Pyrite Gal

I still think the Bills are lacking depth at MLB as last year I think our plan was that if Fletch got hurt or needed a blow during a game you then went to Crowell or in a pinch since Crowell went on IR you then went with DiGregorio. I do not see DiGregorio as our definite plan B particularly since Crowell though 100% according to the scuttlebutt is coming back from injury. I think we still look for some tier 2 or vet MLB as a back-up.

I say no because there are a bunch of working parts to having a winning team that it is not a real way to consider this looking merely at the day you happen to plug in one part of the end result being the same day as when you officially unplug another part of the system. Nate being part of how the 07 team was essentially unplugged when the Bills decided last year that it was quite unlikely that market cost of what even a very good CB could provide the Bills was not going to be worth the cost of franchising him for 07 and certainly not the likely market cost of signing him. Thus they agreed verbally not to tag him in 07 in order to both curry good favor with the players as a reliable partner and to get assurances from NC he would not throw a hissy fit last year. Though NC was judged not likely to be worth the market value it would take to get his services, the Bills still need to have a CB, this part of the equation is likely not yet completed unless Youbouty who developed enough trust among the coaches that they gave him a start last year proves to be the guy. IMHO the Bills can still use a second tier CB to compete with Youbouty for the role in our Hybrid Cover 2 of playing CB well enough to make it work. While certainly NC is a much better CB than Youbouty or a player like Thomas or a Harper, it seems quite clear that Cover 2 is not the highest and best scheme for NC and that the Bills can be a much better team allocating his cap hit to players on the OL and DL to run and stop the run rather than using it to pay NC a huge amount of money to not be used like a playmaker.

This argument is made by folks who live under the illusion that if we had merely chosen to tag this player we simply could have traded this player and gotten some compensation for losing them. TD spoiled folks with the manner he utilized to tag Peerless and get a 1st rounder for him that this move is somehow the norm rather than a relative rarity which he creatively used in this case to foster a trade and it is rare that these or other factors converge in the real world to make such compensation a reality or even a possibility. In general, I think it is the case that when a team makes a judgment that there is no way they are going to pay the likely market value a player would get in a contract or that they do not believe a player is going to be worth the cost of the tag amount, the intelligent move for them is simply not to resign him and wish him well in playing the free market. While some argue that this is a business and players must accept that a team will operate in a business like manner, this is true. However, it is not operating in a business-like manner if the team merely tags a player and then rescinds the tag at the last minute and throws the player out into the free market with the market greatly constrained by teams having already filled positions or used their cap room to sign available FAs. Rather than operating like a reputable business, such a move would correctly be viewed as mercenary gamesmanship and not only would correctly get the team labled as a bad partner and hurt them with future FAs, but if they were too obvious or left too much of a paper trail would likely be subjected to NFL or possibly judicial punishment for their gamesmanship. Once the Bills made a judgment that NC would likely require anything approaching the contract he actually signed and that even a very good CB was not worth that kind of money to us running our version of the Cover 2, then the Bills gave up nothing by agreeing not franchise him this year in exchange for him not throwing a hissy fit last off-season. We actually gave up nothing in exchange for him doing what he was supposed to do (follow the CBA which gave the Bills the right to not extend him for what it would have taken to get him to agree to an extension) anyway.

Take into account though that unless NC has half a brain he knew where the market was headed also. If I am Nate, I see the benefit of signing with the Bills as being that they would give me a bird in the hand of resigning with them last year so I can not risk injury, but my sense is that I am already sitting there with the average pf the top 5 CB salaries in my pocket for merely making the roster next year. I will refuse to sign a contract with the Bills unless they are talking about giving me a huge bonus (at least $12 million and probably $16 million) merely to get me to resign prior to last season and this is with me coming off of a horrendous year in 2005. A lot of this comes down to a personal judgment about how risk averse NC is. Quite frankly given that personal confidence is not something NC ("the playmaker") has ever seemed to lack I doubt there is any contract the Bills could reasonably offer which would have induced him to pass up a chance at the big contract he just signed. NC made it clear that he considered himself worthy of being the highest paid CB in the league and I doubt that the horrible year he had in 2005 did much to change his mind about that and the contract he just signed even playing in a Cover 2 which does not allow the CB to shine (as noted by Dre Bly's complaints about wanting out of the Detroit Cover 2 and as shown by London Fletcher beating out NC for the INT lead on the BillsI indicates to me that it is quite doubtful that the Bills could have offered NC much less than the huge contract he just signed in order to sign him last off-season. Those who argue that our management erred in not signing him last off-season simply seem to assume that NC would have agreed to a deal and the proof is in the pudding now that SF rolled the armored car up to NC's house that Clements would have been foolish to sign any deal the Bills were capable of offering under the 2006 salary cap.

While all of this is a fantasy, it easily is smarter than the trade "proposals" made by some which do not include any specific name suggestions or which success that we get any real value in 2007 in trading our starting RB for the mere promise of a draft choice. It certainly is true that RBs who prove good enough to start are found seemingly every year even on the second day of the draft, but this is simply a different thing than stating that it is likely at all that even a 1st round draft pick will clearly be a starting talent for the Bills. The experience simply is that it is a high-stakes gamble which is unlikely to succeed for us to bank on getting a starting RB from the draft even if we acquire a 1st rounder for WM and in fact, even teams which have a clear need and a desire for WM to fill it start off the bidding with an offer of a 2nd day pick and if we are good and tough we MIGHT be able to hold out for a 3rd round choice. The simple likelyhood is that if we trade WM for a mere draft choice it may be a good deal for those more interested in fantasy football and Madden than in the the actual NFL game, but in the real world it essentially is making FA Anthony Thomas who has NEVER started more than 13 games in an NFL season our #1 and who last gained even 1000 yards in a season back in 2003 as our starter. Any trade of WM which does not give the Bills a player who has started 16 games previously in the NFL and has gained over 1000 yards in a season recently is simply a risky propostion. In fact, if I was JP Losman and almost guaranteed that any rookie EVEN IF he turns out to be a fabulous runner is going to spend his first year whiffing a few times on blitz pick-up and just as JP seems to be coming into his own depending on a rookie to be our RB starter virtually guarantees that JP will be running for his life a few times. I'd be pissed of they traded WM for even a first rounder without getting me a vet who can be expected to play the game on 3rd down.

I really doubt this is the case.The MLB role is a critical one in the hybrid Cover 2 we run where the MLB is simply called upon to both play run plays with DT like aggression and effectiveness filling the gap but also play passes with the fleetness and nimbleness of a safety. It will be great if our MLB is good enough to tackle well at the LOS (I think Willis has shown he can), do great pass coverage (Willis has shown in the combine he has the speed but given his struggles in the senior bowl with pass coverage, there is a pretty open question how long it will take him to convert this great raw speed into even adequate coverage) and most of all this rookie will need to read plays like a vet not to get fooled by opposing OCs and vets into taking a first step forward when actually it is a disguised pass play or take a first step back when actually it is a disguised run play. If we have to go with a rookie as our MLB starter, I think he will eventually learn if the player is Willis and he likely (the luck of injuries allowing) be our starting MLB for years. However, it strikes me as little more than whistling in the dark not to realize that our MLBs likely take a step back in productivity initially while Willis learns to be a vet playing MLB for us. Perhaps, if he was a top 10 rated talent we could at least hope he can produce immediately as our starting MLB, but according to some pundits we might even be able to trade down into the 30s and still get Willis so I have yet to see a case made beyond hopeful and wishful thinking that next year is likely more than a potentially painful learning curve for us while opposing OCs debate which of several options will they choose from as the attempt to undress a rookie MLB in our Cover 2.

The Bills have seemed to make two clear statements with the FA moves: 1. The OL is a priority (and big time given the scratch given to Dockery and Walker). 2. They have decided to build the OL through FA as the lead mechanism rather than the draft. In the big picture this seems like a good thing to see because it simply is a real world validation of the approach Marv and the Bills have been talking about since Marv got here. A. Marv has always said things start with running and stopping the run and though they did not implement this priority immediately as the chose an SS to fill that hole with their #8, they did spend resources to trade up to the 1st in order to get the DT they wanted and in fact drated 2 DTs last year. B. Having focused on the D last year, they made their major FA expenditure on the OL this time and were unwilling to lock up resources on a CB and complained about not getting enough attacking run pursuit as a reason they likely did not spend to keep Fletch. Its nice to see them walk their talk a little bit with spending which reflects improving in the trenches. In the smaller picture, I am quite happy to see them reject reliance on the draft as the main mechanism for rebuilding the OL. Though in a perfect world I agree with theory espouse by some that drafting OL players is the way to go for rebuilding the OL, the world ain't perfect. Perhaps if we had a top 10 pick like the Jets last year, one can pick a D'Brick and then roll the dice in the draft crapshoot for a late 1st like Mangold one can make it work, but this really was a low chance gamble that worked out and is not a strategy I would have endorsed as having much of a chance of working (you got to hand it to NYJ for it working out well for them last year, but particularly since even a #8 was not a high enough pick to get a D'Brick a draft OL strategy would have been even a larger crapshoot for us. Instead, I am pleased to see us attempting to replicate the strategy which JMac implemented well for NYG in 2001 where he built a line capable of making the SB using FA as its base. The really good news is that this effort actually represents a better set of talent than the NYG JMac crew as it really utilized moderate amd lower grade FAs like Glenn Parker and Dusty Z while both in terms of hitting their prime pick-ups like Dockery and a base relying on UDFA acquired prospects like Peters, we may be using FA to acquire an OL which will last a few year. JMac has used FA to get lead talents with some good prospects and used our draft to get some good potential back-ups and I am psyched.

I disagree as it just is not the norm at all for teams to tag and trade their FAs. If so, then simply name all these players out there that were tagged by their teams and then traded to get some compensation. I think TD spoiled many of the fans here by the great job he pulled off in getting a 1st for PP back in 02 such that folks seem to think this is the baseline expectation for our FAs. Mope, this case has some rare circumstances (in particular AT owner Arthur Blanks shooting his mouth off in essence guaranteeing to his fans and most important to Michael Vick that he was going to acquire the top available WR (namely PP) and once that was done the deal was set, I think that the Bills could see that there was no way they would be willing to pay the likely top 5 salary average for Clements if they were to tag him this year and that the Bills gave up little in agreeing to foster peace this year with NC in exchange for promising not to do something it made little sense for us to do anyway.

I agree that PP was not providing us with what we wanted from our #2, but I think that the total number of catches he made, some nice toe work by him in a couple of episodes of his work, and the hints of some remaining good speed he showed uin pre-season last year indicates to me that while he did not produce the superior #2 we want from a #2, his production was adequate for a #2 WR in the NFL. When I look to actually improving our output so that we get the production we want, I do not think this likely only will occur if we get better talent, but in fact I think the best way to improve this is for Fairchild to do a better job running the O. The primary problem I see with PP is that he was miscast and miaused as a possession WR as this is far from the highest and best use of his talents. I'm not arguing that he was great because he isn't but Fairchild did not employ him in a manner where he plays his best game not in a manner that I think would have been best for the bills O. I appreciate that he felt he needed to bring JP along slowly but I think it simply meant that the score was tighter in loses to folks like Indy but we still lost.

Losing Fletcher is a much tougher hole to fill for the Bills than losing Clements. Folks are often confused on this point because Clements is obviously a much better player all things being equal than F-B is. The issue though is that the hybrid Cover 2 we run demands so much more of the MLB (who must both tackle like a DT on running plays and play the pass like a safety) meanwhile in the Cover 2 the way we run it tbe CB does not have to run with the WR but release him to the safeties or MLB after 12-15 yards. Part of the reason why Marv correctly was willing to guarantee to Clements he would not tag him this off-season was that there was simply no way we would rationally commit so much of our cap room to a CB

I think you have to take into account timing and scheme. These two realities bring to bear that in our Cover 2 the MLB is called upon to play pass plays like a safety and run plays like a DT and diagnose plays so that he does not often take a step in on pass plays or out on run plays and even though there is a priority need for this position, can a rookie play the role adequately. In addition, the CB in the Cover 2 is not expected consistently to be a lock down CB as he is expected to let the WR go after 10-15 yards to the Ss and MLB who are playing deep cover, This actually lessens the demands on the CB and calls into question whether you dedicate a 1st round choice to a CB. Timing is a key because if one has to simply accept the fact a team iT not gonna make the playoffs next year then it becomes more reasonable to suffer through the learning process of suffering through a rookie as your MLB. However, if you want to win now and not sacrifice a game or two to your MLB getting fooled, then you would likely never draft an MLB starter unless he were a very special talent (I do not think that anyone even if they agree with me that Willis would settle out MLB needs in 2008 and out that he is a top 10 draft talent. I think you are right that MLB is a primary need for this Bills team but I strongly doubt we will take the best MLB talent unless he were a top 10 player.

I think a football discussion is advanced by the perspecg\tive you provide here and by Badol's comments up above that purport that Fletcher was the centerpeice of the Jauron/Fewell hybrid Cover 2. I think you correctly observe that it actually will be Fletcher whom it will be more difficult to replace in making our D work and this can be seen in the objective D stats produced in 06 by our D as well as lookinh at whom we have on our roster and who can be acquired frm FAs and the draft at the MLB and CB positions. I am quite curious to understand why Badol would say that Clements was central to our D's performance last year. If numbers of tackles credted to a player (particully unassisted tackles) are a central indicator of D performance and INTS are an indicator of pass protection performance then I think there is no question that F-B was far more central to the Bills D work last year than Fletcher. Not only was Fletcher more involved n the central accomplishment of easily leading this team i tackles as he was called upon to be a key in our run stopping efforts (as an LB should and as an Mlb he had heavy responisibility on plays to either side while Clements had primary responsibity on plays to his side of the field, but Fletch actually had more INTs for the Bills than "playmaker " Clements. In replacing these two players, the Bills MLB must play like a safety on pass plays and play like a DT on run plays and have enough NFL eperience (this is why it is likely to be painful for us for quite a while if we choose to rely on a rookie to start for us at MLB) to diagnose plays quickly and not be fooled by an opposing OC trying to fool him, On the other hand, our CBis actually required to do press coverage and let WRs go after 10-15 yards. Doing good press coverage in the NFL ain't easy, but actualy it is gonna be easier to find an FA like Harper or even Kiwaukee Thomas to do a lesser but still likely adequate job of filling in for NC than the diverse difficult role called for of Fletch last year. Clements is a very good player whom I think will likely once again deserve a Pro Bowl berth assuming the 49ers play a D which utilizes his skills fully (which the Bills Cover 2 does not and I can see why the Bills agreed not to franchise him this year because he simply is not worth the franchiise cap hit of the average of the top 5 CB salaries to a Cover 2 team). NC is a very good player and it was a good move to let him go if we are running the Cover 2

I think that the motivation situation is the reverse of the way you describe it. If he wants to make the big bucks in getting out of here then this should motivate him to play well in his contract year.

I certainly wouldn't call the TSW crowd "average" Bills fans since many of us care enough about this team to spend way too much time even for a psychotic fan on the internet talking about and reading about our team. In addition, the TSW crowd though sharing devotion and interest in the Bills in common cannot really be typified or summarized as having the same views, perspective, or approach toward our shared addiction. It actually does not take all that much patience to deal with many of the most strident arguments on TSW since they often share the same failing as much internet commentary in that people take such extreme positions many of the points are simply laughable. For example, it is simply contradictory for folks to argue both that WM is clearly worthless and we should trade him for a first day pick and draft and RB whom they immediately expect to step in as a starter. It totally ignores reality for one to claim he has done nothing here when he actually is disappointing so many folks by raising their expectations with his very good performance in his first season and a half as a Bill. When one adds into this the reality that he pulled off his initial performance after suffering compound tears in his knee that many were figuring his career was over after his final college game. When the injury is factored in his initial performance was really nothing short of phenomenal. Folks who ignore this reality and claim he has done nothing simply paint themselves as not being credible at all.

If what you maintain is true (which it easily may be) then perhaps Willis struggle with pass coverage in the Senior Bowl are even bigger indictment against his play since clearly he was having trouble against these "thrown together" players.

Hysteria is the right word as shown by you providing some detailed commentary about specific tape references and the reply is merely check different tape. I for one think Willis is going to be a great player eventually, my question is whether the braintrust will judge they can afford the step back in MLB performance we will almost certainly get when a rookie takes over at MLB for a player who led NFL LBs in INTs mostly because he has had a decade of seeing NFL plays called and developed and he makes reads based on that. If you want an example of the role good reads play in the coverage game then those who have tape can look to the Ravens game about 10 minutes into the game where F-B read the McNair pass perfectly and played the MLB Cover 2 role perfectly as he played pass coverage all the way on what generally is a running down and distance (1st and ten in Balt territory) if he had pinched in and played the run then likely its a pass completion on 1st down and the Ravens are off to the races on this drive. Folks for some reason seem to be acting as if F-B makes initial hits too far into our backfield because of his poor play. There is little consistent evidence of this though. Actually he may well initiate hits belatedly but for the most part I think if this is so this is how the Jauron/Gewell Cover 2 works where our MLB is required to play far more like a safety than like a DT. If opponents run similar plays to this one we either will see Willis do what he is asked and he too will make hits downfield (likely leading to a series of whines that we chose the wrong LB) or he will actually play to plug the hole and of this play a WR like intended receiver Derrick Mason will make the catch as our MLB read a run based on down and distance and the Ravens start the drive with a big gain. For those who advocate taking Willis to start at MLB there is actually a fairly clear debate being waged by some who argue against it. Some argue that his Senior Bowl outing shows him struggling in pass coverage against the best college talent running pro style plays (the call for folks to watch film of his college career is no good answer to this observation because his college career was against general college talent but the difference in the Senior Bowl may well be this is his performance against THE BEST college talent and also running pro style plays as the Senior Bowl coaching staff is made up of pro coaches. Those who argue for selecting Willis at #12 have bit yet delivered a good answer to the inquiring minds who question whether he is the right pick. The other argument which is actually a new one to me is that in the Senior Bowl he had trouble shedding blockers. I don't know about this as I do not have Senior Bowl tape. As a Butkus trophy winner as the best college LB with a rep as a great tackler, I have my doubts about this complaint, but certainly his struggles in coverage against the best college talent is real and essentially unrebutted besides folks saying they like him so maybe he also has blocker issues, I will be looking for some substantiated reactions to rebut this point. Still there is another general point which will leave me a bit disappointed and thinking we are writing off 07 as yet another development year if we draft Willis to start at MLB. The basic point (which it likely will be amusing if any draft Willis advocates take it on) is that rookies are not vets. Just as we saw in game tapes such as the very nice INT which F-B rung up against the Ravens, in our Cover 2, the MLB is required to do the way we run the D. Like it or not despite Willis being a good player and likely the answer to our MLB needs for future years, it is simply the case that a rookie who is asked to play a very complex D position where some plays he must tackle like a DT and some plays he must cover like a safety is going to have to go through some type of learning curve with this position. If we get lucky and he is very talented this will almost certainly still mean a fall off in MLB production levels from the F-B play which has dissatisfied some. If we are not lucky and fall prey to opposing OCs who are likely licking their chops facing any rookie starting at MLB in a Cover 2 a season with Willlis at starting MLB may well be quite painful. I'm not arguing that he is a bad player, i think he is a very good player, I am arguing he is a rookie and particularly in parts of the game which depend on much more than how you react and even much more than simply being book bright, it will probably be painful watching him get schooled by vets.

What a disaster for us if it turns out that WM is such a cancer to his teammates we need to trade him or we panic because some fans are whining about his non-football comments. If in fact we have to spend our 1st to get a player capable of being a #1 NFL RB (something WM is clearly capable of even if he is not capable of being more than an average NFL RB) then we are not going to be able to use the 1st pick to improve this team in the trenches either defensively (either Branch or Okoye should be there at 12 if the other gets taken (or the best G available). If WM is in fact a cancer on the field to his teammates then by all means get rid of him, but if not we have bigger needs to produce a winner and I think we are a better team either if WM is motivated by his FA year to produce more like his first season and a half as a Bill or if he does not and we simply have an an average RB behind an improved OL or in tighter games because of our improved DL. Who WM sleeps with and his crack financial advice may be of import to some fans, but I think if this team passes on maximum improvement in the trenches merely to get an RB loved more by fans we likely get worse. I know even if we get a potential stud RB like Lynch I do not look forward at all to the likely one or two ugly scenes that come with a talented rookie RB where he whiffs on a couple of blitz pick-ups (as virtually all rookies do) and prayer and running for his life is about all standing between JP and the end of our season. If our starting RB comes from the draft woe to all of us.

I think that any attempt to build an analogy for how the NFL should work based on how other businesses deal with their employees needs to understand, acknowledge and incorporate into this analysis some issues which make the NFL quite different from normal "employers". 1. Unlike other businesses, the employers and the employees are really partners in producing the product which they sell since the dispute in the mid-80s when the owners kicked the tail of the Ed Garvey led union. When the NFLPA under the far more successful leadership of Gene Upshaw threatened to decertify themselves and force the owners into a truer free-market, the owners ran kicking and screaming away from combative business practices to what clearly is far more profitable cooperative business practices. This has a real world effect on issues like the NC franchising as there is actually real value to the Bills not developing a reputation for lying to a member of the trade association of their partners. Once the Bills gave their word not to tag NC in 07 it mattered little how well he played as if he was gonna test the market it would have been a stupid business practice for the Bills to renege on their word and tag him. 2. It is quite arguable that not only are these two parties partners, but actually the NFLPA is the majority partner in this duo as they receive by far the majority of total of the gross revenues. While the teams are certainly the titular owners, once the practical aspects that an NFL starting player and particularly a first day draftee with his slotted contract and salary is really set for life (unless he is a simpleton like Travis Henry) he is now only a partner as a group but really an empowered partner individually, This has a real world impact that really once he has raked in the millions a 1st rounder gets from his first contract, if he chooses to test the market or even flat out leave if he wants, the player can do this. Though a hold out is silly financially in most cases (for example between his agent historically having clients who report and also after a disappointing season he would hurt himself a lot by holding out there is little or no danger of WM holding out on the Bills even though many posters were stating this certainly would happen as though it was a certainty). The real world effect of this is that even if someone assets the Bills should sign NC for whatever the market says he will get this wish does not guarantee he would sign even if BAGOL who whoever wants to make it so. Is there any amount of # that BADOL or others who argue for signing him think is too much (I would guess the numeric method he has offered would generate that number. However, do not be shocked if NC actually signs with someone else for more than that # and if so then he is gone anyway. Perhaps they want to argue that the answer to that is that he should have been signed prior to this season when likely he could have been had cheaper. Yet, the answer to that question is first this puts the control in NC's hands and this does not sound like a winning or good strategy for the Bills. it also raises the 3rd difference. 3, There are few (if any) other businesses which operate within an agreement to cooperate not simply with the union but also between teams as they set policy so that in theory anyone of the teams can win, Thus, the key decision regarding NC was when he decided to take matters into his own control by demanding to still get the top contract for any corner even though his performance was substandard in 2005. The Bills either could take a huge risk and show him a big chunk of change this past off-season after he had failed miserably to produce in a contract year, or they could do something innovative which they did. They tagged him as the CB salary was quite affordable and also brought in Kiwaukee Thomas just in case he stuggled in 06 like he did in 05. Marv made a good decision by essentially buying NC's service for one year with the tag and his cooperation (which the Bills were owed under the agreement, but this player looked out for himself rather than playing by the mutually agreed upon CBA. I really would have been bad football to pay him off big time after he had a bad season and once he decided to have things in a manner which guranteed him freedom to test the market Marv bought a year of peace to better implement the new system andalso to give Youbouty more training. All in all, I think the Bills did what they had to do and given the limits of the CB role in the cover 2, I think also in this case the right thing for giving us a chance to produce more Ws is actually the same thing whih is to let him go.

IMHO, McGee sucked so bad he needed to be benched not because he was overmatched by opposing WRs (Roy Williams being the exception but after it became clear McGee could not handle him they put NC on him and unfortunately our lockdown CB really could not handle him either that game) but because he did not seem to get what he should be doing in the Cover 2 at first. In particular he was making bad reads in terms of both what the WR was gonna do and in terms what our rookie safeties were doing and made some obvious bad choices several times and they benched him to giv him time to think about what he was doing. The good news is that he seemed to solve these problems and produce much better in the final 8 games. He still needs to prove that his play all next season will be like that in his final 8 games, but he certainly showed he can do it and it is not irrational to think he can do it it.

Agreed that there seems to be no alternative, and unfortunately this also seems to include Willis as an alternative to start at MLB in out cover 2. I do agree with those who maintain that he likely would solidify the MLB slot for years, however, the likelihood is that it will take what is likely to be a painful number of starts for this player until he learns how to be a vet NFL LB. If we get lucky he probably only costs us a couple of scores before he learns to read plays well enough not to be fooled into taking a step back to play the cover role of our MLB and the cagey OC has actually called a run up the middle or he takes a step forward on what looks like a run play only to have a speedy WR run a post pattern into his spot. If we happen to be well ahead or the game is an obvious loss for other reasons, these learning experiences will not be critical. However, I suspect opposing OCs will be salivating at the chance to face a rookie starting MLB who is playing the Cover 2 and the learning curve necessary unless someone wants to provide some objective indication that this rookie will play like a vet (ex. is there any indication that he play a lot of zone pass coverage in college, is there some indication that he had a bad hair day or some other factor that led to his pass coverage struggles in the Senior Bowl, was his father a coach and he grew up watching pro plays all his life, something, anything). With him starting we do not even go into exactly who and how the Bills are going to call plays with Fletch gone (second year players Simpson and Whitner or Crowell takes the job and practices his yelling so he calls plays across the field). Willis at MLB probably pays off down the line but get set for another long year as we he for the future.

Done very little? What team are you watching? Granted his play has been quite disappointing to almost all Bills fans for the last season and a half, but the fact simply is that he was the fastest Bill ever to gain 2,000 yards rushing. Particularly given that this list of everybody else marks a pretty phenomenal achievement for any young running back. This simple factoid obviously does not make him the best Bills RB ever in his first two years as the list does include some better all-around backs like Thurman, but the speed of this achievement simply renders a statement that he has done nothing since he got here as silly.

I think the rants about WM as assessments of Marv are fairly forgettable right now until something real actually happens. Its fine that folks post on it but if the poster gives any relevance to reality they should also note this is so much dimestore psychology in terms of how this player feels or reacts to this or that stimulus or whether he likes your likes you likes you, As far as Marv's other two "mistakes" it actually is your analysis which at least seems prettu debatable and actually seems in error. * The franchise charge associated with a top 5 CB if we were to franchise NC seems likely to be above his value to the team even after he had a pretty good season in 06 and likely depending upon the market value which would be needed to get him to agree to a long-term deal would take up too large of a % of our cap room if we did resign him. Marv recognized correctly that in a Cover 2 the way Jauron implements it, the CB simply is not put to the highest and best use for many players (for example Dre Bly is publicly on record saying he is leaving Detroit because he hates the Cover 2 scheme they run which was developed under Jauron as the DC and then interim HC in Detroit last year. Clements is a very good player and is the best CB by a good amount on the Bills squad. However, this difference is not going to make a big winning difference for the Bills and is not worth the % of the cap NC would command under the franchise tag or if we offered him a contract he would likely judge to be worth signing. While on occaision our CBs may be required to run with a speedy WR if we are changing up the coverage from time to time as you have to do in the NFL, for the most part in our Cover 2 which is more like the Tampa 2. the CB lets the WR go after he heads 10-15 yards downfield. The better D style for NC us actually the looser coverage we player in the old days developed by Corey or even the zone blitz as the CB plays loose and can read the plays or QB and actually jump routes which NC seems to do at least once a year for a TD. There are those who do argue that NC played a valuable role for us in games such as his pass break-up against Houston which forced a punt from them on their final drive. but note this was on a short pass in the left flat and this was actually press coverage by NC rather than the special coverage only a great or at least very good CB can do. Losing NC in no way means that either a promoted Youbouty or a second tier CB cannot make this play or even if he doesn't that we lose. They also argue that McGee cannot replace him. This may be true, but given improved performance by Mcgee in the last 8 games, complainers may want to wait to see what reality brings us before they get their panties too much in a wad with the finding we are DDDOOOMMMEEEDDD because we did not give up any chance to upgrade at the more critical DT and OG spots by signing him. Clements is a very good player (though actually one has to ignore the fact he was pretty awful in 05 and fumbled a critical PR in the game we lost to Pitts in 04 that lost any chance we had of making the playoffs and was a sign of some inconsistency he has had which indicate he is not really a top 5 CB or more than an occaisional Pro Bowl level talent either though he is a very good pro). I think he likely will even make the Pro Bowl again due to his youth if he picks a good team with the right scheme and particularly if they choose to use his PR skills. Under the right conditions he can be a playmaker. However, those conditions are not there on a team which uses the Cover 2 the way we do and IMHO, the Bills gained a lot more by not having him be a distraction last year, tagging him while he was cheaper and if he had yet another bad year in 06 or got hurt like Reed did in his comtract year then we would have the option to resign him if it benefited us. However, he had a year and folks like Samuel got tagged so the right football answer to me is to let him go. I do like what Youbouty showed in college and felt good that the coaches had enough confidence in his play to give him a start against NYJ last year, but still I would pick up a second tier CB to compete with Youbouty (who did well in college in press coverage and as a 6 footer with a rep for competitiveness who should at least be good enough to play the nickel for us. Agreeing to franchise Nate last year and forgoing by agreement to franchise him now when all signs pointed toward us not wanting to pay the market rate anyway for him if he had a good year was a good move. As far as the trade down, the two things to consider where: 1. Was it possible Whitner would be gone if we moved down (a clear question given that we definitely needed an SS from this draft and their were two of them who looked good). and 2. Did any other safety who reasonably might have played better than Whitner and who reasonably could have been taken in the first couple of rounds perform better than Whitner last year. A look at what really happened last years shows that Detroit who had the #9 pick actually took an SS with their 2nd round pick. Who knows where Detroit had Whitner on their board but given that they did take an SS with their second pick it is at least arguable that Whitner might not have lasted beyond the next pick if we had traded down, Even if Detroit had still taken LB Sims with their #9, this does not guarantee us Whitner as the Fins took SS Allen at #15 and even if we had gotten a trade down to #12 or so, there is the risk that the Fins might have jumped up ahead of us and taken Whitner and forced us to go with Allen. An examination of the stats of all the SS players taken in the first couple of rounds actually indicates that Whitner got more tackles and I think tied for the lead among these players in INTs. In particular the comparison is interesting as if we had gotten Allen it appears he would not have started immediately for us and folks would be wailing because we did not get a safety in the draft who allowed us to not play Coy Wire at SS. All the ranting about SS not being a position any team takes in the top ten or the first round is seemingly reduced to mere drivel by the fact that Whitner was not even the first SS taken in the draft nor was he the last taken in the 1st round. Even those who would complain this was merely a run caused by Oak's pick of Whitner should think twice (or maybe its once) about this situation because Whitner was statistically better than Huff and also much better than 3ed 1st round safety Allen whom the Bills may have ended up with if they had traded down. I think that Marv actually led the team to doing a good job on both the mistakes you mention and most should wait for reality before accepting your WM indictment.

The whining this has evoked from some is pretty laughable.

Also this report is from Pro Football Weakly so though they are sometimes correct (though this often seems to occur our of coincidence when they are right) waiting for either some official pronouncement or a more reliable source on an issue like the contract amount is probably a good idea,

I and I hope all other Bills fans also advocate improving the team rather than sitting on your hands/ However, I do not advocate that we do something stupid in the hopes things will get better. Stupid to me is simply getting rid of a player who his teammates have not given much if any sense that he is a big problem for them simply because folks do not like his off field behavior and organizational management comments and particularly when folks only offer "maybes" which sometimes succeed (the Thurman, Cribbs, suggestions) but sometimes do not produce as rookies or end up as busts overall even when they are drafted in the first round or even far higher in the draft (Moulds as a first couple of years non-producer who became a stud player or Mike Williams as a fourth drafted bust if you want Bills examples, Larry Johnson if you want an RB example of a stud player who had a couple of nothing first two seasons). The situation makes even less sense in terms of improving this team since it appears the Giants want to give nothing more than a second day choice for him and MIGHT be negotiated into giving us a 3rd round choice. If folks suggest Lynch as the replacement AND one thinks positively and this player whom we might even be able to trade down and still get hits the ground and produces as a runner immediately (we will simply ignore whether this rookie will also be able to do blitz pick-up like a vet though I doubt JP Losman will ignore this issue as he runs for his life) though all this woulda/coulda/shoulda works out we also are deciding to forgo the draft as a chance to pick up the player in the trenches we need as this RB 1st round choice pushes our ability to fill these pressing needs into FA or further down in the draft. Like it or not, trading McGahee for the highest probable draft pick we could get for him simply sets this team backward next year even if things work out like we would want them to with Lynch (possible but not a certainty and probably not even likely).