Dibs

Seems to me that people are under-valuing the benefits of a top LT.......and are over-valuing the value of draft picks. Having a top LT is very highly sought after. Only the QB position is considered(generally) to be of more importance with perhaps only DE considered to be of equivalent value. Even if Peters settles back into 'just' a very good LT we'd want to be thinking very hard about letting him go(very good-great LTs are very hard to find). The concept that we can simply use a 1st round pick to replace him is a massive gamble. LTs have a similar bust rate in the 1st round to most positions......around 50% Add to that the concept that virtually no LTs drafted outside of the top 8 become truly 'great' at the position(which Peters is heralded as having potential to do)......and the gamble looks even worse. If Peters gets back to playing at his 2007 level he is worth $10-11mil. The only benefit trading him could possibly have is saving some $$$ for the short term(which we have plenty of cap room to cope with)......and if his replacement did develop(usually taking a little time), his contract extension would come early & would be bound to be more than Peters by then anyway(salary increases). Worst case scenario(with a 50-50 chance of occurring)......we trade him.....the replacement 1st rounder is a bust.....and we don't minimally have a good LT for at least 5 more seasons. Even if the player drafted pans out, it is not likely he develops into what we saw from Peters in 2007. In short, trading Peters would be unwise.

physically weak?

I'd be happy with any of these WRs......UFAs......young enough & on the rise Antonio Bryant TB 83-1248-7 Devery Henderson NO 32-793-3 Nate Washington PIT 40-631-3

Get prepared to snap then....

My point was simply that players on bad teams are generally rated as bad players.......and then miraculously become decent-good players when the team is clicking. Anyone would think we have been a 1-15 team for the last 3 seasons by reading your posts. We have a horrendous FO......horrendous Coaches......and most of the players are terrible & need to be replaced......with only a handful of players 'good enough' to keep.

Shhhh.....there's no room for hope around here. I don't know about the 'damn good chance' but it certainly could happen. According to some, we need a total roster overhaul. People never seem to look at the 'talent' of other teams. Many teams which appeared to have less talent than we do 'turned things around' over night. All of a sudden(within 2 seasons) their players(en mass) went from garbage to good/very good. Patriots, Rams, Chargers, Saints to name a few of the more dramatic 'talent turnarounds'. Players like Dockery for instance. Everyone is calling him totally useless. It was only 1 season ago that he was considered to be a top 15 OG in the league. I'd love to be able to say "with better coaching" but even with a consistent LT & OC next to him he could regain enough form to become a very solid/good player(contract level irrelevant). I still have hope. I always do. It's tougher knowing that DJ will be the HC throughout next season......but I still have hope

Where's the :fingers crossed: smiley?

I don't disagree......though Parker is certainly lighting things up when healthy(and the team was losing games when he didn't play at a much higher rate than when he did). I'm sure the Chargers would have preferred to play against Moore over Parker today. I don't believe I ever said(and hopefully never implied) that a good run blocking OL wasn't a highly sought after aspect to a team. I have only been trying to break the illusion that RBs are(for the most of it) interchangeable and easily replaceable(should not be drafted in 1st round). If you were one of the teams that didn't have one of the 'top 18' RBs......how would you acquire one? This is the same thing I have argued with others about QBs(though QBs are more important & even harder to find). You want a good one on your team.......but you need at least a decent one on your team in order to become a very good team(unless either the rest of the team is great and/or the competition you face is sub-par).

Um.....who said he wasn't? Mind you, 'still clutch' implies that he used to be clutch & perhaps there was reason to believe he lost it. I'm confused by this thread.

I agree that the fact that 1st round RBs are regularly on playoff teams means nothing. The concept that a good half of the starting RBs in the NFL come from the 1st round means quite a bit though. You talk about the drop-off......the most important thing is to have a RB that is good/serviceable(similar to a lot of positions really). The reason that a lot of teams have a serviceable RB is because they spend resources to make sure they are not one of the teams with a bottom ranked RB(outside your top 18). Just using your 'top 18' concept(which I think is pretty much right give or take)......that means there is about 14 teams who haven't got a guy that can get the job done(let alone a star/stud). When you consider that well over half the 1st round selected RBs end up not good enough......where do you think you can obtain these 'easily replaceable' players from? As previously stated(by others), a good OL can make a decent RB look good & a good RB look great......but it can't make a bad RB look good......and most teams don't have good OLs. There is good reason why most NFL teams chase for good RBs.

This is what I see as the common misconception. NFL teams certainly don't agree with it as they regularly either draft 1st round RBs(outside of the premium top 8) or acquire said 1st rounders via trade or FA. When a team has a good OL.....you are often correct in that the backup RB can come in and do a decent job(though often the offense becomes more limited due to the backups lesser skills.....perhaps it is a bit deceiving on how much they contribute compared to the starting RB.....a missed block at the wrong time, not quite getting the 1st down when needed, a breakout run, a clutch 3rd down receiving effort, etc can mean the difference between a win & a loss without it obviously showing.)......on the other hand the backup often does not perform to a good enough level......even more so when the team does not have a good OL. Personally I think(due to their generally shorter playing life span) that teams in general try to acquire their good RBs too early in their team-building process.....but i can't disagree with the vast majority of NFL teams placing a high importance on the RB position. Mind you, I see football as a team sport & most positions are important......with RB(due to the number of times they have the ability to effect a play) as being one of the more important positions to be strong at if a team is going to have a good chance at success.

The point I was wanting to make was that RBs are highly sought after and teams will keep searching and spending resources until they have one. They are not the unimportant easily replaceable players than many think.

Not at all. There seems to me to be a very large common misconception regarding RBs......I won't get into the Safety position but there is a large common misconception regarding that position also(due to historical views versus modern day changes). Many people seem to have the view(like you do) that RB is one of the least important positions on the team. Regardless of how important compared to other positions RB is, it is still very important to have a good RB. I'm pretty sure I know where you are coming from in your thoughts. The concept that if you have a good OL & scheme......with a good passing game(and Defense), then a decent RB can be productive enough to see you to the Super Bowl. I agree with this. Having a legitimately good RB however adds many things(dependent on the skill set of the RB). Big play ability, gaining the extra tough yards, blocking/pass protection, pass catching, etc, etc. It also means that if your OL or passing game is not quite to the level required, the RBs own skills can counter-act those deficiencies. This is why many RBs are selected in the 1st round. To assume that it is easy to insert a RB with mediocre skills into a team & have them be competitive does not follow with a majority of teams. Most teams(by far) which make the playoffs & get to & win the SB do so with a RB that was selected in the 1st round. Teams that have a good OL & RB can achieve massive production from the RB position. Peterson, Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Terrell Davis etc, etc. This is highly sort after for obvious reasons. It also does not hold that a mediocre RB(one who is good enough when a team has a good OL & passing game) can be easily found, as many teams who use a decent RB behind a good OL often have trouble when said RB gets injured. The reality is that the skill sets required in a RB are hard to find.......and highly sought after in the NFL. The RB position has a very high bust rate in the 1st round(obviously higher in later rounds). One cannot simply 'draft a RB' and end up with a guy who can get the job done to the level required as many people seem to think. If RB was truly one of the least important positions.....easy to find.....and easy to replace......more teams would be succeeding with 'lesser' talent......and fewer teams would be drafting them in the 1st round.

McGahee was drafted before DJ came to Buffalo......also......it's two #1 picks in 5 years. ......and RBs are not a dime a dozen. Most successful teams have a 1st round RB......and most 1st round RBs bust(with later round RBs busting at a greater ratio). Looking at this years playoff teams:- IND: Addai(1st) ATL: Turner(5th)(team busted on 1st rounder in 2002) MIA: Brown & Williams(2x 1st)(3 if you count that RW cost them 2 in trade) MIN: Peterson(1st) ARI: James(1st) TEN: Johnson(1st) BALT: McGahee(1st) PHIL: Westbrook(3rd) CAR: Williams & Stewart(2x1st) SD: Tomlinson(1st) PIT: Parker(UDFA), Moore(4th)(Mendenhall 1st round 2008) NYG: Jacobs(4th) & Ward(UDFA)

If we don't get a DE in FA, I can't see us passing one at the #11 spot......or maybe an OLB who can bring some heat to the QB. At this point it looks like there will be one of the top OC available in the 2nd. I will be very disappointed if we don't get one of them......even if it meant trading up a bit to do it. I have given up on DJ as a coach but I still see logic in most of the draft & FA moves(even though many have failed). If we get a DB or WR at the #11 spot......I'll give up on the FO as team-builders as well(Unless we extend Peters, get a big name FA DE & TE and re-sign Crowell or similar level OLB.....and grab an OC in the 2nd.....and they are the best available player on the board).

Teehee, that's funny. You knock somebody's choice who happens to be considered at the top of his position by many(thus making it a reasonable selection for best player on the team).......and your own choice is the backup RB.

Depending on the projections for McKelvin.......and re-signing Greer, I'd say McGee was the only logical trade choice. The problem would be that if we trade McGee we would most likely spend another draft pick at CB which would infuriate half the board......so I think I'd prefer we kept him. *I also like the concept of having starting McCornerbacks*

It takes quite a bit of hubris to put ones own thoughts out there as if they were what a true expert would think. You have to be joking with this one. Why wouldn't the Browns just sign Greer themselves and save trading Rucker & the 3rd round pick? 1st round WRs often step in & become good players in their rookie seasons.

As far as I'm aware, there was a clause in that contract which gives Peters extra $$$ when he starts at LT. This places him amongst the good LTs in terms of how much money he earns($4.8mil from memory). The problem was that he improved past that level of player.....and very quickly too. I totally agree with you in that I too think we should pay him his worth so we can have a top LT on the Bills for the foreseeable future.

Funny how our pick #41 is a bust but the Redskins #34 Devin Thomas(15-120-0) isn't.

I haven't the time to look up all of the pre-draft profiles but......there was definite talk of him taking plays off(described as a two down player), and lacking on field motivation(weight issues). Though described as 'quick', this was relative to his size......not relative to truly quick lighter DTs(generally). At 345lbs he was always considered to be extraordinarily large for the T2 D. regarding A) It was only those(which was quite a lot of people including analysts) that either didn't realize the Bills had moved to a T2 D or didn't understand the requirements from the DTs that had N'Gata as a good fit for the Bills. regarding B)Yes he is. It still wouldn't have made it a good call to draft him except in hindsight. To look at it in poker terms.... We chose to call a pre-flop raise with 7,2 7 high comes on the flop & somebody else pushes all in. Calling this would be a bad call......even if another 7 or 2 comes out on the turn or river & we end up winning the hand. Calling with 7,2 = Choosing the T2 D Calling the all in = selecting N'Gata We(most likely) would have ended up doing well had we made the bad call......but it still would have been a bad call.

Have you got two user names bobm?......or should I say eliteqb?

I totally agree that 06 was bad.......but apart from Tripplett & maybe Royal & Fowler, the FAs acquired were stopgap players and obviously were never intended to be long term answers at their respective positions for the team. Sure it would have been great to find a few gems......but their position on the team was to fill roster spots with experienced NFL players until their replacements could be found. For the most part(aside from Tripplett) the contracts were not cap prohibitive(no high signing bonuses) and cost the team very little when letting the players go. Playing out most of their contracts was not important either way with most of the players(due to contract structure). I am quite happy to take your view that N'Gata can function in a C2. At the time of the draft however, there were enough doubts about him being able to become a consistent, motivated NFL player......let alone able to play effectively in the C2. I don't understand why this is such a big sticking point with some fans.......the need to say we should have drafted N'Gata. The fact is that we shouldn't have drafted him since we had locked ourselves into a system which would have greatly escalated his bustability. If fans need to say something was a bad decision, they can point a big finger at adopting the T2 D(thus precluding N'Gata from our draft strategy).

No......the T2 defense had already been decided on. Therefore there was a very likely chance that N'Gata's would become a square peg in a round hole in that system.