Mickey

It sounds like you view Peterson as a "special" player and Willis as kind of a run of the mill type for whom a stand in can be found easily later. If true, this makes sense and it would be a win-win. I think Willis might very well be a rarer talent than Peterson myself but I am sure that plenty disagree.

I am always stoked in the off season...hopefully there will be reason for continued optimism during the regular season. Hopefully, Marv and the boys made some good calls on the guys we acquired and the coache are able to turn that talent into production. That is always the key in team sports and that is why coaches get paid.

I hear what you are saying but on the other hand, if our line is as improved as we hope, we don't need a world beater in the backfield. Denver just keeps plugging in 4th round RB's and they do just fine because they have such good blocking. I think the future of the league is moving away from the notion of a "franchise running back" as a must have to win a championship. As old as he is, I am willing to bet that Marv is pretty keen on seeing where the future of the game is moving. Football is a team sport and compared to other leagues, it has a pretty firm salary cap. The cash it takes to hang on to a franchise back inevitably costs you elsewhere on the roster. I think the decisionmakers in the league are moving towards the committe backfield approach in part as a reaction to the realities of the cap. Splitting the carries means neither back ends up with the production stats to fuel a hold out. It also probably lowers the amount of the offers they get when they become FA's. It isn't a bad strategy. Spread the money on your line and your defense. I am old school myself so I love the idea of an exciting, game breaking RB. I always did prefer a long run to a long completion for excitement. I was a kid during the Simpson era so I am pre-programmed to think the a star RB is the be all and end all. After watching Willis though, I'd be happy with a guy who hits the hole, can get to the corner and doesn't wiff on his blitz pick ups.

That might be true if we only had to trade one pick to get Turner but that isn't the case, it will take multiple picks. Whatever back we take in the draft will cost one pick, not two or three. Further, a rookie back, even a first rounder, will not cost the cash that Turner is going to cost. You're not an idiot if you would like to see us go for Turner and neither are those who prefer a back from the draft.

We have a lot of pretty decent options picking at 12. There is not doubt that we need a RB, a CB, a LB, a DT and probably a TE. There will be some very good players at all those positons available at 12. You have Willis at LB, Lynch at RB, maybe Okoye or Branch at DT; Hall, Houston and Revis at CB and all the best TE's. We can hardly go wrong with any of those guys. I like the depth at RB and CB for the second round so I am pulling for Willis but I won't at all be disappointed with Lynch or even Houston.

Brian Leonard, the Ed Marinaro of his time.

I liked it better when I said it.

Leonard had 93 carries and 423 yards while Lynch had 223 carries and 1,356 yards. Leonard had 38 catches for 294 yards and zero TDs. Lynch had 34 catches for 328 yards and 4 TDs. Lynch is 215 lbs and runs a 4.46, Leonard is 226 lbs and runs a 4.51. If Leonard is such a better all around back than Lynch, why did Lynch get 257 touches while Leonard only got 131? I like to see overachievers and underdogs do well as much as the next guy but with the future of our team at stake and the possibility that it might leave Buffalo before too long, why would we pass on a talent like Lynch for a guy who wasn't even the featured back on his college team? On Rutgers??? Crushes and puppy love are for dating, not drafting.

Trade downs are not as easy as many seem to think they are. There has to be no one you are interested in available at your original spot for you to consider moving down. There has to be someone there a team drafting later in the round really wants and who that team is convinced won't be there when their original pick is up. The team moving down has to undergo a similar analysis regarding whoever it is they really want in the round, albeit with a later pick. I think that too often the assumption around here is that any trade down we dream up is there for the taking if only our "senile" GM would pull the trigger. That just isn't the case.

We don't really play with a classic nose tackle, that is a position you usually see in a 3-4. I wouldn't be too disappointed with any of those guys, except maybe Hall. As for the other three, whatever Marv and Dick think is best. I would lean towards Okoye as I think he has the best chance to be a real difference maker.

Just about every draft, the DT's go earlier and faster than expected. It is a critical position in the modern game and fiding a guy who is big and solid as a brick who can also shoot gaps and make plays in the backfield is extremely difficult.

I've been sold on Lynch for a long time. I won't be upset if we take Willis or Okoye or even Chris Houston. Those are all very good players with the potential to be perennial pro-bowlers. Even so, I think Lynch is special. Bottom line, we are in a very good positon to get a very good player no matter which one of those guys we take.

He cost us a game by not knowing where the out of bounds line was. That was the worst play of the season. He was a real disappointment.

Maybe the Browns want to convince other teams they are going to take him despite signing Lewis so that they can arrange a trade down with someone who really wants Peterson?

When did Scott Norwood come out of retirement and why is he playing running back?!?!?

Right, these are the same guys who said our draft last year was an unmitigated disaster and that our GM was senile. I'm not worried. Watch Marv show them up again.

No matter what you think about last year's draft, good or bad, one thing that can't be denied is that Marv fooled us all. No one was talking about Whitner and McCargo last March. Last year we were all talking about DT's Ngata and Bunkley. This year we seem to be coagulating en masse around the idea of either a RB or an ILB with much of the talk surrounding Marshawn Lynch and Patrick Willis. Using last year as a guide though, maybe we should expect a surprise or two from Marv. What are the potential surprises he could pull off? What could he do that would make you say "What the f...!?!?!?!" My top candidate for a surprise pick, at least a surprise around here, would be a TE in the first or second round. Remember that Ronnie Harmon like brain seizure Royal had when he stepped out of bounds at the back of the endzone in the most critical foul up of the whole season? Bet you Marv hasn't forgotten. Greg Olsen from Miami, a TE with WR speed will certainly be there at 12. He is projected to go in the bottom half of the first or top half of the second, is he this year's Whitner? Maybe Zach Miller, Ben Patrick or Matt Spaeth in the second?

I think having a choice between Lynch and Patrick Willis would be a pretty sweet situation. Since Peterson will be gone by 12, Lynch will be the best back still on the board and Willis would be the best MLB still on the board. Both are postitions of need for use so we get the best of both worlds: need and best athlete. I will bo with whatever Marv and the coaches decide if it comes down that, choosing between two beasts like Lynch and Willis. My experience tells me that no matter who Marv takes, he will be taken to task by those who wanted the other guy.

What is it with the Brian Leonard love affair around here?

Exactly. It is a common draftime phenom. People fall in love with the idea of wheeling and dealing and convince themselves that a little cleverness will yield 5 first round picks. The days of the Herschel Walker/Ricky Williams kind of trades are over. Most of the more involved trade scenarios you read require just about every team in the league to be run by a pack of morons besides the Bills. Green Bay isn't stupid. Established quality backs on the free agent market aren't commanding first round picks, why would anyone give up a ton just to get Lynch instead of Bush?

There are no character concerns with Lynch. None.

Uh-oh, I can see it coming. Everyone is convinced that if Marv just trades down with Green Bay we would get 4 first round picks and at least 6 second rounders. If he doesn't make this sure-fire move, he is an idiot and the draft a total disaster.

Considering what Jones and McGahee fetched on the open market, why in the world would Green Bay give up that much for Lynch when there are guys like Bush and Irons and others available later? I could see them giving up a 5th round pick to move up a few, maybe a 4th if they really love Lynch but a second round pick and a seventh???

How are Bush and Brown on blitz pick ups? McGahee was terrible with a super-double-secret capital Teeeee.

Trade a second and a third for Briggs and draft Lynch. Or, take Lynch and see how far Willis falls then try to jump in to the back end of the 1st for Willis. I really like Willis and Lynch, does it show?