well into our scheme, I have never really bought that. For one thing, the Bills went hard after Ryan Pickett, a very similar big NT type. While the Cover-2 places emphasis on smaller, quicker linemen, that does NOT mean that there is no need whatsoever for big run stuffers. I have always suspected that there was just this sort of argument going on in the war room at the time of the draft with some coaches calling for Ngata, others calling for Bunkley -- and still others calling for players of other positions. With Bunkley's character issues, it's doubtful that he was ever a serious consideration by the real decision makers (Marv and Jauron). So, like Whitner or not, I do feel that there was some diplomacy in the pick -- which was a far cry from how TD used to do things. Thus, even back in April, you could sense that the mind-set of the organization was changing from a "My way or the highway" approach to more of a "We are family" approach. Getting back to Ngata, since it could be argued that he may have been the better pick... Remember also that the knocks on Ngata coming out of school were: 1. He was a 2-down player AND 2. He took too many plays off, even when he was on the field. The first point is a valid one, and explains why perhaps the Bills felt that #8 was indeed too high of a selection for a player slotted to appear on a rotational basis governed by down and distance. Thus, Whitner -- a true, every-down player -- was viewed as more of a "bargain" -- and one that the coaches truly viewed as an excellent fit for their system. As for the perception that Ngata was lazy... I think that with so many leaders on that Ravens defense, it was hard for Ngata to EVER take plays off. From that perspective, I'm not so sure that he would have performed as well here without guys like Ray Lewis and Ed Reed (amongst others) getting in his face as needed. I have personally never been unhappy with the Whitner pick. If there is any criticism I have, it is more for the fact that Marv was so enamored with taking him, that he didn't entertain serious offers to trade down. There was some speculation that Denver had offered their #15 and second rounder to move up. Since the front office was convinced that Whitner would be gone by then, I wonder if they should have risked NOT getting him for that extra second round pick. Oh, well. You know what they say about a bird in the hand...