BuffaloRebound

I also think the reason we haven't signed a FA back yet is because Marv probably didn't promise them the Bills aren't taking a RB in Round 1. Doesn't mean it's definitely a RB in Round 1, but I would guess it is either a RB or LB with the 1st pick.

I also remember the 2004 end of the year Pittsburgh game debacle at the Ralph. I had seats right behind the Bills bench. The game was winding down and it was clear Pittsburgh was going to win. Jennings comes off the field in what he probably knew was his last game as a Bill and throws his helmet in disgust and dejectedly puts his hands over his face. McGahee comes over to console him like 'hey, it's alright man, no big deal'. Jennings wanted nothing to do with McGahee and could not be consoled. I know that was Willis's 1st full year, but that to me summed up his whole attitude. 'Hey, it's no big deal. I'll just keep doing my thing.' It might not be fair to expect the same passion out of players as Kelly had, but I know of no fanbase that is as passionate about winning as Bills fans, and rightly or wrongly McGahee didn't fit in here.

I never watched OJ play, but McGahee didn't show 10% the passion that Kelly showed on the field. People remember Kelly chasing down players who intercepted his passes 10 yards out of bounds. Even if he was partying every night, on Sundays Kelly was the ultra-competitor and he'd get in his teammates' faces when they missed assignments. Bills fans loved that. McGahee acted as if he didn't give a crap and the only time he ever showed any emotion was when he called himself the best RB in the NFL. Bills fans hated that.

Bottom line is he was a decent back who most definitely was not worth the hassle.

We also gave up a 1st for Bledsoe that same year, so all things considered, that washes with the Peerless move.

Brown and Dillon are being looked at as backups in my opinion. I could see Marv packaging picks to move up to the Redskins #6 pick if Peterson lasts.

Good short yardage and goal-to-go option. Would he be willing to play that role for the Bills?

I think he'd take something similar to what Henry got from Denver. He's not in a situation where he can be picky with the compensation San Diego is demanding. Otherwise he plays for $2m this year and risks injury and it is easy to be forgotten when you are not the featured back.

This would be a great strategy to acquire Turner if you don't have to surrender your original 1st and 3rd rounder. Get the Ravens 1st and 3rd rounders, give them our 2nd, 4th and McGahee and get Turner with the Ravens picks at the end of each round. Then the Bills still have their 1st and 3rd to get a LB and DT.

That represents a high 3rd rounder per the draft trade value chart. Have to figure the Bills think McGahee is worth at least that.

I agree. Marv's Super Bowl teams revolved around the talents of Thurman. He will not settle for an average back. I don't know if the trading McGahee posture is a ploy to light a fire under McGahee, but if he does get a 2nd rounder for him, it would not surprise me to see the Bills package some picks and players to move up and get Peterson.

I'd think a depth veteran RB once the price comes down near the vet minimum and perhaps a CB like Kiwaukee Thomas if not himself. If Spikes is cut/traded, then I think a LB will also be brought in. That leaves LB, DT, and RB on day 1 of the draft.

maybe this will calm some people down that we are just going after low priced guys.

McGahee's not worth all this hassle. If he wanted to get paid, he should've run hard every play. The only time he does hit the hole hard and break one, he ends up throwing up on the sidelines and sitting out the rest of the half. Despite having the talent to be a top notch back, McGahee is a joker and Marv knows it. Let Rosenhaus peddle his talents elsewhere and some other team can worry about whether he is coming to play that Sunday.

Maybe in cap room, but not in cash. Those cuts probably covered the RFA tenders and signings. I would guess the Bills have $20-25m left in free agent spending. The problem is who do you spend it on if not Clements?

Foster and Backus as their 2 tackles now, so no Joe Thomas? Maybe they do go with another top 10 WR.

But, but, but he only had 5.5 sacks. Don't you know that is the only stat that matters. Funny how everyone says the Bills overpaid for Kelsay, but Aaron Smith of Pittsburgh had basically the exact same season as Kelsay, is 3 years olders, and got a very similar contract yet no one says anything about that signing.

Marv seems to have a pretty clear plan on the type of player he wants. Guys who play hard every snap and get the most out of their abilities. Guys like Thurman, Tasker, and Talley seemed to be Marv's favorites and McGahee simply doesn't fit that mold. Throw in the reason that Marv's teams were so successful was due in large part to Thurman's versatility, and you can see why the Bills are looking to upgrade the RB position.

I don't know much about the Cover-2 defense and what type of DT's it requires, but to a non-expert like me, it would seem that this team needs a big dude to take up blockers and get a push. So maybe this is a blessing and Branch falls to us.

Link from Chris Brown blog. http://www.buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?blogger_id=1

If Fletcher is retained, I'd bet that Spikes is let go. I don't see both of them being back. Ellison and Crowell will be starting, so you can't pay both Spikes and Fletcher the money it will take to keep them.

If Ralph did that, then I would have less a problem with the 'Cash to Cap' concept. But he never would because we would be so far under the cap the next year that Ralph would have to pay more in cash to get to the cap. Under his 'Cash to Cap', he gets the benefit of not amortizing for cash purposes in the current year, then amortizing for cash purposes the next year.

This strategy can work if Losman ends up being a Pro Bowl level QB. It's not that the Bills are low-balling players, it's that they aren't targeting the upper-echelon guys. Guys like Royal, Triplett, and Peerless probably got more money from the Bills than they would have gotten elsewhere. The strategy is to basically draft your stars (and hold on to the ones that play key positions) and use free agency to replace lost free agents and add solid players. It places a huge priority on drafting well.

I think you pretty much nailed it. Kelsay (if his price tag doesn't escalate), a starting caliber CB to replace Clements, a starting caliber OG, a backup LB, perhaps another depth OG (if Gandy isn't retained) or depth DT in Free Agency. LB, DT, and RB would be my guess as the Day 1 picks. If Spikes is cut, then perhaps a starting caliber LB is targeted in Free Agency as well. But I don't see the Bills getting any huge names in free agency.

In an effort to make things clearer, here was my question to Chris Brown: "In response to your cash to cap explanation, I believe you left out the other side of the amortized bonuses that are hitting the cap in 2007, which I would guess amount to $20m or so. If the Bills are truly going to be using a cash to cap philosophy, that would add $20m to the $30m figure under the cap. If the Bills are truly committed to paying $105m or so in cash to players in 2007, they will have to spend $50m more. Also, is the cap floor (I believe 85.2% in 2007) at all a concern to the Bills front office?" Here's his response: "No the Bills have already factored those other amortized bonuses from previous years, and I didn't want to convolute the explanation. It's difficult enough as it is. Talking to Jim Overdorf, they are not concerned about meeting the minimum requirement for NFL teams to spend. And no they don't have to spend $50 million more. They are spending $30M at most this year and that's it. The best way to look at this is ignore the salary cap rules and amortized bonuses and everything and just know that when the Bills reach $30 million in base salary for 2007 and bonuses they will be done signing free agents. Hope that helps."