Dan

Am I the only one thinking Marv et al. may feel satisfied with our D-line; therefore, Okoye may not be their choice? As much as I want Okoye, I have this feeling that Marv may see our biggest need for stopping the run as being a LB. Depending on what they get in FA, I could easily see Marv picking a OG/OT or LB at #12.

So wait... are Marv and Ralph old cheap skates that won't sign any FAs? or Are they throwing money around carlessly and wasting it on high-priced FAs? I get confused somedays.

I agree completely. I have absolutely no problem re-signing Fletcher, but I don't think we can nor should make him one of the top 5 paid LBs. Nate, also, is a great player and definitely one I'd love to see back. But, again, at what price? If re-signing Nate diminishes our ability to stregthen the lines, then I'd say its a bad decision. Given Marv's statements, past and present, I think that's the approach he'll take. He'll make both fair offers and we'll see what the market bears. I could see Fletcher possibly staying, but like most, I think someone will pay Clements way too much money and he'll be elsewhere.

My point being that something needs to change. We've had Nate, a top corner back for years; we've had Fletcher for years; yet our defense is still near the bottom statistically. I agree that you should normally try to keep your best players, but every once in a while you have to try something new. Furthermore, I very much disagree with keeping those players if their salaries will hinder your chance of improving the other failing positions. I know the thought has been to Franchise Fletcher, for example. But, is he really one of the top 5 LBs in the league. I'm not sure I can say that. So, if he wants that kind of money, I think we have to let him go. Similarly with Nate. if he wants to be paid as the top CB in the league, do we place all our eggs in that basket? Again, I'd vote let him go. I'm all for keeping both of these guys, but I'm not about doing it at all costs just because they're 2 of the best players on the 29th (or whatever we were) ranked defense.

In honor of my reaching this most important milestone, I've finally upgraded my status from the Practice Squad. I also figured as much as I'm on here, I should probably update the rest of my profile and post a cool avatar as well. But that would take entirely too much creativity for one afternoon. I must say, I never thought I'd reach 1,000 posts. And after doing so, I realize I probably have posted too much drivel already. So, I'll try to keep things to a minimum henceforth. This is by far the best spot on the whole of the internet, even if there are a 1000 posts a day calling Marv old and Ralph cheap. And then as soon as we sign Kelsay for a "reported" $6mill; those people quiet down and the Marv is stupid and Ralph is wasting his money people start up. Gotta love it. Oh yeah and one of my personal favorites.. the Ralph should sell the franchise to someone that wants to keep the team in Buffalo crowd (even though he's the primary guy that has fought to keep the team in Buffalo since for ever). thanks for letting me listen in...

That's exactly been my stance on players like Nate, Kelsay and Fletcher. As good as they may be, we had all these guys on this team for several years and all we have to show is one of the worst ranked defenses in the league - that alone should be enough to cause concern over giving any of them huge contracts. But to think long term, if you give these guys huge contracts, what kind of contract will you have to give JP or Evans a year from now? Just because you can pay alot, doesn't mean you should. It'll be interesting to see if Jones follows his own advice. My guess is there will always be an owner or 2 willing to overpay; hence we'll probably lose Nate. However, there are multiple examples of teams that don't overpay for big time free agents and remain competitive. I see no reason why the Bills can't remain competitive even if we lose Nate. There's not a defense out there that's built around a corner back, why should we be the first.

From what I've gathered reading this board for a while, trading down or up in the draft is not only easily accomplished, but is something that should absolutely be done. Although trading up is less popular, trading down is a great way to get tons of picks. It's kinda like we won the draft becacuse we had more picks than the next guy. Of course, no matter who you pick with all those picks they won't be the right pick because we should have traded all those picks to some team to get the big name FA that we'll want to run out of town in a year because he's overpriced and was really someone else's retread. You see its really so simple that it's complex. Nothing Marv does is right because he's old and everyone's got the right answers until tomorrow when they change their mind and the new right answers come to them. Of course, the beauty is in our own little fantasy football reality we don't really have to have all the details worked out, we just have to be able to complain about everyone else. And god forgive, we actually let FA or the draft get here before we start blaming Marv for screwing it up. But I digress. Welcome and hello.

You... should definitely post more. Excellent information!

I do see what you're saying, but therein rests the Bills delimma. Our best player; therefore, potentially, highest paid player is a CB. That is not how you get to and win a Superbowl - building the defense around a CB. So, if retaining that CB dampens your ability to properly build a team then you have to make that tough choice and let him walk. I know it's seem counter intuitive. But, pay Nate or sign 3-4 other defensive guys to help you stop the run. I know our pass defense will suffer; but what good is having the #1 pass defense when we have the #32 run defense? If by letting Nate walk, we can get a passable (no pun intended) CB and then shore up the DL. The end result lets say we're closer to a #15 ranked pass D (because Nate left), but we're also a #15 run D (because we used that money to pay a few extra guys). Would that be better? Would that not get us closer to the ultimate goal. I'd argue yes. Now that's a simplistic example, of course. But, my point I'm trying to make is that if Nate demands so much money that it lessens our ability to build a solid team around him; then its an easy decision. Until we build up our lines, it doesn't matter who the CB is. I completely agree, we should keep Nate if at all possible. But, we shouldn't keep Nata at all costs. Some costs are too high.

Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what Indy's players make. But you're telling me that Bob Sanders makes more than Peyton? That their DT makes more than Freeney? That Wayne makes more than Harrison? I'm not saying you don't pay your players big contracts. I'm saying there's a certain hierarchy just like all jobs, that you have to somewhat follow. If we make Nate our highest paid player - by far, I assure you JP and other players will eventually demand bigger contracts. I'm just suggesting we look at the bigger picture. As good as Nate may be, he can price himself right out of our plans if some team like the Redskins overpays for him.

Not sure I follow that one.

Assuming JP becomes a star next year... and JP locks down his left side allowing no sacks. My point is you're trying to build a team not just retain a group of players. Start paying players salaries out of proportion to their team mates and watch the team crumble.

I think we call it a Presser now.

If you give that to a CB this year, what do you give your QB next year? Your OT? Your star WR?

I agree, on the surface, Nate seems like a no-brainer. You have to keep him. But, we've seen nothing of Youbouty. The coaches have. If they've determined that he's 75% (just to make up some arbitrary number for arguments sake) as good as Nate; but he's millions less in money. They can take the money savings and sign a few Defensive linemen that'll slow the run. Hence although one position is a little weaker, the entire defense is stronger. It sounded like Marv stressed the OL, so I'm hopeful they'll target a few of those guys. So I'll reserve my critism for them not bringing in a good OG for a few weeks. I guess, I'm just trusting that Marv has a plan and until I see another off season of FA and drafting, its hard to say we're doomed yet. We may be, but other teams (most notably the Patriots) have a tradition of letting seemingly good players go, just to sign several other lower tier guys and remain competitive. Can we do that? I don't know, but that seems to be the approach.

And, believe me, I do thank you and the many others that have done everything possible to explain this concept. For the mathematically challenged, such as myself, I need all the help I can get. I'd still not say I completely understand. But, to me, it sounds like business as usual for Ralph and Marv. They're saying they'll not spend money foolishly. Hence, Nate and other FAs will not get bloated, over-sized contracts (not that they won't make them an offer). But, they'd rather bring in 3-4 guys rather than 1 guy. Personally, I find it hard to argue with that. I think the key to this approach is to decide which guys are worth that big money and which aren't. In some instances they guess right (Moulds), in others they get it wrong (Williams).

Agreed. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply no one is trying to (or actually does) understand what it means. I was referring to a few people that argue for the sake of arguing and have ignored all the attempts in this thread and others to explain what Marv was talking about.

Thank you. The problem here is some people want huge contracts given to big name free agents. However, they neglect the fact that Marv has said for years that that's not how he thinks you should build a team. Ralph, of course, supports this approach. So last year, despite everyone's thoughts to the contrary, the Bills were one of the more active clubs in Free Agency. Yet, we were destined to have the worst record in the league. And when that didn't happen, many of these same posters accused the team of doing more harm than good by winning. So, now, before any players are really signed or released; we're once again destined to have the worst record in the league because the Bills aren't signing all the big name free agents that they see on SportsCenter. Forget mortgaging the future, forget worrying about JP, JP and LE contracts a year or so from now, forget all acts of rationality. It's much easier and more fun to just call the ownership and managment of the team names and scream the sky is falling. Now we have a new axe to grind - cash to cap. Most have no idea what that even means; probably never evevn heard of it before the other day (like myself). Yet, rather than try to understand it; its just easier and more fun to assume Ralph is cheap and Marv is old, the sky is falling, and we'll have the worst record in the league all because Marv is spending "Cash to the Cap", whatever that means.

Yes, but we all have hope everyyear that the Redskins will assume their rightful place as Superbowl Champions and prove once and for all that Ralph is cheap and that's why we're not Superbowl champions. I wonder... does doing whatever it takes include sacrificing newborn babies on the alter of some obscure Pagan diety? Because I'd be down for that. Imagine that press conference... I'm sorry, presser. Marv chanting, JP holding the baby, Dick drinking the blood from a paper cup, fans calling Ralph cheap because he didn't spring for a gold trimmed goblet with rubies and diamonds in the base.

Come on guys... this game is the only true measure of conference strength and will undoubtedly and clearly illustrate that the AFC is better than the NFC.

Great to see the banner change! Love it.

Exactly. To those that are counting the days until Willis is gone, I wonder if they had similar counts before such horrible backs like Smith left, only to help NE win a Superbowl. And before Travis Henry left, only to wish he were abck after watching him tear up defenses this year. Or Rueben, only to see him help Chicago get to the Superbowl this year. Now we have posters degrading Thurman. I often doubt many fans will ever be happy with this team or its players. I imagine if we won the Superbowl, I'd get to see people here moaning how we played a sucky team therefore, it shouldn't count or some other such nonsense. Willis, for all his faults, is still a Bill and that should count for something. His Jersey is still a Bills jersey, and that should count for something.

I seriously question this statement, not the later part, but the first thought.... as a Bills fan... To call yourself a Bills fan and in the same breath implicitly degrade Thurman Thomas for getting into the HOF is confusing to say the least, troll-like even. I had a long list of reasons as to why you're wrong, but upon second thought I deleted them and decided it would be in vain and give you too much satisfaction, as I can only conclude that you posted such nonsense in an attempt to create a little drama in a less than gratifying existence. Shameful. That's all, just shameful. And I'll just leave it at that.

He could probably play WR at his current weight. Why trim down? Imagine that beast just start running and flattening the DB at the LOS, then cutting into a slant, only to have the LB pancake backwards as he barrels through him, catching the short pass and then rolling down the field with opposing defenders bouncing off him looking like fleas hoping off a dog treated with Frontline.

That's perhaps one of the more shameful things I've heard regarding Willis. Given this kind of idiocy, I wouldn't blame him for wanting to leave. I'd almost hope for it. It's one thing to have your abilities questioned, it's something completely different to be treated with absolutely zero respect and discontent. He may not be the greatest back, but he played a good portion of this season with broken ribs and a hurt ankle. If for no other reason, he deserves at least a modicum of every Bills fan's respect for that.