Dan

Thanks. That's what I suspected and hoped.

I didn't really have time to read all the associated articles, but wanted to ask a quick question. (Just to me to shut up and read the articles if its a blatantly obivious question.) Are talking about health benefits and a retirement plan for the millionair players of recent or for the players of old (prior to the mega million dollar contracts)? Because, I gotta say, I'd have a problem thinking that some player today gets a $10-15 million dollar signing bonus, $4-6million per year, and then has the audacity to cry foul regarding no retirement plan or health plan. Hell even lower tier FAs like Price get a few million $ signing bonus. Is it too much to expect to expect them to put some of that away for retirement?

I think what's being lost on some posters is the concept of building a team. That means you have many players in different stages of development. If all of your players are at the same stage of their careers and development, i.e. you say we're close now so I want to bring in all FAs that can impact the team next year. Where does that leave you in 2-3 years? That, I think, is the strong suit of Okoye. He's young and just as Triplett or whoever is fading in 2 years, Okoye will be hitting his prime. You have to look at the big picture and select players in the draft and FA that fill the talent gaps next year as well as years from now. To select someone like Okoye would tell me that Marv et al. are comfortable with Triplet and McCargo next year (unless they bring in FAs as well), but more importantly it also tells me they're thinking of the future as well. That's why teams like the Pats are always in the playoffs and near a Superbowl, because they draft guys that will develop into players just in time to get rid of an aging or higher priced vet. They bring in just enough FAs to keep the team moving forward each year. You have to look at the long term and short term if you want to be successful and build something.

I see 2 principal problems with the argument that either (1) Witner was a bad pick at #8 because he's a safety and safeties shouldn't be selected that high or (2) Marv should have selected Ngata or some other player more appropriate at the #8 spot. Problem 1: If you have a player rated as your #1 choice, what difference does it make if you select him at #8 or #28? It seems like a reasonable strategy that you have the players rated that you want for your team and you select them if they're on the board. All this talk of trading down and the like is just that... talk. There's no guarantee that someone else won't pick your guy, so why not pick him as soon as you can. It seems to me the whole point of the draft is to select players that you think will help your team, if those players are available you should select them, regardless of projections and conventional draft "wisdom". Clearly, Marv et al, had Whitner rated high, hence they made the selection. Problem 2: Is it not conceivable that Marv et al. did not see DL or OL as our primary need in the draft? Just because we as fans or ESPN draft experts saw it that way, perhaps Marv et al. saw the free agents aquisitions along with our later round selections (which they would have known they were targeting) and thought that would be sufficient to solidify the lines. Regardless of how things may have turned out or what we fans think, Marv et at. may see things differently and if that's the case then why select Ngata at #8 if you think Triplet and Mcargo will be sufficicent? I guess my point is that Marv et al. seem to have gotten the player they wanted at #8 and there's no guarantee he would have been around had they traded down. If in a few years, Whitner is a complete bust and we're still not in the playoffs, then we can say they made a mistake. However, at this point in time, I think we can only conclude that Marv seems to have a plan for rebuilding this team and Whitner was a part of that plan. And, for myself, after 1 year I'd say the plan is on track. Let's just hope we continue to see progression in the coming year. With all that being said, I must say, I would have preferred nothing but linemen selected last year, and I'll go so far again. I hope we pick nothing but linemen i nthe draft. Until we fix the lines, I fear we'll be stuck in mediocrity. But, that's just my opinion, and I'm not employeed in an NFL front office for a reason (mostly because I haven't applied).

I saw the replay the other night and I agree, it was some pretty average clock management - at best. However, we should keep in mind that we had only 1 time out , plus the 2 minute warning. We got the ball on the 10 yard line; so we had a long way to go to get that field goal try. Finally, no one got out of bounds! They kept staying in bounds to get more yards, rather than run out of bounds and stop the clock.

Last year they picked DBs as well. Does that mean they'll pick all DBs in this year's draft? This year's draftees are different than last year's. Similarly, the team's needs are different. Hence, I think it safe to assume we'll see different pick strategy.

I'd have to completely agree with you. Re-signing Nate would be a great indicator that the Bills braintrust is serious about building a team to compete for the Superbowl. Marv has stated in the past that FA's are more valuable to their current team and do far less with a new team. So, lets see if he practices what he preaches and tries to keep Nate. Now I'll give Marv and Co. 2 possible outs. First, Nate may not want to be here. So, if Marv makes him a good and fair offer, but Nate still leaves, it'll be hard to fault Marv. Kind like with Moulds last year. Moulds wanted gone, and he left regardless of what we offered. Second, if the coaches have seen Yobouty in practice and fully think he can be a competent starter; then I'd expect they'll not try very hard to keep Nate. Both of those scenarios will be difficult for us as fans to judge. So, we'll just have to see how it plays out. As I see it, for this team to show that they're serious about making the playoffs next year they need to do 4 things: 1. Retain our top FAs 2. Draft/Sign FA DL 3. Draft/Sign FA OL 4. Draft/Sign FA LB In that order. Do that, and I'll feel comfortable that they at least see what our shortcomings are - regardless of the outcome. Draft/Sign WRs, RBs, DBs and we're stuck in mediocrity for several more years.

Not watching much college ball, I get most of my knowledge of college players and potential draft picks from this site. With that in mind, I've watched most of the Senior Bowl and I must say, if this Okoye kid is available at #12, we better pick him. Size or not, he just seems to know what to do out there. I know its based on 1 game, but taken in context with what others here have said, I think it's just a no brainer. He's a good player and its a position of need for us.

The Bills, perhaps not. But, the fella that writes those articles.... definitely. There have been numerous occasions I read one of his articles and think.. all he's doing is summarizing the top 3or 4 threads on TSW.

Wade Phillips was indeed mentioned. This morning on NFL Network, Adam said the Cowboys had been preparing an "exhaustive" list of possible candidates. Wade was certainly on the list, but he was by no means the only name on the list. He also mentioned the OK coach and a few other names I can't recall, but again reiterated, they'll be looking at all options and get who they want. So, at this point, I'd say the likely replacment is still very much up in the air.

I attribute that to being a rookie. As a whole most of the rookie's that played so well all season were less then stellar in the post season. Addai also took somewhat of a backseat in Indy, Colston missed big catches in Chicago, and so forth. I'm not saying they sucked, I'm just saying that they're rookies and they had rookie jitters in big games. That's to be expected. That's why relying on rookies to turn your team around and get you in the Superbowl is not the best plan.

Exactly, no way in hell you intentionally allow the score there. You do all you can to force the field goal try. A tie game with a chance for a last second field goal is hugely different from a 4pt game with a last second TD drive.

God, I hate doing this, but here goes.... The Probowl is by no means a measure of each conferences strength. It's well known that most plays (offensive and defensive) are watered down to prevent injury and most players are just out there to relax and have fun. When was the last time you saw an all out blitz in the Probowl? If you ever watch the game, it's blatantly obvious from player interviews and the like that the guys are just there having fun and not seriously trying to win. With that being said, the winners and losers over the last few years: 2006 - NFC 23 - AFC 17 2005 - AFC 38 - NFC 27 2004 - NFC 55 - AFC 52 2003 - AFC 45 - NFC 20 2002 - AFC 38 - NFC 30 2001 - AFC 38 - NFC 17 2000 - NFC 51 - AFC 31 So, if you take this decade as an arbitrary cut off, the record is AFC 4 wins, NFC 3 wins. So, how is the NFC superior based on Probowl wins? Clearly, they're not. The whole point of the Superbowl is to determine which conference is better. That's why they played the game in the beginning. It's a true playoff scenario with seeding and brackets, supposedly to get the best AFC team to play the best NFC team; and then ultimately they play each other to see which is best - AFC or NFC. So, to say the Superbowl doesn't matter is not undersanding what you're talking about. To say the Probowl, a game everyone involved with readily admits they don't play their best, is the only game that truly guages conference strength further illustrates a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject. OK... So that's all I have to say about that.

I agree. If you can't be happy for Manning and what he does AND how he does it, how can you be a fan of football. As long as he's not beating the Bills, I'm all for watching him win a Superbowl.

I'm totally with you on Montana. I'd take him over Brady any day. I'd even take Manning over Brady.

Seriously, man, Brady is already a lock for the HOF. He's a first ballot inductee. If you can't see that, your hatred for the Pats is taking control and you should have another beer and relax.

Exactly right. It worked, so it was a great call. But if Addai gets stuffed, Dungy is forever second guessed for taking the ball out of Peyton's hand with the game on the line. But, then again, maybe it worked so well because the Pats were thinking the same thing. No way they hand off again. Definitely a chess match!

Now that would be some horrendous sized balls to run it again on 4th down. No way I could do that. I liked the run on 1st and 2nd down, but then I'd have faked and passed on 3rd. And kicked the FG, if it came to a 4th down. But, again, maybe that's why I'm not a coach.

I agree. I was screaming for a pass and said a run would be next to giving up and playing for over time. Right then, Addai runs right in and scores. I quickly got quiet, and said... well, that's why I'm not an NFL coach. But, you're right. If he's stuffed. Then what... you have to kick the fieldgoal.

Well we do have a QB named after a Pope. That's gotta be good for something, right?

Colt Defense, has to do something.

Colts got away with a noncall there!

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

Ithink he held on to it, but I'm not sure about is feet being OOB. Just too close.

I gotta say... one hell of a catch.