Pyrite Gal

Exactly

If WM is causing some internal player dissension we do not know about then I say trade him as well. However, if all he is doing is freaking out some fans who seem to care more his idiotic baby-making and lack of parental morality or seem concerned about his crack financial advice, then ignore the soap opera inclined and focus on the field. Willis had disappointing production since he pronounced he was one of the elite RBs in mid 06. Nevertheless, the key to this is that the Bills have nothing on the roster to replace him (those who claim Anthony Thomas is a better RB simply choose to ignore the fact he has not gained even a thousand yards and actually held down a lead RB role in the NFL since 2003. He is a very good back-up RB who did an outstanding job filling in for the #1 for a couple of games in 06. However last year was HIS FIRST SEASON EVER playing in all 16 games (much less starting all 16) and having a "back-up" (actually definitely a potential starter) for him would be essential. In addition, some folks are all sweaty over Marshawn Lynch. Fine, but again reality says that though the expectation is reasonably (in this current market) that a 1st round choice should contribute immediately, the facts are an RB draft choice in the 1st MIGHT be your starter, but well (particularly since we are not talking even a top 10 talent) well might not. Even a definite stud RB drafted in the 1st like Larry Johnson gained all of 500 yards in his SECOND year, after producing a might 100 and change his first year. Lynch is a risky answer and really would put this O in limbo yet again. If I am RJ I am pretty pissed if the Bills go for a rookie as our starting RB as even if lightening strikes and he is a stud runner, I better be set to really run for my life as virtually all rookie RBs need to learn how to do a pro blitz pick-up. If Lynch i your answer then get ready for likely painful 07 even if things go well with him. WM should be traded if he is a cancer on the team, but there are few signs of this from his fellow teammates and merely the whines of a few folks who seem to want to or are worried about who their sisters sleep with WM. If he is gone, it appears the Giants for example MIGHT be willing to part with a late 1st day choice when actually for football purposes we need to do better than getting a mere 1st rounder to have reasonable hopes of filling the hole left at #1 RB. Until I hear some word of his being a cancer for his teammates, I simply hope the Bills are spreading and allowing a fib to spread about some intense team RB desire (as opposed to fan soap opera based RB desire) in order to fool the enemy teams about our true draft needs.

I think the answer is likely quite a bit and this fan hopes the Bills do lie to me in order to disadvantage the enemy. This trade McGahee thing is interesting and perhaps even a good idea in terms of football if the Bills have some other effort in the works so that they neither are depending upon a fellow like Thomas Jones who has shown no capability of being a #1 NFL RB in 4 years or banking on an unproven in the NFL talent such as a draft choice (even a 1st rounder of the quality of a Larry Johnson gained all of not even 600 yards even in his SECOND year and produced about 100 yards in his first year). However, in the case of either team even if they have no intention of concluding a deal unless the other team makes them a silly offer (the Giants would be silly to give up more than a 3rd and the Bills would be silly to take less than a 1st plus whatever else is needed to get a more reliable starting RB than depending upon the draft crapshoot or Thomas) it may well serve their interest to let other parties think that in the Giants case they are desperately looking at McGahee even if they are not or for the Bills to let the pundits put the Bills draft needs down to include RB even if what they really have targeted is a player in the trenches for their 1st. In fact, this fan demands that his government tell me the truth about what they are doing with my tax dollars even if it makes it harder to win a warm, but in this game of football, I demand that the team I root for simply lie to me if they perceive this lie is going to give them an advantage in the draft or in negotiations with a player so we have as much cap room as possible to spend on other needs. One fan posted that the ESPN article makes it official we want to move McGahee. Yeah right, I take the media's report an a outlet like ESPN which makes its money from entertainment rather than accuracy with a grain of salt, The fact that teams are making an active effort to fool opponents about their strategy makes me take all these pronouncements (particularly those that site sources rather than specific names as the owner of the quote with not simply a grain, but in fact with a boulder of salt.

Actually, I do not think that the Giants are offering enough if all they will give up for an NFL starting RB (even one who definitely disappointed with his sub 1000 yard production) is a 1st round pick. Whether it is due to wishful thinking or the over attention spawned by the cherry-picking inherent in fantasy leagues many fans simply over-value the draft. Good players have to to come from somewhere and good players tend to be drafted. However the reality simply is the draft is a crapshoot and trading away an NFL starter even for a 1st rounder is way too risky a proposition (and a foolish one at that) for most GMs when they would need this first rounder to start in the NFL immediately. Yes, it is true that quality NFL starters at RB are easier to find even in the late rounds than NFL starters at other positions. However, folks need to understand that the FACTs also say that a team would be taking a big time risk (which I have not run the numbers so please feel free to do so if anyone wants to is likely to fail for finding a credible starting RB for 2007 from even a 1st round pick). I am sure folks will be happy to pull out the odd example of a #5 drafted Edgerrin James or a 7th round pick Terrell Davis and then same that clearly and absolutely Marv should just get er done. However, if you want to site a particular example as somehow proof that this would be a good move then please also site the example of a stud like Larry Johnson whom if the Bills drafted someone who ends up being as good as this stud it means he gains about 500 yards in his SECOND year and this first round replacement for Willis 950 yards would gain about 100 his first year. It strikes me also as silly to turn the starting RB job over to Thomas since last year was a banner year for him since for the very first time in his 7 year career (over the average length of career for an NFL RB and come mid-season he moves onto the wrong side of 30) he actually merely played in (not to mentioning starting which is a feat he has never come close to pulling off) 16 games. The last time he produced even 1000 yards rushing in a season was 2005 and his best year was when he gained 1100 as a rookie. His paltry 3.5 yards per carry does not even compare favorably to WM's disappointing 3.8 yards per carry last year. There is no good reason to think he would be a reasonable starter for us and some very nice sub work for WM last year was simply that some very nice sub work and I am very happy with him as #2. Its hard for me to see how the Golden Boys who have an uncertain number of years left would be such silly high rollers as to bank on a 1st round draft pick to be our #1 RB and if I was JP Losman I would be pissed if they did this as even if the pick turned out to be one of the stud rushers, my guess is that I am gonna have to run for my life quite a bit while this rookie learns how to do blitz pick-up. A first round choice is not a good option for us for our #1 RB.

The answer to your question could well be two teams, Definitely in Marv's first go round as HC with the Bills he drafted a lot of DBs early and this team went to the SB an unprecedented four times in a row. The second team, but as Marv has had but one year directing its draft is the Bills team he started with in 2006. Certainly no SB yet (not even the playoffs yet) but can anyone legitimately fault them for that after merely 1 season coming of a 5-11 year. Particularly given that the 06 draft played a large role as reflected in the PT and starts of the drafted players in the real improvements of this team to 7-9 against opponents which also produced (5 of the top 6 AFC seeds and the top NFC seed to boot), it is clear based on improved W/L vs. high achieving opponents that this team is simply so far so good in trying to replicate the great achievements of this pas DB draft heavy SB team. On the face of it, you make the point to keep the faith as the results are simply the results.

Bot only different people who probably had different relationships with their dad, the apparent differences between having a father who is murdered (Jordan's case) and a Dad who dies in a single car accident prompt a different set of emotions and issues to deal with. LTs Dad was 71 and I vaguely remember MJs Dad being younger. An athlete losing a Dad and an athlete losing a Dad are similar and the big thing is losing your Dad, but the cases are so dissimilar I would expect the examples to be quite different also.

I think this is a very usable FA list which can be found at > http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007/nfl/freeagents.html <. Its not perfect but its pretty good in terms of getting a list of which players are UFAs at which position.

My favorite size stat is from the first day measurements where a player whose name was Gijon something or other was not only the shortest RB but also the heaviest. He must be amazing to watch him run (waddle?).

I agree that the LB situation is a mess, thus I would much rather have a vet who can play the diverse approaches needed by us from an MLB in our cover 2 rather than give this position to a rookie who is going to spend a lot if not all of his first season learning how to be a vet doing reads and playing MLB for us (if we are lucky, if the best we can do is to pick a player who is the #12 prospect it is an open question whether this player will be capable of starting immediately). I like Butkus winner Willis as our MLB for the future but after his pass coverage struggles at the Senior Bowl I actually hope his stock continues to plummet like a rock because if he is a second round choice it makes it easier for us to configure things so he can sit on the bench awhile as a position player and contribute to the team on ST. We need enough help in the trenches (where it all begins on both the offensive and defensive sides of the ball IMHO) that I am reluctant to see us spend the first round choice on a rookie who cannot perform well enough at a complicated position). I could see us making the reach for an SS last year who really was a mid-teens level talent at best in the top 10 even though it was a reach because we needed an SS badly and with Oakland surprisingly picking Huff at #7 we had no choice than to reach to snatch Whitner with pick #8 as there was a strong possibility that DET might go for a safety at pick #9 if we traded down (as it turned out they did take an SS with their second pick and that Miami also took one with #15 and they might have been able to jump ahead of us if we traded down and DET took Sims anyway). However, a rookie playing safety seems doable, but a rookie playing the crucial MLB role the way we implement the Cover 2 simply seems like a move condemning us to a long season. Expecting Willis to start at MLB for us strikes me as the D equivalent of drafting a player who is physically gifted like JP is and expecting him to start immediately. My sense is that if we expect Willis to start at MLB he will learn and probably quickly, but we will have to live through a few performances like JPs in his first game at NE. Willis is a good player but if he starts at MLB in our cover 2 it likely will be vert ugly at first even though eventually it will work out.

Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting reply. I agree that the situation you describe is theoretically possible but I think one has to note the significant differences between the PP/TD case and the Nate/Marv case which by themselves probably reduce this to a nice theory that just could not happen in the real 06 Bills situation. Among the key differences between the two situations was the reality that the PP deal came in the midst of the TD reign and actually coming off of his Bills mounting an extremely successful campaign led by the TD acquired Bledsoe which saw TD actually being hailed in the good old days or overseeing us getting out of cap hell at least a year earlier than expected and his team having produced an 8-8 record after the 3-13 record produced by us downloading to reload. TD came into the 02 off-season with enormous capital which not only likely held him in good stead and a willingness to give him extreme benefit of the doubt from the press, fans, PP and most important Ralph when he laid the transition tag on PP, and gave him the confidence to pull off this rarely seen maneuver. In addition, he also in particular must have had a relationship with PP which allowed him to tamp down PP's initial upset at being tagged to have PP buy it when he likely said trust me on this and after we secure compensation I will make sure you are compensated. Marv had just taken the GM job and was working through the needed efforts to hire an HC and right the Bills ship of state after the upheaval of TD getting deservedly canned and then MM walking out the door. He simply was in no position to do something extraordinary with a potential FA and likely did not have the relationship time with NC or a stable situation where NC or any player would simply just trust him and keep his powder dry after having his ability to go onto the free market nipped in the bud by his tagging. In fact, Marv and Jauron actually demonstrated some far sightedness and the fact they had a multi-year team building plan they were implementing by showing they had decided to go with the Tampa 2 version of the Cover 2 and assessing that there was no way they would want to meet the likely top avg. contract of CBs in 2007. Thus, by verbally agreeing not to tag NC again and buying peace and his services in a contract year in 2006. though the Bills passed by making the extraordinary effort to get compensation for NC they really gave up nothing to buy peace from him. Though what you say is theoretically true, it was actually fairly unlikely to turn out that way (in PPs case while he like NC really lead the FA market at their position, this was not a good bet or even a likelihood at the time as no one knew whether a year like Samuels would be had and if so whether he would be tagged. NC himself was coming off of a pretty bad 05 where he was nothing like PP coming off of a great 02. Add in that no owner has been as stupid about MC as Blank was about PP where he essentially forced AT to do whatever was necessary to acquire PP or the team would have a lot of splainin to do to fans and to Michael Vick as to why they had not done what they said which was to acquire the best WR possible for AT. The main point of my post is actually somewhat shown by the lengths you went through to demonstrate what would be necessary for the Bills to obtain direct compensation for a loss FA. What TD pulled off for PP was simply extraordinary (can you name the plethora of cases where teams got direct compensation for an FA or do you see that his is such a rarity that though it is a nice thing to wish for because it is possible it is nothing at all to expect because it is a relative rarity. To demand that Marv should have traded NC or should trade WM in order to get compensation is little more than a longshot dream.

Even when TD did something well I think it comes back to haunt us. TD really did an extraordinary thing by putting the transition tag on Peerless after Arthur Blank owner of the Falcs shot off his fat mouth and guaranteed AT fans and more important Micheal Bick he was going to buy him the best WR on the market. As it turned out, it was not even close that PP was easily the most and almost only desirable big production (he was coming off a 94 catch season and had improved his yards, TDs and catches each of his 4 years in the league prior to teaming with Moulds to produce over 90 receptions. TD surprised everyone with his use of the tag and even talked Peerless down from being upset about this and got a 1st rounder in exchange. Even more humorously for us Blanks ended up shooting blanks with this acquisition. The bad effect of TDs move though is that it has created an expectation among many Bills fans that we are entitled to and can get some compensation for an FA when he leaves here. There are posts on TSW where fans whine that we should have traded Nate last year and gotten compensation for him or that we should trade Willis now for any first day pick lest he leave when his contract is up and we get nothing. First off, getting compensation for an FA and in fact trades at all are a relative rarity rather than the rule in the NFL. It can happen but the default is that it will not. Its a nice suggestion, but the reality is that it is not something we should expect at all to have happen because it so rarely does. I think the very nice maneuver pulled off by TD in the PP case has really set this odd idea in people's minds as the norm. it aint/ Second, losing an FA compensation is not only the norm for the most part it is the rule and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. if folks are looking for the precedent about what type of compensation to expect for losing an FA, they should not look to the unusual case of Peerless but to a case like TKO or Fletcher. What did the Bills give up in compensation to obtain this multi time Pro Bowler and our leading tackler every year he was here? Nada, nothing, zip. That really is the default and what should honestly be expected we should get in compensation for losing NC and if we lose WM. In addition, while not getting compensation is regrettable, this actually OK and simply the general rules of the road. For example, in the WM case, if we lose him as an FA it will be after we got 4 seasons of play and a season under contract for rehab out of him. 5 years is actually about the average life span for an NFL RB and we have no complaints to make if he walks after we got that out of him. In fact, if he does turn out to have a great year this year, we have the right to tag him not once but in fact twice and there is no need to get compensation for him (though it always is nice to get stuff). In fact it would simply be bad football strategy IMHO for the Bills to trade away their #1 RB (like him or not that is what he is) for the wing and a prayer of a draft choice with Thomas as our new #1. Thank gosh the Bills braintrust is not as panicky as some fans seem to be.

Yep

Its hard to be pro-active on your own when it takes two teams to make a trade. The answer to the question of why they did not trade him has to consider the strong possibility that they tried but has not takers. Even the constraints you use to describe a POTENTIAL trade partner are so woulda/coulda/shoulda that certainly without naming a specific team which meets these criteria and showing even a hint of interest in a trade to realize this potential a person would be on the thin ice of fantasy world for faulting the Bills fer not getting er done in trading NC.

Just pointing out that your pointing to the Whitner situation makes the point why the team would not want to rely on getting Willis as our likely starter at MLB. This strikes me as a bad idea anyway because the MLB role in the Cover 2 is substantially more difficult than the safety role such that it will be quite difficult for a rookie to play adequately at MLB in our Cover 2, but also: 1. We were simply forced to take Whitner with our #8 after Oakland took Huff with their #7. 2. Since even the top rated MLB would likely be inadequate for our 07 needs at MLB, the fact we are now picking at #12 rather than #8 means we better look to some other source like FA to get our starting MLB. If not a surprising pick prior to ours leaves us relying on an even lesser prospect to start for us at MLB.

Marv gauges (and I think correctly) that as we needed 1 of the two highest rated SS players one way or the other, once Oak surprised folks by taking Huff we could not risk trading down at all or we might lose the other SS Whitner. As Detroit with the #9 took an SS in the second round, it is a fair to middlin chance that if we had traded down Whitner might not have made it even past the next pick. The implication of this for the 07 draft is that since even if we choose the highest rated MLB Willis, it likely would mean taking a step down for a while in MLB production even though we would likely have our MLB of the future, that we will look elsewhere than the draft to fill the MLB slot this year.

I do not think he cares what Kiper says at all and as the post says one should recognize that he may well be wrong but his listing ia worth noting as a third party confirmation of him losing value based on what the pundits say and the expectation issue does play a role in drafting. My guess is Kiper is in fact wrong about Willis who could go at 25 and Kiper is wrong by five but also he could be wrong if Willis slips to the second round.

One of Marv's cliches is that the HC who makes moves sacrificing performance in the present to prepare the team to win in the future won't be the coach in the future. There is a reasonable case to be made that last year was to some extent a freebie for Jauron (and Levy) as a downturn in our W/L could have been contextualized as us reloading so therefore we took a hit then for a better tomorrow. However, to Jauron and Marv's credit, the team improved its W/L while playing opponents who also produced a good W/L last year. In essence, anything at 7-9 or worse will be seen as a failure by Marv, the team and the media and likely most fans. Perhaps some forgiving fans would accept a one year downturn in D and team production while our MLB of the future goes through his learning curve on his way to the future glory 3 years from now you envision. However, I do not see the team making a choice to jettison Fletch unless there is some legitimate plan to have a starting LB is more than just an investment in the future. This is why I will be quite surprised and disappointed if we draft Willis (or any rookie) with the idea of him being our starting MLB. Certainly we can drft and start a rookie at a less critical position as we did with Whitner at SS and the plethora of rookie starters last year, but MLB in a Tampa 2 should not be a rookie, even a talented one.

I think this is correct which means we 2 years worth of $1.8 million in bonus amortization. When you get rid of a player (by cut or by trade) amount accelerates into the current cap hit. Thus, instead of a cap hit of $6.4 million which we have if we keep TKO, the cap hit is reduced to the remaining bonus of $3.2 million. This is how much we have to replace him with if we cut TKO this off-season.

Sorry for my lack of clarity and it is easy to misread of foul up the cap implications (the NFL pays guys big bucks and they seem to have trouble with it). I think the bottomline is that cutting TKO means you have $3.2 million less charged to your cap.

The question is what exactly and specifically is this new direction you are talking about. I simply do not see any new directions that do not involve the D being even worse for a significant enough period of time that it likely involves losing a few games as you take your chances breaking in a new MLB. FA- This is the most viable option for getting an LB who has seen enough NFL plays to be able to do good diagnosis to determine whether the MLB is operating like a DT on that play being required to plug the run or like a safety being asked to do pass coverage in the center of the field in our version of the Cover 2. Kiwaka Mitchell of KC seems to be the most desirable MLB who is a UFA out there and I have never seen him play but I have heard no one talk about him as a greatly desired Cover 2 MLB. Draft- Willis seems to be the most desirable MLB out there, but given that he struggled with pass coverage against top flight college competition in the Senior Bowl it makes an even bigger question out of whether he has the skillset to perform adequately as an MLB in our Cover 2. Even without this issue, there is little doubt that even if he does have the physical ability to play our MLB which is in question now, there would still be what is likely to be a relatively painful learning curve as he learns how to read NFL plays like a vet rather than a rookie. Willis dropping like a stone in some mocks may actually make his a more viable draft option for the Bills because though it would likely be silly to draft him in the 1st round to start at MLB, it might make a little sense to tag or reach agreement with Fletch and draft him in the 2nd if he slips to sit on the bench, play ST and learn behind Fletch for a year. What seems to make more sense for the draft is to take the more highly rated than Willis Poluszny or Timmons at OLB which allows you to start this rookie at the less difficult OLB slot and them move Crowell to MLB. Internal- The move would be what Marv talked about in his presser of moving Crowell over and then replacing him either through the draft or invest in an FA like Adalius Thomas. If we let F-B go this would be my preferred option.

I think the relevant #s from this listing is that if he were to be cut, the Bills would save the $4.5 million outlay to him in base salary from their cap, but they would have the rest of his bonus already paid to him and amortized through the end of his contract accelerated immediately onto or cap. Thus we save $4.5 million but are charged $3.2 million. Overall, since when he stays we are charged $6.4 million (there is some additional undefined bonus of $100K like a roster bonus) we save $3.2 million by cutting him. This is substantial but not huge thus the variables of how well he is recovering or if he is willing to concede or link his salary to achievement in some redo really need to be determined before any rational judgment can be made though all are entitled to their opinion even its knee-jerk or fact free.

Yeah definitely one factor. However, my sense is that this was part also in McGee getting to breath a little more deeply and check himself and then also perform better after he got benched. Looking at his stats there is nothing consistent in them to indicate this bu IMHO we saw opposing QBs challenge NC a bit more beyond just simply an uptick i would attribute to them looking for their #1 WR.

The Bills will not automatically get better if the lose NC, but they will get better if they allocate the money which NC is likely to get from the market on other positions in choosing better players to make the cover 2 we run more productive. I think folks are fooling themselves if they do not recognize that NC is by far the best CB on the Bills, However, I also do not think that people are looking at the game correctly is they do not realize that our Cover 2 D scheme does not utilize Clements up to his full potential and that the huge contract which would be necessary to lock up NC is far better utilized by this team to improve other positions. The Cover 2 as implemented by the Bills calls for generally releasing the WR after 10-15 yards to the safeties and MLB who have divided the deep cover into thirds. Dre Bly is leaving Detroit with the articulated complaint that the Cover 2 they run (which Jauron HC'ed season before this one) does not utilize the CBs to their full extent and specifically lowers their chances for INTs as they do not cover players going deep. This was seen in the Bills stats last year as MLB Fletch beat out both NC and McGee to lead the team in INTs. Nate has far more chances to be a playmaker if he goes to another team which plays their CBs in a way that utilizes his skills reading the QBs eyes and the opponents plays so that he can jump routes to return INTs for TDs (something he was able to do once for the Bills this year as we do vary our coverage style a little so we are not so predictable) or he can freelance and roam the field a little for INTs. Instead the Cover 2 CB is required to do press coverage (which Nate can do though he is better in loose schemes). The hope of the Bills is that McGee finally gets it as seen in the final 8 games of the season (the stats indicate he did as QBs chose to challenge NC a bit more rather than simply pick on a befuddled McGee as indicated by all three of NC's INTs coming in the second half of the season) and that Youbouty can step up as his rep is one of doing good press coverage. It would be foolish for anyone to think that either of these two players or the second tier FA they are likely to acquire can be as good as NC, however, though they are not nearly as good as him it is possible they can replace him as the CB is called upon in our Cover 2 to play a rather limited role.

McGee sucked so bad at CB in the first half of last season that he deservedly got benched. However, as best as I could tell he was so bad not because he was suddenly physically overmatched but it was because he had problems mastering the Cover 2 and particularly doing good reads of how our coverage was working (or not) and then doing what he was supposed to do. For example, I think that the coaches were pissed at him not for simply getting beaten by better players, but on pass plays such as the one in the MN game where we simply got lucky the MV QN overthrew his WR running free on a fly pattern, McGee did not make the read not only that one of our rookie safeties was cheating too much to the middle of the field so he should have stuck with the WR even when he went out of the 10-15 yard short zone usually covered by the CB in the cover 2, but there was no one set to run a route underneath into the short zone so there was no one for McGee to really cover so he should have continued to cover the WR. McGee seemed to get his attitude adjusted by the benching and played his cover 2 role much better in the final 8 games. This may well have led to something indicated by the stats as in the first half of the season opposing QBs simply chose to pick on the struggling McGee rather than even test BC. However, in the second half of the season they began to challenge NC more as indicated by all 3 of NC's INTs coming in the second half of the season. It is a distinct possibility that McGee may have finally recovered the form which actually saw him tie for the lead in INTs in the 2005 season. I think the real question for the Bills is gonna be who plays our #2 CB spot. I think the Bills have calculated (and actually did so long ago when they made the offer to NC not to franchise him this off-season) that since the value of a corner who runs well with WRs and plays deep passes well has been diminished, they can get by with a rejuvenated McGee and either a Youbouty who has a rep for doing press coverage well or a second tier FA can handle the CB duties. If things go as planned, I do not see us having a huge need to draft a CB with our first pick.

You answer your own question with the statement that everybody knew the Bills weren't going to keep nate. A team would be foolish to give up anything of value for a player they knew they could sign him as an FA and not give up anything.