Dan

That's certainly interesting. OJ was before my time, so I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure where the playbook rumor came from; but it wouldn't surprise me that the coaches don't confirm it in a PC. It's not good practice to bad mouth former employees or bosses, regardless of whether or not its true. I was really hoping Willis would stay another year and things would turn around for him and the team; the new emphasis on the line would pay off and his attitude would improve. In the end, we'd see a much better Willis. However, something definitely seemed to cause a riff between the Bills and Willis. They made no bones about wanting to trade him; he made no bones about wanting more. So, for whatever reason, it just didn't seem to work for Willis here. I do have a feeling he'll do pretty well in Baltimore, but I just don't think we can conclude at the end of the year (if he does have a great year) that he would have had an equally great year in Buffalo.

I understand what you're saying and ultimately agree with you. However, I think (or at least it seems) there's a maor difference between Willis and Kelly or OJ. Kelly/OJ had too much pride to tank it. They refused to give up and their drive to win and compete seemed to outweigh all else. Willis, on the other hand, seemed to have a different attitude. One more of.. I don't want to be here, therefore I'll play just well enough to show people I'm good. note: I'm not convinced that Willis' attitude about being in Buffalo was as bad as some have suggested (even myself in this post). However, it does seem as though he was not always motivated to play each week, each down. And if rumors about him not studying the playbook are correct, then that says it all.

That is exactly the correct answer. There are all sorts of opinions on Willis, but in the end it all comes down to this. As good as he may be or become, it wouldn't happen in Buffalo. The trade is good for him, good for Baltimore, and good for Buffalo. Once people wrap their brains around that, they'll sleep alot easier at night.

Yes. Points well made. I'm trying to think of some counter arguement; however, I can not.

If everything else he has written is irrational, wouldn't it make more sense that this is irrational too? As opposed to him finally getting it right? I'm just sayin.

You're not by any chance an accountant are you? Because you sound just like one. Only looking at numbers. The game is much more than numbers and plugging one player in here and the value with this player versus the 40 time of that player and so forth. A team is made up of individulas that must play together and work as a group. To break a team down into individual players and only look at their stats and salaries is one of the biggest mistakes any fan, analyst or GM can make. Like it or not, Willis did not seem to want to play here. Nothing else matters. I agree he had a good salary. He was also a fairly productive back (averaging 1000 yards a season). All the numbers added up to keeping the guy. But, his heart said get him gone. In the end, I'm fairly certain that whomever replaces him will be better for the team and that is what Marv is looking at. Clearly, money is not the only thing guiding the decision process this off season.

I agree I think will turn out to be a great move for the Ravens and Willis. Willis will definitely have a better year next year in Baltimore, but that's not to conclude that we should have kept him. Lewis and Co. will motivate him and he'll certainly run better than Lewis. I think it'll also be a good move for the Bills. Although right now it looks bad because we have no clear replacement, I suspect we'll hear more about his bad attitude and lack of preparation as the weeks pass. We'll find someone to start and ultimately be a better TEAM.

Who were the quality FA RBs that we missed by taking so long to sign someone?

I saw a few of the NFL Europe games last summer and thought Fred Jackson really looked good. I was hoping he'd get a real shot at playing last season. Not sure why he didn't or what the story is on this guy. I just remember watching a few of those games thinking wow this guy looks good. Before I even realized he was a Bill, I thought why can't we get a back that runs like that.

Regardless, I disagree. No CB is going to help us establish a running game or stop an opposing team's running game. IMO, a lockdown CB is something you get after you're able to run and stop the run, not before. Let's just assume Nate actually stopped every pass that came his way. He even intercepted a few balls. So what? We still can't convert on 3rd and 1 to extend the drive in the 4th quarter. The other team gets the ball and runs 5 straight plays right into field goal position, and wins the game. Sound familiar. Nate, as good as he was or is, was not getting this team over the hump and into the playoffs. He was here long enough to single handedly do that several times. Why spend that much on him? It's nonsensical.

I tend to agree with you, but I'm not so worried about his return to college form. I'd say, its been plenty of time for that to happen. I do think he could be a heck of a RB if he gets behind a good line and is reasonably motiveted each week. So, I've always been hopeful he'd stay here and tear things up. However, with that being said, if the reports regarding his work ethic, attitude, and unwillingness to learn the playbook are true; then I say screw trading him, bench him for a year then put him in NFL Europe. Seriously though, at the very least, that kind of attitude would definitely warrant trading him regardless of our alternative.

Are you reading what you're saying.... A player in a contract year, is going to hold out and not play? So, he's going to stake his future on a 2006 season where he gained less than 1000yds and a 2007 season where he held out and refused to play? If he does that, he's dumber than I ever would have guessed.

I completely agree. That's been my assesment of Marv's rebuilding plan as well. He's brought in some good draft picks that'll be future stars for years to come. While trying to mix in a few FA's that are past that initial learning curve period and should provide us with an immediate turn around on production. He's defintitely holding true to this plan again this year. Look at our OL (just to keep this on the point of the original post); we have sevveral young guys that are still learning, but now we have a few FAs that'll hopefully propel us forward. Just as Dockery and Fowler are slipping due to age, these 2nd year guys will be in a good position to take over. It's a well mananged, well thought out plan so far. The only caveat is injuries and busts due to poor evaluators. Hopefully, our talent guys know what they're doing with Dockery and Walker. I like the moves, alot. But it'll probably be mid season before I say the moes were truly the right ones.

I think there's a few points here that several people are dancing with. Do you build the OL through the draft or through FA? That's the primary question, and I would offer that the proper answer is... Yes. I think there are examples of teams building a solid OL both ways. Although I do agree with Bill, it seems the best (perhaps most assured is a better way to put it) way to get a stud LT is through the draft. Clearly either way you go, you have to have good coaching and good talent evaluators. But, I think the tandem question here is... How quickly do you want that solid OL? Building through the draft is a longer process, because the players will take several years to fully develop. However, the idea is that a 3 or 4 year FA has already gone through that learning curve and can contribute in his first year with the team. I think for the Bills' purposes, building through FA was the best option. We have a decent QB going into his 4th year, a great WR, adequate back up receivers, and a good RB (provided he stays or we trade for someone comparable). So, we need a sold OL next year, not in 3 years. Hence, Marv gets alot of credit (IMO) for recognizing our need, recognizing the best way to address it, and paying the money to the players to get them here. Either way you decide to build the line, I think you have to commit to it and that was TDs failure. He got a few picks on the line. He got a few FAs. But, he never said the OL is a priority and I'm going to draft 2 or 3 guys a year until we get our starters. Or we're going to pay top dollar and bring in quality FAs and get our starters. He dabbled in both with no clear direction and the results were painful to watch. Marv, on the other hand, stuck his finger in the dike last season with a few guys; allowed McNally to shuffle them around and see what we had. Then he went out this year and brought in the guys he (or someone) wanted and the team needed to finally progress the line. With luck, the talent evaluators did their job and we'll see a much better line performance next season. What should that tell most people? That Marv is trying to field a team that will be in the playoffs next year, not in 2 or 3 years.

Good point. And, believe me, I'll never pretend to know the ins and outs of these player moves. If its done properly, I can definitely see your point and would agree with them whole heartedly. I'm just saying I like many of the moves Marv makes because many seem to be good for the team and they're done with character and class. And that makes me prouder than ever to cheer for Marv and the Bills.

You're absolutely right. But, as another poster pointed out... Nate and Dockery have the same agent. Dockery signed with us without visiting any other team. So, maybe Nate (or at least his agent) did thank us? Who knows, but its an interesting thought.

I agree with exactly what you're saying. But... if you see something that's wrong and you disagree with it, do you do it too just because everyone else is doing it? Or do you take the high road and lead by example? I try to do the right thing regardless of what every one else is doing, and I'm glad Marv is running the team by doing the right thing and treating players as people rather than just as commodities to be traded, bought, and sold. I know it's not the best business sense. I know it often puts the team (and myself) at a disadvantage. We lose players like Nate with no compensation. But, I can sleep better making bad business decisions albeit good personal moral choices. Maybe Marv thinks similarly. And maybe one day the good karma will turn around and shine on our team.

Rosesnpimp knows exactly what he's doing. Imagine the pay raise Willis gets if he stay in Buffalo for 1 more year, shuts up, learns the playbook, and runs for 1500yds - then hits the open market.

I've gotta say I don't completely nuy into this whole notion that the Bills won't extend a player at some high salary. I guess we'll see in upcoming years with JP, Evans, Peters, etc. But, the Bills could have re-signed Nate if they wanted. They've pretty much spent that much money already. The question is do you spend all that on 1 player when you need 6 (or more)? In a few years, that may change and we won;t have holes all over the place. Therefore we can spend huge bucks and re-sign 1 or 2 players. But, to say "we can't/didn't re-sign Nate because its too much" is not telling the whole story, IMO. It would be more accurate to add "when we have so many other needs" to the end of that.

exactly

If you're playing for 2008, you don't spend roughly $75 mill on veteran linemen. You draft guys and let them develop for a year.

I understand what you're saying. But, look at the monies invovled. Marv had a choice: spend money and attempt to upgrade the O-line or spend money and resign Nate and London. I think we can all agree that we couldn't do both. So, Marv chose to address the O-line. Was that the wrong decision? We'll get an idea of that after the draft and we see all the moves. But, we won't know for certain until sometime next season. For myself, I like the moves. Neither Nate nor London did much of anything to stop the run last season. So why not change those two position up? And we certainly needed an upgrade on the line. Like Marv's choices or not, one thing is clear. They targeted 2 guys and got those 2 guys. So, now we'll see if they were right.

So without Clements our defense is worthless? I know he was a good CB, but the defense doesn't begin and end with Clements. I think what people are saying is that its better to have a great offensive line, than a single great CB.

Excellent correction. Thank you sir.

Couldn't we word this another way and still be somewhat accurate in the spin... One was an aging LB on one of the worst run defenses in the league in 2006.