Dan

One thing you can definitely sat about Marv... he's definitely trying to fix the lines. How many Defensive and Offensive linemen have been signed/drafted in the last 1.5 offseasons? For that, I certainly thank Marv. All the moves haven't been great (i.e. Reyes), but you have to give him credit for saying the lines need upgrading and then going out and trying to do something about it. Thanks Marv, indeed.

I thought Walker signed a 5yr/25mill deal? How's he getting a guaranteed $22mill? That seems odd to me. And I still say Nate seemed determined to test the open market. There's absolutely no reason to think he would have accepted any offer from the Bills. Its possible, sure, but unlikely. If the cheap old Bills are offering $70mill, what will the Redskins offer would probably be his mindset. Not to mention, his agent probably had a pretty good idea of what he would be offered.

The problem here is you're assuming the players or their agents have no say so in any of these moves. Do you really think Clements would have accepted a backloaded contract and passed on SF guaranteed money? He seemed determined to hit the market and go to the highest bidder. Nothing against him at all, but that's what it came down to. So, no way we get him unless we match the SF offer, or better it. Why would TKO take a pay cut? They may have tried to sign Adalius - we don't really know. But, I do agree with you here. We need a LB and he seemed like a good one. But, again, we don't really know what happened behind the scenes. Maybe Marv called him and he hung up? Steinbach seemed to have his mind made up on where he was going. I'm not sure we could have gotten him for the same salary he got; so do you give gim another $10mill to lure him in? I wouldn't. I agree wwith the concerns about Walker. All I can suggest is that Marv and company obviously wanted this guy; they certainly didn't settle. They went out on day one and signed him to a great contract. They didn't hem and haw and wait till everyone was taken and then say what the heck, lets give this guy a 1 year deal and see if it works out (ala Reyes). So either they're right and see something in him or they're wrong and it'll be a huge mistake. Quite honestly I don't know which, but I'll be ready to call it either way by the end of next season.

Exactly. I think we're on more of a 2-3 year plan. We, albiet surprisingly, were close to the playoffs last year. I expect and hope we'll be in the thick of the playoff race again this December. And with continued improvement of young players 2008 the playoffs should be expected - not hoped for. I think Marv is doing what you've suggested, he's gotten FAs in some places, i.e. the Oline. He's mixing in rookies elsewhere. I think its difficult to say we're letting all our FAs go, because we've kept some (Kelsay, Thomas, Thomas). We let go of super high-priced guys and older guys that don't seem to fit what Marv wants. So, I'm not convinced the "letting our good players go" argument is completely valid with Marv. If we do, in fact, let JP or Evvans, Peters or some supposed "Marv" guys go because they want big money; then I'll completely agree - we're doomed. But, until that happens, I'm living in my dream world where Marv is building a team of his players that will compete for several years, not just one.

Borderline comical banter here, but I think the major point you're missing, BillsVet, is that its been 1 year for Marv and company - not 7. I agree, if Marv were on a 7 year rebuilding plan, I'd be upset. You are right its been 7 years since the Bills franchise has been to the playoffs. But in that time, we've had several GMs, Head Coaches, Assistant Coaches, QBs, etc. Like it or not, TD and company were not getting the job done. So Ralph washed the slate clean; brought in new management and a new time scale. So, we're 1 full year into this new time frame - not 7. I agree that sucks, but that's reality. And that's why its so important to hire a good GM, coach, get good players, etc. Because every mistake prolongs that period. You hire Greggo - you have to give gim a few years to work something out. He fails; you hire Malarky and give him a few years. That's the problem. Now we we have a new GM and HC. You have to give them a few years. I guess the primary point I can gather from all your arguing is that you don't like Marv or Jauron and you don't like the moves they're making. Because you can't argue that they're not moving fast enough - they've had 1 year. Now it'll take another 2 years to see if you're right or if I'm right (I like Marv's moves). At that point we can have this discussion, but not really before. Will their FAs or draft picks pan out... only another season of football will determine that. But to not like Youbouty (for ex.) because he hasn't played enough is akin to sayin I don't want to build through the draft; I want to build through FA. Because no draft pick is a sure thing. No second year player is a sure thing. FAs aren't either, but you can look at what they've done and think they're a sure thing. So, FA's tend to make people feel better about the future than unproven draft picks. Bottomline, you have to hope for the best, because that's what being a fan is about. If you always expect the worst, what's the point?

You not being President is due primarily to the fact that you don't really want to be President. If you did, you could certainly take the appropriate steps and direct your life in such a way that you'd have a very real possibility of realizing that dream. I would argue that these guys playing in the NFL have done the same thing. It has always been their dream to play in the NFL, so they've done everything they can to realize that dream. Now if they want to make the probowl all they have to do is work to achieve that goal. I'm not implying that they will make the probowl, but its certainly a possibility.

Excellent point. And I would agree, at the least it would appear to give an indication as to what positions they may be drafting for. I wonder what a mock draft just using these players (plus a few addtional sure fires) as our picks would look like? Man, if I were only so motivated I bet I'd have a great looking and very realistic mock draft.

I find this list immensly interesting. I now wonder does it have any predictive value at all. For ex., no interest in DEs; therefore, we're not drafting one. Which certainly makes sense with our current roster. But where it gets interesting is other positions such as RB. Can we infer that IF we draft a RB it would be Lynch; therefore, if he gets selected, we don't draft a RB? Similarly the DT position seems to not be an area of interest other than Okoye. And with 4 WRs on the list, does that mean we're drafting one - something I had not considered prior to seeing this list. Any idea what their 2006 list looked like? Upon a cursory review of their site, I didn't see an archive section.

Seems to me complaint/panic is a foregone conclusion with your logic. Crowell, Youbouty, McCargo, may all fill holes nicely; but in your reasoning all are unproven; hence we can not rely on them and we're taking a step backwards. Similarly, any rookies we draft will be unproven; hence, also we can not rely on them. Consequently, according to the logic here, we can only progress if we keep all our existing players (because we know what they can do) or we replace them with proven FAs. As many have pointed out, time and time again: how does retaining Clements improve our run defense? How can retaining an aging MLB that is not known for attacking the LOS improve our run defense? On the other hand: We can't replace them with unproven, young talent because that's an uncertainty. We can't replace them with the best, proven players in the league at each of those positions because that's an impossibility. It's really a wonderful little conundrum, if we keep our existing players we don't get better; if we replace them with young players we don't get better. In other words, we can't win for losing. I would suggest the complaint and panic buttons were pressed quite some time ago by many. I would also guess it was pressed before last season when so many called for predictions of the worst record in the league. Finally, I would suggest that maybe Marv and company know something about building a team that we don't. And some of their moves will work while others won't. But don't let that get in the way of doom and gloom prophecies.

Exactly my thoughts! Why read any more. First... who's Curtis? Second... when he actually plays in a game and does something worth discussin, then we can talk. Third... move on, nothing more to see here.

Just put a Trump Wig on the guy in front of her and I guarnatee he's going down.... hard.

OK. So who's left? Do we have any FA's left on our team that need to be re-signed? I can't really recall anyone else from last season's team that we need to re-sign. (and I'm too lazy to do all the looking around for the info.) So are we down to 1 (possibly 2 FAs) from somewhere else; then the draft?

Well mine is pretty obvious. When I first signed up, I never figured it'd take... I mean you can never get dan as a username - anywhere. Surprise, surprise, I guess i was the first one here or the only one that lacked any originality. Either way I just kept it. If dan would have been taken I would have gotten a little and creative it would have been something along the lines of tickpicker or culicidae or something like that.

You, sir.... are absolutely, correct. I've been saying this for quite some time. As good as Nate, Fletcher, etc. may be; we've been sucking it up for years with them on the team player makin. It's long overdue that we cut some of these guys and try something new. Sometimes you have to take 2 steps back to move forward. And that's exactly as I see our situation. On the surface we appear to be stepping backwards losing great players, but I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised to see us moving forward this season with new players and a new attitude. Superbowl this year... I doubt it. Much improved team with better record and possible shot at the playoffs... I think so.

In a word... Oh h-ll No..

My guess... he's on the team come September.

Actually it does. Are you now suggesting that QB and WR are positions of need for the Bills? See that's half the problem with so many of these botard threads. People make up problems that don't exist. We're set at WR and QB. We're now set at OL. We're not nearly as bad at CB as most want to protest. Everyone says draft Hall or some other guy in the first round to replace Nate. Why? That's why they drafted Youbouty last year. Just because you haven't seen enough of him doesn't mean the coaches haven't. Take a second year player that's familiar with our team and system or a rookie - I think the answer is obvious. RB is a position of unkown at this time, again for you. I'm sure the coaches have an idea of who'll be starting and they wouldn't have let McGehee go without some sort of a plan. Same with Fletcher and th LB position. We're probably only 1 player away from a decent Dline. I know none of this makes you or some people happy and comfortable, but its funny how nothing Ralph, Marv or the coaches do makes some feel happy. Last season we were absolutely doomed. We'd be lucky to get 2 wins was the consensus of so many. Now, we're still doomed, continuallly rebuilding because we let our great run stuffer CB go. Funny ain't it.

I love it. The guy plays for 2 years and you come back and say see I told you so. McGehee ultimately may not have worked out here, but I'm fairly certain that he's been more productive than Travis over the last 2 years. I imagine there's some guy in Green Bay just waiting for the day that Favre retires, so he can refer back to a comment he made back when the Pack traded for him and say... see I told you, this guy would never stay here.

Good one. Guess wrong on a Bills pick and take 2 drinks.

Doesn't seem like near enough drinking.

I think you're getting hung up on what's said in the media and by many of the posters here, hence the perceived hypocrisy. I think you have to look around all the trees and try to see the forest. Willis just didn't seem to like it here. He played well and for that I liked him and always hoped he would stay; however, to most everyone (myself included) he just didn't always seem to have his head screwed on properly and, at times, appeared to play below his abilities - not because of his surrounding players, but due to his lack of complete effort. I think Marv and Jauron saw this, recognized it, and were not willing to accept someone on the team that didn't give his best on every play. On the one hand you have JP who started studying film 2 weeks after the season; on the other you had a RB that chose not to study the playbook at all. I think they made their choice of which type of player they wanted. Willis' production or potential, I don't think, was not nearly as important as his attitude. I mean lets face it, Marv re-signed Shaud. Oblviously, he's willing to keep a guy that doesn't look great on the field. But, I'd suspect Shaud busts his butt at every oppurtunity.

Least Fav: Chris Watson comes to mind. Man I hated seeing him get repeatedly burned. Although if many more stories about Willis tanking it and then trashing the team surface, he could top the list within a week. Most Fav: Thurman, easily. Although I really like JP, he's not great yet by any means, but his attitude is exactly what you want to see. Likes buffalo, likes the team, and does everything he can to win every week. But, just no way could I put him up there with Thurmal (or several other great players) yet. But, we'll see.

If that's all it takes, then I think it'd be a no-brainer. You're essentially giving up just one pick in this year's draft to move up about 6 spots and get the player you want. I'm not saying we should, but if they did, I wouldn't be upset with that at all.

Agreed just say no to Lee! I'd even leave Roscoe off. Like it or not he'll get his number called and he'll need all the help he can get. I like Thurmal!

Of the guys that have visited thus far, I liked Rhodes best - oh well. Chris Brown perhaps next, although I can't say I've seen him play much.