Koufax

Sure makes for a great first round pick, but not going to happen, and hurts the rest of the draft and doesn't make us the most improved team we can be.

Yeah. I think AT and a 1st or 2nd rounder is probably the way to go. Interesting ESPN article which is somewhat favorable of the Bills approach: http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story...&id=2793191

The 3 technique stuff is a little overblown. That was at the start of year 1 camp, but we are going to have a rotation of tackles, and nothing keeps Larry and McCargo from being on the field at the same time. I don't think we go for a high DT, but instead look for a solid replacement for Anderson later who could maybe move ahead of Kyle in the rotation. I still have a lot of expectations for McCargo and Youboty, our two 2003 picks who didn't contribute (sandwiched between our starting safeties in the draft). Judging McCargo on 2006 would have been silly WITHOUT the injury. Giving up or expecting very little from a first rounder at this point without specific reasons seems silly. This guy was taken just three picks lower (#26 instead of #23) than McGahee, so expectation should be similar or Marv really messed up. So I'm going to give Marv the benefit of the doubt and expect some significant contributions this year.

We lost MLB and RB with the clear intentions of being as good or better at those positions. At the moment that is obviously not the case at RB, and probably not with LB (Ellison-Crowell-Spikes), so additions at both places are necessary and will definitely happen. At CB we lost a top money guy who we would have loved to keep if it wasn't top money. At the moment he is replaced by a second year player who was regularly given first round grades before falling to us in the third. Youboty is unlikely to be the player Nate is right away, but we also might upgrade this position further. So we are a little weaker at corner, maybe a little weaker at LB (I don't think so personally), and with temporarily a glaring hole at RB, the single most replaceable position on the field where we are replacing an average performer. This while getting better at safties, QB, WR through experience. The same at DE, better at DT with McCargo back, much better at O-Line, and the same elsewhere, and this with free agent dollars still left and a high draft slot + extra picks draft coming up. Let Michael Smith say what he wants, but after we re-sign A-Train, sign someone like June, and have a good draft this team is going to be so much better than last year. Another quick comment, it has become the conventional wisdom to put Dockery below Steinbach and Dielman (and Hutchinson), but that doesn't mean that that means he will be worse as a player than them. It is quite possible that we will end up with the best of the bunch, and that OBD has a pretty good idea. But ESPN puts out a list of the top free agents in order, and we think that means that is how it will be.

Need to lock up JP, Evans, and Crowell early. That is a very exciting post. So to sum up: we don't lose anybody important next winter (like Nate). All our young players are likely to improve. We don't have that many guys who are at the age where we expect decline, and we will have two more draft classes added along with another round of free agency? And with the raised salary cap we don't have any likely cap casualties either? I'm very excited about 2007 and can't wait for it to start, but it makes it even more exciting to know that we are really laying the groundwork to be better in 2008 and beyond. I think our cycle of frustration is coming quickly to an end, and the next five years should be a fun time to be a Bills fan.

Um, valid point if we were playing this Sunday. I don't think we are planning on or will end up with any lack at running back, and we will have a much much better running game than last year. I do agree that Peerless will have a great year, and has been undervalued in our general talk. Part of that is on JP's shoulders and as a young QB he trusted Lee the most and I think did not have enough of a relationship built with Price. I think that year two of playing together could change that significantly, as well as the whole league keying on Lee (remember last off season with all the worry about Lee as #1 and how he would do without Moulds?).

I don't think so. I don't think that Marv would want to go long term extension with low character...there is a difference between keeping guys around who were already there and signing extensions to people you don't like (Marv doesn't like Willis, even if he refuses to say it). And I think that the extension that Willis signed with Baltimore is a dumb one that overpays. More similar to the Edge contract than anything, and overpaying replaceable backs who are getting older (not that Willis is old, although I doubt his ribs or knee every feel truly young) is not a wise decision. I did want to keep Willis and I do think he will be successful over the next couple years, and possibly even great if circumstances align right. But I'm fine with this move as a way to improve our team

The issue of a hold out is not over the money. We were not going to sign him to an extension. He can hold out 10 games if he wants, be active for the last six, and be a free agent. He has to be active for six weeks to get credit for the year of service towards free agency. So the ten week holdout is about forcing the Bills to sign him for more than they would (which wouldn't happen) or punishing them and not risking injury. Hasn't been done much, but it gets talked about sometimes. Because if you hold out all year you don't get credit for the time served and don't become a free agent. Our issue is not Willis vs. a contract to a lineman. This is not dollars like the Nate situation (who we would have loved to keep for a lot less money). This is the front office deciding we will be a better football player without Willis and replacing him with others, similar to the London situation (although we like London more). So Marv likes A-Train and a 2nd round pick, or whatever we end up with more than an unhappy Willis. Willis will likely have a good year for Baltimore, but it doesn't matter if our backs are successful for us at the same time (with secondary improvements to character, literacy, and lockerroom attitude as perks). Our issue now is finding the most production at RB, and Marv and Dick appear very confident that they can replace Willis's production elsewhere.

I'm glad opening Sunday isn't this sunday, because we would have a glaring hole at RB. The rest of our team isn't that bad with Ellison-Crowell-Spikes at LB, Triplett-Kyle-McCargo-Hargrove rotating at DT, and Youboty-McGee at CB. Obvously those aren't our starters because we get to have a draft too. But right now our weakness is having no good options at RB. Obviously we all know that will change, just don't know how. This has us on the path to a very successful off season if we can fill the hole at RB, the single most replaceable position on the football field (and you know Dick and Marv have a plan or they wouldn't let Willis go). Then we have the rest of our picks and free agent dollars to upgrade positions like LB/CB/DT etc. We are fine, and it is no problem that the national media doesn't think so. They shouldn't be worrying about the Bills right now...we should be under the radar, and giving up a name back for draft picks should put us further under the radar.

His performance last year was fine. That doesn't mean he is the solution for us, or that he won't suddenly be too old this year, but he had two hundred carries with good results and able to get in the end zone last year. Definitely high mileage, but I'm generally favorable going along with A-Train and a second round pick. Not crucial and might not be a fit, but is certainly worth consideration, and the reasons not to take him are not because he wasn't good in 2006.

Willis was dumped because Marv and Dick think the can make a better football team with the addition of those three picks and free agent signings. Chemistry and attitude count only as far as they impact football performance (which they do). We will see if they are right or wrong, but this isn't like running OJ or Kelly out of town when there was no chance that the move would have lead to being a better team (and if a deal was in place to do so, all the better...)

Don't know enough to really say how feasible it is or how good a fit for us, but it certainly could be interesting. I think we will most likely add a LB and a RB free agent, and draft CB at #12. Not what I WANT to do, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone like this comes on from of the radar.

I think Lynch is a no chance based on Marv's character issues. Peterson is gone by #12 and #12 could be a reach for Willis, but I really like him. We don't have to force the issue on a linebacker or a middle linebacker more specifically (with Crowell available). So we have to think Willis is a better player than Okoye or Revis and we aren't trading up for Peterson he could be a fit, even if it is a "reach" for Kiper. Seems to be the best LB available, and I think it is fairly likely we can land either the best DT/CB/LB at #12. I want to see more and learn more, but I think Willis could end up being our pick. Ideally I'd love to trade up and get him with our second pick of the round (some mocks have him going as low as #30). Revis and Willis would be a great pair, but that's a lot of high picks (counting the trade up) to not get a RB...

I tried playing this game last year hoping/pretending Mario Williams would fall to #8. It is fun, but will never leave the forum. If we draft Peterson it will be trading up. Zero percent chance he drops to #12 without an injury or arrest.

I was early on the pro-Dillon camp (after being in the pro-Willis camp), but I think this is no big deal. Rhodes could be really interesting, and a lower mileage back is more likely to exceed expectations.

Easier said than done, but I could see this making a ton of sense if we sign Thomas/Rhodes, and someone like June before the draft. Then we could make a move like this and get a corner later in the draft and be okay. He would have to slide a little (seems to be happening, but it isn't draft day yet) and we would need a dance partner, but it could be the draft shocker.

Right now we have one hole. RB. I don't expect we will have any holes by draft day because I think we will have signed one or two RBs before then (including A-Train, and then Rhodes/Dillon). I think CB/LB/DT are not holes but positions to receive primary consideration for upgrades. Youboty/McGee with KT or Greer at nickel doesn't make our secondary terrible, just not as good as it can be. Ellison/Crowell/Spikes with Wire on the bench doesn't sound too terrible at LB. Triplett/McCargo/Kyle/Hargrove isn't a void at DT. So this puts us exactly where we need to be. Several areas to target, but after we sign a veteran back or two in the next couple days, no crazy glaring holes we have to spend #12 on. That's the best place to be on draft day. If by then we decide Okoye is the best fit and there is CB depth in round 2, we do that. Or we sign June and like Revis better at #12, RB in the second, and get a later pick DT to add depth. Lots and lots can happen after we sign a back or two, and we can find the best value to improve RB/CB/DT/LB and potentially other places based on what is available. Heading to the toy store to get the best toys around, and not needing a Tickle-Me-Elmo no matter what is really the best way to have a Merry Christmas.

I think you are correct. Unlikely that we get enough out of a low 3rd rounder to offset Willis's potential upside. So we aren't going to be making the Ravens look foolish, but we might just be a better 2007 team for it. And we are definitely a better 2008+ team getting two day 1 picks for a guy who was going to leave after this season. If we get a nobody with this year's 3rd rounder and Willis has a good year and we struggle at the RB position we will look foolish at the end of the 2007 season, and I guess there is some chance of that. I don't give too much weight to the 2008 stuff, and think the decision should be made based on 2007. But if it proves even close to a 2007 wash (Willis stays a 3.9 yard back who forgets downs, whoever we get does well) then this proves a great trade long term because while not getting worse for year 1, we get two additional day 1 picks to help our team over the next couple years.

Interesting quote from DJ: Asked if McGahee had requested a trade, Jauron replied: "That's a good question for you to ask him." Could be something more behind this, but even if not, it is the move we made, not a terrible one. I had hoped we wouldn't trade Willis without getting a much higher pick, but he's gone now, and we have to replace a guy who has played average (regardless of whether he is better than that or not) in the most replaceable position on the field. I'm still excited about this team, and with the right final pieces this can become a great deal. And since we weren't going to sign him after this year we get something...I bet we wish we had gotten two first day picks for Nate right about now.

The deal doesn't really phase me, because I was looking at Willis as a 2007 option, not considering him for 2008 and beyond. More power to him with all the money. It will be interesting to see how playing for a winner and with Ray-Ray will be balanced off with not having a contract year to work for. I predict he will have a very good year, but we won't cry over his absence and will be a better team in 2008 and beyond, and very likely better in 2007.

Too soon to tell, but I don't go to PTI for my great sports info. If we don't add any backs this will be a huge error on our part. But obviously we will add other backs, and it depends on who we get. I thought this article was interesting, and is something I have thought for a while (although I woudn't mind Dillon if not too expensive): http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10047765

Marv mentioned in his Willis interview the thought of moving up. Depends on who the dance partner is, but it certainly is an option with the extra day 1 pick. Last year we moved up with only three day 1 picks, and I could easily see moving up this year if the players we want are right. If Willis falls to later in the first round that could be tempting for us, as well as getting one of the top corners later in round 1. Most interesting is moving up from #12 to go after a Peterson at this point (the only guy I think we would move up to get). There are a bunch of teams in front of us who are not in the market for a RB, so some of the top teams could pass on him and some of the next teams could either pass or be willing to trade down.

To be fair we got a 2nd back for Henry so it was Willis and a 2nd (and now two 3rds) for Travis and a 1st in the bigger picture, but that second came two years later and the 3rds come 4 and 5 years later. But I agree with your general reasoning. Having Travis on the roster and having Willis need a year off meant that a whole lot had to be done in Willis's next three seasons for it to be a good move. He didn't do enough to make it a good pick. I still think he could go either way and become an excellent back or just an average guy, but his time with the Bills and the circumstances in total make him a bust.

No question this makes him a bust since we closed the cycle at this point. Taken ahead of LJ, missing an entire year, playing a position with an established starter (we did get a 2nd for Travis), his numbers do not add up to value at his draft pick. Not a huge bust but you need more our of a #1 than a year off, two solid years as a decent player, and then a disappointing inconsistent year. I don't think it was all his fault, since some of it was circumstance, coming off the injury, getting jerked around by MM, playing behind a troubled line and breaking some ribs last year. But he was not a star, and with Larry Johnson and Eric Steinbach shortly behind him, it would not have been hard to get more value over four years than we did.

Says only moving Willis if they got value, which they did. Likes having extra picks, and that they can be used to move up too. Likes the various Bills options from 2006 team, but with a big smile we certainly will not rule out bringing in a free agent. Not locking on to ideas on players in the draft at this point, but evaluating.