Dan

I'm not gonna complain about any attempt to bring in offensive linemen. The more the better.

And that's pretty much how I see it as well. However, if they don't bring in another FA then it tells me they think Youbouty is ready now. Either way, I see no sense in drafting a CB to replace Nate. How could a true rookie be better than Youbouty? (Unless, he really sucks wind big time.) So, if they see Youbouty as having that potential, all we need is a reasonably priced stop gap.

If we select a CB at #12 I, for one, will find that indefensible and look with genuine concern for the first time at Marv's GM performance.

I think we find out what the coaches think of Youbouty when/if Clements leaves. If they don't go after a FA CB or draft one high, then I think we have our answer - they see Youbouty as an adequate replacement for Clements. Until then, I agree, its a huge unknown.

And did Marv not take a fair amount of heat from some for letting Moulds go? Looks like a great move now. Imagine that.

Value.. value... we don't need no stinkin value!

OK. if he's the 53rd rated DE, what does (or will) his salary rate after all FAs have been signed? And then of course, you have to look at when those guys were signed. For ex, as many have mentioned, Schobel makes much less. However, Schobel signed a deal 2 years ago. There's little doubt he'd make considerably more than his current contract if he was a FA this spring. I understand what you're saying.. that you think we way overpaid. But, I'm not sure that's exactly the case. I haven't seen all the numbers on other players of his caliber. So, maybe the price of mustard has just gone up? I'm not sure I buy its the "talk of the league". I watch NFL Live on ESPN; I watch NFL Total Access like its a religion. I'm not even sure I've seen mention of it, let alone anything that would classify it as talk of the league. All the Bills talk I've seen has been in reference to McGahee and Clements, with Fletcher being a distant 3rd. So, I'd have to request some documentation on that one. And even if it is the talk of the league, why is that a bad thing? Maybe that's what we want, the whole league saying.. see if you go to Buffalo and play solid ball and keep your nose clean you too can get overpaid. I guess I just don't see that as necessarily a bad thing - to have the league talking about us because we signed a FA to a good contract.

Hopefully, not banned. But, I fully expect to be ignored.

The entire premise of this thread is absurd and I'm a lesser person for commenting on it, but I just can't read anymore without saying something... First we bash Marv and the Bills' Mgmt. because they're not spending any money and we're gonna lose all our FAs. None of the players want to be here and the organization is a mess. Willis must go.. why doesn't Marv do something. Now, Marv has re-signed Kelsay and did so by opening Ralph's wallet a little so Kelsay never even tested the Market - yet you say this is bad. We tender offers to 2 other guys - yet no congratulations. You immediately rush to the judgement that Kelsay is overpayed. Price is overpayed (talk about dragging out skeletons). It sounds like everyone Marv signs is overpayed, yet everyone that is released its because Marv's too cheap to pay them. So which is it? Is Marv cheap or a spend thrift? I know you'll want to say, he's just dumb and making bad decisisons. But, free agency hasn't even started, so Marv could very likely be attempting to keep other players like Clements here as we speak. And we've had no time to wait and see what other DEs earn on the open market. So, to make any inferences on Marv's decision this offseason is premature at best. Not that it matters, but what would be the suggestion regarding Kelsay. Offer him league minimum, piss him off, allow him to test the open market, re-enforce the notion that the Bills are cheap just so everyone can say see I told you so, getting in a bidding war with other teams, sign someone with more promise that doesn't know our system just to save a little money. What's the best move here? I, personally, thought resigning Kelsay was a great move.

That's exactly what I was suggesting. I just have this strange feeling that Marv and Jauron could easily look at the rookies being in their second year, so they should get better. Triplett started playing better as the season progressed, so he'll be better. Now we re-signed Kelsay and still have Schobel and Denney. Conclusion: the D-line is sufficient. However, to address the inability to stop the run; get a new LB or 2. I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking. I'm just saying, it seems totally plausible that Marv and the coaches could be thinking like this. Result: we pass on Okoye in the draft.

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.