Dan

That... is something that I don't think should be quickly dismissed. How often do people here ask why a FA would want to come to Buffalo? Or question how much extra we'd have to pay to get a high profile FA? Yet this year, alone, Marv brought in one of the top FA guards on day one and re-signed Kelsay. I think you have to factor into that, that the players like playing for a team that respects its players. Sure, Marv could have franchised Nate again. But does he not make that promise, a year ago, you have a disgruntled player and agent that bad mouth the Bills to every player that listens. The bottom line is Nate wanted to test the market and for good reason. I'd suggest Marv knew that and Marv probably knew they'd be unable or unwilling to match any offers. As was suggested, Marv got another year out of Nate. So why push it for two when you know the guy wants to leave? I agree, we could have tagged Nate again and gotten some compensation. However, look at the bigger picture. What would we have really gotten? Another pick in a weak draft along with more player negativity. By making the moves Marv did, we got Nate for an extra year (theoretically giving someone like Youbouty time to acclimate) and we gained the respect of players in the league. The thing about Marv is.... he leads by example. He wants character players. So he displays character himself. Look at the TKO situation as yet another example. That could have gotten ugly in the press, but both sides appeared to win and both sides are wishing well of each other. I would argue that one of TDs biggest flaws was this apparent lack of character in player dealings. Sure he was shrewd in his dealings and made some great moves, ala Travis and Peerless. But in the end, so what? None of that shrewdness got us any closer to the playoffs. I'm more than eager to gives Marv's approach a try. If after another 2 years or so, we're still no closer to the playoffs then I'll be the first to say lets try something else... Marv failed. But, for now, Marv seems to have turned the attitude at OBD around. And that is arguably the first and most difficult step to turning a team around. Now, we have to see if the players and coaches he's bringing in can in deed begin winning the games.

Don't all these mocks change every other day? That's why I always say if you don't like a certain mock draft... wait a day and it'll change. So which one do you finally judge as right/wrong? The last one just before the draft? I think the only healthy way to look at any of these mocks is as a starting point for discussion. None of them seem very accurate in the end. It's entertaining discussion to help us football junkies get through another month of offseason, that's all.

Of course it's just that simple. It's kinda like trading up or down in the draft. You determine you want to move up/down, snap your fingers, get or give a few extra picks and presto magic you just moved up/down. Re-signing players or getting free agents is just as easy. I know its so because I can do that sort of thing on Madden all the time. Note: I really have no idea what its like in Madden. I've never played it. But it seems to be the gauge by which all transactions are judged. So I thought the reference appropriate.

Just a quick and dirty run through on www.nfl.com/draft looking back to 1982 and here's what I came up with regarding "stars". Not just successful because who the heck can remember if all these guys were long term starters and if they were good starters. Certainly there's plenty of good starters in the top 50 of each year, but I believe the first fella asked about stars. So, I used my highly subject filter... have I heard about them and did they make some significant contribution (that I know of) to their team or teams. For example, in 1984, I know Gregg Bell was a good player but a star?? So, guys like that weren't counted. Boomer however I did count from 84. So you get the idea - completely subjective BS, but something to do to keep me from working. 1982 - 2 1983 - 12 (one hell of a draft all around) 1984 - 4 1985 - 7 1986 - 5 1987 - 6 1988 - 9 (still hard to believe Turman went at #40) 1989 - 8 1990 - 4 1991 - 7 (Favre goes at #33) 1992 - 6 1993 - 5 1994 - 7 1995 - 6 1996 - 9 1997 - 7 1998 - 5 1999 - 10 2000 - 5 2001 - 10 2002 - 5 2003 - 4 2004 - 5 2005 - 0 (still too early to tell in my mind) 2006 - 2 (still too early, but I counted Reggie Bush and Vince Young, just because they seem destined for stardom) So if we take the top 50 from 1982-2004; we have 1,150 players and 148 "stars" or 12.9% of the picks (If I did all the math correctly). So what can we deduce from my lack of doing work and BS statistics... the great "star" picks are few and far between and its amazing how many early rounders that are talked up to be the next great thing, really aren't. Obviously, there are alot of great starters in there, but not many super stars. Makes you appreciate the few we've had and the difficulty in finding the next ones. Given that judging talent seems so difficult and its not always the top few picks that are the best players in a draft, I'd conclude that quantity is the way to go with the draft. I'm not suggesting trade out of the first round (it certainly seems more "star" players a drafted in the first round), but I would be against giving up picks just to move up a few spots to get a player that has a 10-15% chance of being the next Thurman.

Why not just trade all of this year's draft picks for the number 1 spot this year, then we can win the Superbowl a year early? It's alot easier and quicker than waiting a whole year and finding ways to lose games just to get the number one pick in 2008.

Sept. 9 DENVER BRONCOS - WIN Sept. 16 @ Pittsburgh Steelers - WIN Sept. 23 @ New England Patriots - LOSS Sept. 30 NEW YORK JETS - WIN Oct. 8 DALLAS COWBOYS - LOSS Oct. 21 BALTIMORE RAVENS - LOSS Oct. 28 @ New York Jets - WIN Nov. 4 CINCINNATI BENGALS - WIN Nov. 11 @ Miami Dolphins - WIN Nov. 18 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - WIN Nov. 25 @ Jacksonville Jaguars - LOSS Dec. 2 @ Washington Redskins - WIN Dec. 9 MIAMI DOLPHINS - WIN Dec. 16 @ Cleveland Browns - WIN Dec. 23 NEW YORK GIANTS - LOSS Dec. 30 @ Philadelphia Eagles -LOSS 10-6

Well said and completely accurate. I think the idea of pondering are we better or worse ...at this point.. is a little like turning a game off because someone ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown. Sure, the one team is at a disadvantage and you could only conclude that they now ...at that point... have a decreased chance of winning the game. However, we all know there's a lot of game left so we watch the rest. Certainly, at this point we're worse off because even if all these guys we picked up are great; they don't know the playbook yet. So, put them in a game and we'd look miserable. But its a long offseason. We still have players to acquire and release. The existing players have a chance to improve. In short, there's still plenty of time left for the Bills to become a better team in 2007. Patience is not a four letter word.

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.