OCinBuffalo

Other than the fact that the Raiders draft #1? If they take Quinn, it doesn't matter what Cleveland wants-> they are left with AP, Calvin Johnson, or Russell. That's what I'm sayin' IF the Faders take Quinn, a lot of things "we know" to be true get thrown out of wack.

How about this?: (I haven't seen this posted anywhere - and I went onto some RaiderNation message boards to see if it had any credence. It turns out that this idea has a lot more fans than I thought) What if the Raiders decide that Russell is a poser? What if they take Quinn? Doesn't that mean that Cleveland will almost have to take Russell? If they don't, then someone will(Washington, Minnesota, Detroit). With everything else I have seen(and everything else staying the same) - that may make AP drop into our lap a lot easier than is currently expected. In that scenario I also gotta wonder about Calvin Johnson dropping. That would make for an interesting day to say the least. At this point I am most interested in taking the best of Marv's top 5(if available) in the first(or trading down), and doing whatever we have to in order to get Brian Leonard(as a result of trading down). Hopefully one of the three guys you mentioned(I am partial to Poz) will be part of that as well.

Agreed No doubt I would take the first pair. You sound as if you are trying to convince yourself that it's ok if we draft AP - or I am confused. I think you are right, if my understanding is correct: Draft picks 1-10 = No way a RB is a good pick in any one of these positions due to all the posts you mention, your reasoning, and my own little contribution: the fact that there are only 32 starting RB jobs in the NFL. There are a minimum of 3 times that many at the LB position. Why does that matter? - Teams need more LBs than they do RBs. Therefore they have to be "right" more times = they have more margin for error when picking a RB than they do in picking LBs; and they need more of them. Less margin for error means that they have to be drafted higher->assuming that the higher one is drafted, the less likely they are to be a bust. Therefore, if Draft Picks 1-10 are not a good place to take RBs, then what picks are? I would argue(and agree with you) that 10-20 are in play for RBs provided that we are talking about and AP type player. However, I would also argue that really RBs shouldn't be taken(as a guideline) before pick 20, for all the reasons you have mentioned. If we take AP with #12, I suppose that would be an exception to this reasoning. Now the question is: does AP provide the kind of potential, upside, whatever, that warrants Marv making an exception?

I guess this makes two(at least) of us. I don't remember thinking: "This guy has a bad attitude towards JP" "This guy can't get it done anymore" on the first play of the season last year. I do remember our entire club screaming and cheering to the point that the managers came running up the stairs in terror I do remember that he got hurt, again, during that game and that it bothered him the rest of the season. I also remember that he clearly began to turn the corner the last four games of the season. So yeah, we would be foolish to cut/trade him based on internet innuendo.

How funny was it when one of his coaches basically face-masks him to the ground after the 5th TD?

I'm not for taking a first round corner either, we need to get a LB imo. In looking at the videos that people posted(thanks all, btw) it appears that there are a lot of #2 RBs all conglomerated right around each other in terms of value. But here's the thing I noticed: 1. Peterson 2. Lynch 3. Everybody else I think a trade down might net us Paul Poz(PSU) and give us the picks we need to get Brian Leonard and Irons? Hunt? etc. However, if this is our year to get a big time RB, I could also get behind trading up to get Peterson. Who knows, he may fall through to us as well. I just don't know enough to say that Peterson is a no-doubt, bet the house player - I hope Marv does.

Right and it would be a huge help if he appears to be back on track. Not that we are gonna get the truth or anything.

No that means that all of those guys you listed have not been on this team very long in comparison to NC and LF-B, the veteran leadership?, the "playmakers", the guys that make the others around them "better". Wait. We aren't better, in fact we have not improved or gotten worse with those guys on the team. Time to move on! Nate Clements is not a playmaker when he can't crack the top 30 in the INT list=chuck em. Aaron Schobel is a playmaker when he is 3rd in the league in sacks= keep em. What's hard to understand about this? No one is saying to get rid of the whole team, although that is precisely what the Bills have been doing(Adams, Vincent, Milloy, Posey, Shelton, Bledsoe, the list goes on and on) for the past 2 years. These guys had their shot to be great, but most of the time were good at best. Again, time to move on.

Might be a good idea to use that extra 3 or #4 on a C/RG. Depends on who else is available though don't forget we neeeeeeed RB. If we need a RB, why not get the best there is? This might mean trading away that pick and others. I'm just happy(as I am sure you are) that we aren't locked into a CB in the first three rounds. I'd much rather be looking at it from a best available - which with these 2 signings, hopefully, we are.

Um, yes it friggin does! The primary reason SF got off the schnide and won the SB is Deion. His contributions moved them from win a playoff game and then lose team to a SB winning team. Yeah they were good before, just like the Colts were good before this year -> the point is they weren't good ENOUGH until he got there. The same thing is true with the Cowboys. Reverse your logic -> are u telling me that adding Nate to the Patriots/Bears/Saints would have gotten them a SB? - of course not. If that's what you think then you have missed my rationale. I am not saying we shouldn't actively pursue players with upside/proven performance. I am saying that a veteran guy like Clements, who isn't even in the top 5 in his position, is not worth pursuing. Schobel is. Moorman is. We shouldn't look to spend big money on a guy with 4 INTs, who hasn't made a pro-bowl in 3 years(at least), and ain't getting any better. We should give the guys we drafted a chance, rather than "locking up" mediocrity. Btw, Schobel was 3rd in the league in the main stat for his position - sacks. Clements wasn't even in the top 30 for his - INTs. How the hell is Nate a better CB than Schobel is a DE, again?

And that accounts for your ill-advised Deion example how exactly? Better players than Nate: Aaron Schobel Brian Moorman Um, Pro-Bowlers.

It's interesting that you would use Deion to make that point - since each team he went to instantly got better(Redskins), or won the Superbowl(49ers, Cowboys). The only time that didn't happen was when he went to his last team(ravens back from retirement) - but he was 37 years old. How in the hell was Nate Clements our "best player" last year? Don't bother - he wasn't.

Happy! Wow - now we aren't COMPELLED to draft a CB in round 1. BillNYC and others will be happy.

I am talking about the lessons it teaches the younger guys. I'm not calling out Fletcher, I am merely saying that by and large, it was kinda obvious to me - and painful as well - that we needed to move on at MLB. I don't like it, but it was the right decision. As far as the young guys are concerned - this is the one I'm worried about - in that we probably could have kept him, and potentially should have kept him as a reward for his effort. Hard to say. We aren't a playoff team that can afford the luxury of keeping LF-B around to mentor the new guys(like Vincent last year). WRT Clements - yeah you are right. But it also says that hey - if you aren't putting out until the last five games - we don't want you. Let some other sap GM pay you ridiculous money, we'd rather give our new guys the chance to replace you than pay a huge signing bonus so you can return to mediocrity. Again, bluff all you want, we are calling it every time. Unless you are a clear top performer at your position - you ain't gettin paid by us I think Dockery is a top performer, which is why we paid him - and not Clements.

I would assume that they know this 100%, but that is an assumption. Nothing like confirmation. I don't mean "teach a lesson" in a negative way = punishment. I do mean that, without being heavy-handed and certainly without demeaning Willis in any way(big marks for the class in which Marv&DJ handled this), they have set the standard/tone in a clear way. Our newer players, and their agents, know exactly what they can expect from us - which means the air stays clear. I can only hope that this translates into positive relationships, as best as we can expect, and also puts a guy like Rosenhaus on notice: Bluff all you want, we are willing to call you on it for a guy who has clearly underperformed - to the point that we are not scared of trading him. Oh yeah and one other thing: Even if Willis didn't know the plays, I can't see DJ confirming that fact, because he has nothing at all to gain. It makes him look kinda bad - like he doesn't know how to teach, it makes Willis look bad=DJ doesn't know how to motivate, etc. If I was DJ I'd never confirm a rumor like that.

You know that 40 mil isn't guaranteed and you know that Willis is going to be in trouble this year for the same reasons he was in trouble last year - he has lost a step due to his injury. This is football - not baseball - or worse, Fantasy Football, and Willis' window will close a lot faster because of it. Why should anyone care if Willis is with his buddies Do you think that goes through the heads of the vast majority of pro athletes as a priority over: 1. Having a job, 2. Winning? What goes through Willis' head, I think we can agree, is an experience only shared by intellectual gods like Brittany Spears. My point is simple: Marv has made it clear that no one is above getting dropped from the roster and that the Bills are willing to make that move - damn the consequences. This is a good message to send these young guys, regardless of what happens later, because it lets them know exactly where they stand=gains their respect. If they think that Marv, DJ, etc. is willing to tolerate BS because of "how good" they are, sooner or later BS behavior will start to appear; and they won't know what they have to do/can get away with=loses their respect. It's that simple.

Um, that was not my reasoning at all. And, in effect, that is what is happening over the last two years. Think about the guys that have been cut/released/traded/ingored. Also, think about the "stars" amongst this group. Are you gonna start crying over Posey? How about Sam Adams? Milloy? Deadslow? Vincent? If you think about it, we basically did "cut the entire team" over the last 2 years. These guys are the new guys - I'm taking about the old "veteran playmakers" who are supposed to be the "reason" we win. Again, you can't be a "playmaker" and go 38-58. It's one or the other=you can have a bad year, but you can't have 6 bad years. If you are a good player on a bad team, fine, you might be a good player. You are not a GREAT player - who simply cannot be parted with because he elevates the players around him(Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter). Fletcher had 5 years to be a GREAT player, I didn't see it - did you? Of course not. So why are we crying about losing a 32-year-old good player, when we can replace him with a 22-year-old good player in the draft? Moreover, if Nate is such a GREAT player? Why are you talking about the rest of the team? If GREAT players make others good, then other players being bad should not affect them, unless they aren't actually GREAT - merely good. If they are merely good - again the draft. What's a bigger hole - a guy like Clements who suddenly turns it on the last 5 games of his 6-year relationship with a team, and not much to lose due to FA? Or getting rid of that guy and putting a rookie/young player there who has everything to play for and everything to lose? Nate had a whopping 4 INTs last year - do you need me to list the people who had more? How's about we talk London Fletcher's tackle for loss stats? Or are you done?

Ok, despite all the speculation - one thing is true: The Bills are a young team. Young players are definitely more impressionable than old players. But more importantly, a player in his 3rd or less year is still getting the hang of expectations(what he expects and what is expected) in the league. Right? If that's true, then Marv has done this team a great service by trading McGahee. It sends a clear message to our young team that: 1. Regardless of how much hype you get 2. Regardless of how "talented" you are 3. Regardless of what the "cool club" on the team thinks(trust me - every marginal team has one) 4. Regardless of what you did in one game in 2002 You can be traded/cut/sent packing via FA if: you don't perform each day/it's about you and not the team. I am sure that JP, Lee Evans, Parrish, Whitner, etc. got this message loud and clear. If McGahee can be traded, anybody can. The likes of Nate and London cannot hold this team hostage in terms of "playing for a contract" - we'd rather just let them go. What other teams do/what other teams can offer is irrelevant - the only thing that matters to this team is this team. The message is: do your job, don't run you mouth, and remember why you are here, or you won't be here. We have now offloaded every locker room lawyer(that I am aware of anyway) and while that may cause some short term holes, it sets up a long term culture of "Football First". Now of course, the table is set, if the Bills team wants to eat, some new leaders will have to emerge to carry this attitude onto the field. But, I have a feeling that is precisely where Marv's favorite value - character - comes into play. Good leaders by definition must have good character. Trust the Marv.

No - We have wasted 9 years with retards running things. We have one year under Marv&DJ that clearly demonstrates improvement. This is another year, and I don't see any reason, based on last year, to be thinking things won't continue to improve. Here's a dose of REALITY for ya: We are 38-58(from 2001) with Clements, Fletcher, McGahee,(hate to do it but Spikes too) all starting on this team. Those are the results of our "playmakers". Hmm what's that about the definition of insanity again? Oh yeah, that's right: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Clearly it's time get some real playmakers in here and cut/trade/ignore the FA of these posers - who are, and always have been, the real reason we were getting told "we are 2 years away".

Hmmm. I don't remember it that way at all. Instead of: "This time last year some people thought Holcomb could be the starter?" It's more like: "This time last year 30-40% of people(TBDers) told us Holcomb would surely be the starter. In addition, %50 of the "experts" said that sooner or later Holcomb would be starting. We heard that JP simply did not have the ability to be a starter in the NFL because he couldn't see the field well enough and wasn't an accurate enough passer - like Holcomb . During the 1st half of the season we heard that JP should be benched, bad idea to draft him, more Donahoe crap, etc." The big day for these folks was the second Patriots game; it was their High-Water Mark; but it all came crashing down. They were proven massively wrong. So wrong, in fact, that hardly anyone has bothered to call them on it - other than beating on DeLuca. The best part is that JP improving his play isn't even the major factor in why they were wrong. The major factor was, and still is in some cases, these people's piss poor analysis of the situation. I am so sure it was simply an amazing coincidence that the line shuffle just happened to be the same time JP starting meeting with more success. But how funny is it that no JP hater last year at this time was talking about the line being the reason JP struggled - and instead "analyzed" his abilities in a vacuum? This same kind of "analysis" is going on right now about Clements and Fletcher; but it's in reverse! Just like JP ALONE was not the main reason the offense had trouble in 2005, Nate and London were not the only reason the Bills had some great plays in 2006. IIRC, at least as many "dagger in the heart" defensive plays came from our younger/rookie defensive players as did our vets. So, I don't see being largely positive on the Bills this year as being an optimist or a pessimist. I see it as being REALISTIC. I see it as being the rational response to the demonstrable improvement the TEAM has made in ALL areas over the 2005 season, especially at the Positions we drafted for and QB. Can anyone honestly say that in 2006, the people we planned on getting, drafted, and then played/started DIDN'T do more than expected last year(McCargo being a wash)? So if nothing else we have evidence that Marv & Co. can put a plan together(whether fans agree with the plan doesn't matter), execute the plan, and see results from that plan that surpass our expectations. That is exactly what we saw last year. IF we are being REALISTIC, why does anyone expect that a similar plan/execution/results will not happen this year? Wouldn't that be counter to the evidence(not peoples' opinions) we have from last year? Attempting to deny those results = attempting to deny reality = not being very Realistic

Yep - watch the home Miami game again. This is exactly how they used him. But, for a double move/misdirection route to work, you gotta have blocking for more than 3 seconds. I think the offensive line upgrades will work, therefore I think that good old Stone Hands has a real chance of making a big splash this year. Incidentally, on the hands of stone thing - I got the feeling that is over with this year. Look for Reed to tear it up = possible secret weapon against the Pats.

Agreed on Leonard. BUT, I have a name for NE - Patrick Willis. They have an even bigger need at LB this year than we do.

The lesson is thank God for Marv being here and Donahoe flipping burgers now.

As I was watching the other clips, one of the announcers talked about him having: "Two bad ankles and a calf" problem?(that's what I think he said) So, any injury questions with this guy? IF we are gonna draft a RB #1 it might be nice not to repeat history. Is he gonna suddenly get hurt and be out by the third game?

I thought someone posted about another 1-gap guy who should be around for our 2nd pick. Justin Harrell or Tank Tyler I think( I definitely could be wrong). Any objections to taking them at #2 - provided we take a RB/CB in round #1? Edit: Consensus has us taking Quinn Pitcock from Ohio state at #2 Link Edit: Found him - DT - Paul Soliai - Utah I guess he is the only true 1 tech other than Okoye