Dan

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.

For what its worth, for good or bad, I think the off season has gone exactly as Marv et al. have planned or expected. So yes, we may have lost all these guys, but has any of it really been a surprise? Has there been a single guy on the team or FA that Marv really seemed to want that we didn't keep/get? I don't think so. That tells me they must have some plan for addressing all these "loses" and we're steadily progressing along that plan. So, I won't panic or even worry about the current state of the team until I see no new signees or they trade all their draft picks just to move up in the 2008 draft. So, when's the draft? Late April? That's when I'll start to get worried and predict my doom and gloom.. oh no we're gonna go 0-16 this year. Until then I say let's be patient. Let's discuss the moves that are being made. Let's discuss whether or not we think they're good moves. But, let's just hold off on making predictions or saying we've had the worst off season.

I don't understand? What race is he? Further explanation is required, please.

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.