Mickey

This means that Miami now has a second rounder it could trade to us for Travis, it would be the 46th overall. Lenny P. reports: After two months of staring longingly at Patrick Surtain, the Chiefs finally blinked. Kansas City acquired Surtain, a three-time Pro Bowl cornerback, in a trade Friday after acquiescing to the Dolphins' demands for a second-round draft choice. Surtain must pass a physical exam and the pertinent paperwork must be filed with the NFL for the deal to be official. All parameters of the trade, including a new contract for Surtain, have been agreed upon in principle. Surtain will sign a seven-year contract worth $50.8 million, with $14 million in guarantees included, league sources have told ESPN.com. The deal makes him the third highest-paid cornerback in the NFL, behind Denver's Champ Bailey and Baltimore's Chris McAlister. Surtain was en route to Kansas City on Friday morning to undergo a physical. The teams have been talking on and off for several weeks, ever since the Dolphins granted Surtain and his representatives permission to seek trade scenarios. The one constant in the negotiations: Miami was steadfast in maintaining that it would not trade Surtain for less than a second-round pick. The Chiefs had been offering a fourth-rounder, but finally reconciled that it would take a second-round choice to complete a deal. The teams also swap fifth-round choices in this weekend's draft. In securing Surtain, one of the NFL's premier cover cornerbacks, the Chiefs fill one of their most pressing needs. Team president and general manager Carl Peterson has done a nice job this offseason addressing a defense that statistically ranked next-to-last in the league in 2004. Acquiring Surtain, however, clearly is the most significant defensive upgrade the Chiefs have made since the conclusion of last season. Only two days ago, Peterson acknowledged that time was running out for the possibility of the trade. Dolphins coach Nick Saban countered by noting that Miami would simply retain Surtain for this season rather than deal him for less-than-market value. The trade earlier this week of Raiders cornerback Phillip Buchanon, in which Houston sent second- and third-round picks to Oakland, helped validate Saban's asking price. Buchanon is younger than Surtain but hardly as accomplished. Surtain, 28, was scheduled to earn a base salary of $5.85 million with the Dolphins for the coming season and carried a hefty salary cap charge of about $8.3 million. The seventh-year veteran, a second-round pick of the Dolphins in 1998, has appeared in 108 games and started 82. For years, the former Southern Mississippi player teamed with Sam Madison to give Miami one of the top cornerback tandems in the league. For his career, Surtain has 29 interceptions and 86 passes defensed, along with 340 tackles, 6½ sacks, four forced fumbles and four recoveries. He has recorded at least two interceptions every season of his career and had five or more pickoffs three times. Last season Surtain played in 15 games and had four interceptions and 11 passes defensed. Len Pasquarelli is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com. To check out Len's chat archive, click here .

That would not force defenses to reduce the amount of defenders "in the box". They would still crowd the line planning to sack the QB before he even had a chance to set up becuase our line, as Bill B. so eloquently put it, "is for s..t". And that was before we lost arguably the best player on the entire line, Jonas Jennings. Now we have to improve a notch to just to stay at the "for s..t" level. You can line up the 5 best recievers in the league and it won't matter if the QB does not have time to throw to any of them.

Bill, these guys like Campbell and they really need a CB. This draft has about 5 CB's of first round quality depending on who you talk to. I think they will take Campbell at 9, not at 25. They will then use that 25 on the best CB that is still on the board. Ideally, they would have wanted to do it the way we did it with Losman, wait and see if he was still on the board. Apparently there was too much of a risk that Denver would trade with someone else before then so they pulled the trigger now. If they really want Campbell as all the prognosticators claim, I think they will take him at 9 and go CB at 25.

value pick I cringe when I hear that one. It translates to "he sux".

I agree, I wouldn't trade Nate for a high pick right now, no way. He is on the roster for at least another year and that makes a better team than we would be without him. Plenty of time to deal with this after the season. If we can't keep him then, there is always free agency and we could pick up a project guy like McGee in this year's draft. First round flops are a disaster for any team and if you trade Nater for a high pick, that is exactly what you are risking, a borderline pro bowler for a first round flop. Yikes. Why take that risk when we have a solid starter as it is?

Yeah, he was great in that Jag game when he failed to bat that ball down not realizing it was 4th down and instead tried to pick it off leading to our opening loss. He also looked good fumbling that punt against the Steelers. I wouldn't trade him but I am not blind to his faults either. The Patriots regularly toasted him. They loved throwing WR screens to his side knowing that with his gambling, sooner or later he will miss the tackle and then a 3 yard gain becomes a 50 yard gain. Of course, what do those Patriots know? He is a very good CB, no doubt. I just don't think he is worth quite that much. What I don't understand is why, if he is so great, he is not worth us keeping? How is it that he is so good other teams will pay big in terms of picks for him but he isn't good enough for us to keep? The people pushing this trade as a real possibility argue that he is so good it will cost a fortune to keep him and there are plenty of good CB's in this draft (5 of first round quality depending on who you talk to) so we should trade him away so we don't have to worry about the cap and we will easily replace him with someone just as good who will cost less. Basically that argument is that as good as Nate is, he isn't worth huge bucks when there are plenty of good young CB's in the draft. Maybe so but if you accept that argument, you have to explain why Washington wouldn't reach the same conclusion and hang on to the pick.

His most legendary "value" pick was trading our 3rd to pop up a few spots in the second to nab Denney. Similar situation actually to this year, no? A few more "value" picks like that and we will long for the good old days when we were 6-10.

I'll like Losman a lot better when he starts playing and winning. For now, all I have is lots of hope with not much to base it on. Not exactly foreign territory for a Bills fan is it?

As for the 9th pick and Clements, there is a ying and yang effect going on. Every argument you make that Washington should be willing to trade that pick for Nate is also an argument for us not to trade him. Every argument you make that he isn't worth the 9th pick to Washington is an argument for us to trade him for less, such as teh 25th or even a second rounder. I find it hard to envision Clements in some sort of narrow sweet spot where he is so great that Washington will spend big in terms of a high pick for him but he isn't quite great enough for us to want to keep him. The risk Washington is clearly taking is that Campbell, the QB from Auburn, might not be there at 25 but then again, for all we know they are planning to take him at 9 and a CB at 25. There are 5 CB's rated at first round quality or very near the first round. They will be able to get a good one at 25 easy unless there is an incredible run on CB's. I am speculating like everyone else but that seems to be a reasonable assumption. Ask yourself what is more likely, that a guy like Gibbs has suddenly gone certifiable or he knows the guys he wants will be there at 9 and 25? I'd bank on the latter.

Rethink that criticism for a second. How different is this from the very same deal we made last year? They want that QB from Auburn who they rate as high as Smith just like we rated Losman up there with Big Ben. They didn't lose a first round pick, they just moved next year's pick up a year, just like we did. All they really lost was a 3rd and 4th rounder and we gave up a 2nd rounder which in terms of value is at least on a par with a 3rd and 4th combined. The only problem for them is that they pulled it off now instead of just before Denver's pick when they could be absolutely sure that Campbell was still on the board. However, they are probably correct in assuming that no one above 25 is going to take him. I don't understand why it was brilliant when we did it and complete idiocy when Washington did the same freaking thing. If you think a 2nd is worth more than a 3rd and 4th, they actually made out better.

What did they give up? They swapped first round picks, two this year rather than one this year and one in 2006. That is just what we did to get Losman. All they gave up is a 3rd and a 4th. We gave up a 2nd which had about the same value as a 3rd and 4th combined. They want that QB from Auburn I think it is, Campbell? They didn't give up "a whole lot" and really, this deal is almost a replay of the deal TD made last year for which he was praised as the most brilliant GM in the modern era on this board. Now when some other team does it the TBD collective renounces it as insanity.

Two first round picks for Nate Clements???? Heck why not throw in next year's 1 and 2?? No freaking way. I am not sure I'd even trade just the 9 pick for him. They want that QB from Arkansas and a CB and for that they need two first round picks. This deal isn't really all that different than the one we made last year with Dallas. The first round picks are swapped, Denver's this year to Washington and Washington's 2006 to Denver. All Washington really gave up was a 3rd and 4th. We gave up a 2nd rounder which is arguably worth a 3rd and 4th so this trade is no more insane than the trade we made a year ago. They like that QB and all it cost them is a few late picks. No big deal.

What is all this craziness about trading Nate? Everyone wants so bad to be clever. Any more clever and we will be the cleverest 0-16 team in the league. You do not improve a team by dumping its best players. You improve a team by keeping its best players and replacing the marginal ones. Don't get me wrong, I think the fans here tend to over rate him because of the big plays he makes now and then. What worries me are the plays he makes the other way like not knocking down that 4th down pass against the Jags and fumbling a punt against the Steelers. Even so, you don't dump a solid CB like Nate if it can be at all avoided. You just don't. Of course, I would have said the same thing about Pat Williams.

Henry breaks tackles. The first guy rarely gets him down. He has a very low center of gravity, kind of like a bowling ball. He is also a team player, he lays it all down on the line to win. The down side is that he is just not the smartest player around. Case in Point: at home against the Patriots last year the Bills were driving towards the tying touchdown with under two minutes to go. Deep in New England territory we faced a third and two. Henry, who had been tearing it up that whole drive is given the ball going off tackle to the right. Big hole, huge hole. He falls. Fourth and four with the game on the line. The Bills decide to try a bootleg right figuring they will never expect us to run Bledsoe. Drew is to fake it to Henry going left and then keep it around the right side. Problem: Henry goes the wrong way, he goes right with Drew. The whole Patriot line and LB corps, following Henry, was right there to blow up Drew who fumbled which they returned for a TD. Biggest play in the biggest game of the season and Henry goes the wrong freaking way. His short arms and penchant for switching the ball from hand to hand in traffic leads to some fumbles but he seems to have improved there so I wouldn't worry about that. Just make sure before each play some one tells him which way to go.

Impressive but then again, Oaklahoma only threw the ball 7 times last year. Granted, there were no sacks on those 7 plays but still....

Still, if Nate is so iffy and the CB draft class so solid that we can afford to dump him and replace him with a pick, why doesn't Washington know that? I just don't accept the logic that says he is good enough for Washington to jump off a bridge for but not good enough for us to bother keeping. Why wouldn't a "proven star" at a critical position be just as important to us as it would be to them? Frankly, I am not Nate's biggest fan. Fumbling that punt against the Steelers and blowing that pass break up against the Jags kind of soured me on him.

What's the NFL sack record for a single season? Not getting sacks but taking them? I smell an opportunity here to rewrite the record books.

I don't get it. If the draft is deep at CB and Washington needs a CB, why wouldn't they draft one rather than trade for one at the cost of multiple picks and a huge contract after just one year?

I never did understand the logic that says that a player is not worth us signing but is so good that other teams will trade a boat load of top picks for him. The only time a player is worth a lot to one team and not another is because the teams have different cap problems or teams have more pressing needs at other positions.

New York has recognized some of these problems and revamped the jury system so that it is much harder to get out of jury duty and the pool of jurors has been increased. Used to be a lawyer called to serve could just call up and let the commissioner know they were an atty and they would be excused because the lawyers never want an atty on the jury. No more. The amount of lawyers ending up on juries has increased dramatically because now the trial lawyers have to use up one of their precious preemptory challenges to get them off the jury. A lot of people use the OJ trial as an example of bad juries but that is unfair. We all had the case spoon fed to us by hysterical reporters looking to keep their ratings up with sensational news month after month after month. The jurors didn't see any of that. They saw the evidence and only the evidence. Yeah they got hit with spin from lawyers from both sides. The public got hit with that as well and with the lawyers spinning on the court house steps and with the talking heads spinning like tops twenty four seven. The jury was exposed to a lot less BS than we were. Fact is, the prosecution's case was weak. Just look at the films, that crime scene was a circus. Do I think OJ did it? Absolutely. Do I think I am smarter than the people on the jury or would have vote any differently than they did? I can't say that and neither can anyone else who didn't sit through the whole trial in their shoes. Besides, you don't judge a system based on its performance in the kind of trial that comes along once every 50 years or so. That case was a singularity, an aberration. It would be like judging the US Navy based on their performance on December 7, 1941. You don't judge a system based on its best day or its worst day.

My money is on BS but that will be difficult to prove. The only thing really said with any authority is that we are trading Travis for Shelton. My mother could make that prediction and wouldn't need an inside source to do it. The use of the phrase "done deal" is suspicous to me as it always seems to be the declaration of choice by hoaxers. I claim that just based on my experience with this kind of thing and as a lawyer who has cross examined thousands of lying sacks. The second prediction is amorphous enough that no matter what actually happens, the hoaxster can say "well....I never said it was definite". There is nothing they can be pinned down on. Why would the source be willing to blab about the trade but yet not willing to "leak" the info regarding the third round swap stuff? Makes no sense. This source has no discretion or they wouldn't be leaking anything to begin with. Given their lack of discretion, why withold the info on the less than consequential details of a third round swap? If this inside source is real, isn't it likely that he told this poster the info in confidence, a confidence the poster clearly, if we believe what they say, betrayed? Why should we trust a person who is willing to betray a friend? They are either lying to us or betraying a friend's confidence. Either way, they are a jerk. It seems to me that the Henry for Shelton trade is certain enough for this hoaxster to risk making this bold "prediction" but the details regarding what additional compensation the trade might include are too numerous for the hoaxster to even try to guess so they couch that "prediction" in uncertainty offering only the nonsensical explanation that the leaker wouldn't leak the small stuff, just the big stuff on the trade itself. They predict what everyone anticipates happening and make a non-prediction prediction as to the details. Plausible deniability. If the trade doesn't happen, I bet they post something along the lines that the third round swap part was the sticking point that unexpectedly killed the deal. If you remember some of the past leaks of "inside info" that turned out to be BS that have turned up on the board now and then, there is a pattern and this one fits that pattern.

That depends, are you an "intellgent" football player and are you a "high character guy"? Do you have a "tremendous upside" (meaning that you are so bad now there is virtually infinite room for improvement)?

The amount of the verdict can be challenged at the trial court level first and then on appeal if necessary. If the trial court thinks the amounts were screwed up by the jury the judge will likely present an alternative set of figures and if the litigants do not agree to them, either declare a mistrial or let the verdict stand as is. It is how the Judge can kind of push the litigants into accepting the judge's evaluation. A mistrial can be a catastrophe for a plaintiff, they will usually accept a lower verdict to avoid that and if the award was really high, the defendant will want to take the lower figure from the judge rather than have the verdict stand. In that case they would have no choice left but an appeal. This actually happens a lot. Value is always a difficult thing to decide because of the very nature of pain and suffering. Everyone always complains about jury verdicts being too high or too low but no one has come up with a better system for deciding the value of pain and suffering. Instead they offer one size fits all approaches which are pretty much guaranteed to be unfair. Imagine making everyone on the planet wear shoes that were all the exact same style and the exact same size. What would you choose, pumps? Loafers? High-tops? Skates? Hiking boots? What size would you pick, 12 EEE? Women's Petite 4? Toddler 5? Caps are no more rational. Imagine saying that no person, no matter what could ever wear a shoe bigger than a 10 EE. What about all the people with feet bigger than that? Juries don't always hit the nail right on the head, sometimes they miss by a mile although even that is subjective. That is why we have post trial motions and appellate courts. There are safety valves to protect against run-away juries. A fair hearing in front of a jury selected by both sides with each having a fair opportunity to select jurors is not what defendants want. They don't want a fair trial, they want a fixed deck guaranteeing that they win even when they lose. Nice deal if you can get it.

"Deep" in the playoffs? How about just making them? That, after what would be 5 years, would be nice.

He played okay in limited duty. It is pretty clear that Denney is just not going to play up to where we drafted him so a little depth at DE is certainly called for. Can you imagine where we would be if Schobel went down?