Koufax

Casey said it well. But if Ralph stays under the cap AND makes a profit (I'm not sure on total revenues and other operating expenses, so don't know if this is the case), he is being a jerk. I can understand him being unhappy about the agreements and rules and sharing and percentages and stadium financing, and all that stuff, and hope he fights to improve the Bills chances in all that stuff. But if the choice ends up not making the best team possible under the rules so that a profitable team can be more profitable then I think I would be disappointed in a wealthy man with disappointing priorities. He shouldn't have to operate the team at a "loss" (although I put this in parenthesis because it is an annual loss on paper, but an investment in the value of his franchise and contributes to his equity indirectly), but if he cuts corners to move from a profit of $x to a profit of $y so he can be a 90 year old jazillionaire instead of a gabillionaire the guy doesn't get it. Ralph, you can't take it with you, and I think you would end up happier with a few less bucks left to your heirs and the memory of a Bills championship. That moment of the commissioner presenting you the Vince Lombardi trophy will matter a whole lot more than a few bucks on the balance sheet (and that moment will increase your franchise value more than the few bucks on the balance sheet cost you). So Ralph, please fight for the little guy with the media, the government, and the league and owners, but when it comes time for football decisions, don't put more profits ahead of fielding the best Bills team we are allowed to.

I liked Travis, and I like Willis more. We lost a first round pick on Willis and got a second rounder for Travis, so not a huge downgrade considering Willis's performance advantage the last couple years and his younger age. I'm pleased Travis is doing well, but I don't think this was a no brainer bonehead move by the Bills. Especially if we can keep Willis over the next couple years, because neither of them would have had us in the playoffs through this season, so where it really matters is what they mean to us 2007 and beyond. I'd bet on Willis to have a better 2007, and if we can keep him a better 2008 and 2009. Edit: But more props to Travis, as he has 105 yards in the 3rd quarter against the Pats. Let's hope Willis hits Ray-Ray in the mouf and does even better.

Carolina, St Louis, and Pittsburgh all have second half leads in the four early games we want. Vince Young is down 9 to the Pats, but that's well within his "I'm Superman" range . (Again, I definitely want the Bills to beat the Ravens, so don't misunderstand this post. It's just that I don't mind of Tennessee moves to 9-7 for example, since there is no trophy for 14th place, and these unrelated outcomes could have a pretty big swing in our draft position) Update, Carolina and STL are up big. Vince Young just moved to within six points, but Carson Palmer just showed again that he has a better arm than I do (why does he have to rub it in EVERY WEEK) and PIT is down 2 now.

So here is your draft pick rooting schedule (we are still rooting for the Bills to win, don't worry). Early Games: TEN over NE CAR over NO STL over MIN (still up in the air, but I think MIN will pick ahead of us even with a win) PIT over CIN (although this one depends, that is the outcome that could have us pick against both) Late Games: ATL over PHI SF over DEN MIA over IND (although I'm not actually rooting for MIA and hope they finish behind us) Night Game: GB over CHI But most importantly Bills over BAL because it would be a huge morale booster and that's worth more than draft position always!

I think he has a great head, great technique, but just isn't big enough or enough of an athlete. I think that shows on the complete lack of QB sneaks on 3rd and short 4th and short, where other teams pull these off regularly with ease. So I hope Preston or Merz emerges and jumps him on the depth chart, but I like him enough to not even think about using up draft picks or free agent dollars this year. Gandy is a maybe with me, depending on what is available after we upgrade RG. He's been alright but isn't our LG of the future. If he can hold down the fort in 2007 while we upgrade other positions that would be cool.

I would like to add a bigger tackle to the rotation in place of Anderson, as long as he is still agile. Nobody said they have to be small (so funny to use the word "small" to talk about a 300 pound human being), but they have to be quick to be able to penetrate and not just take up space. So we can't put Ted Washington in there without compromising how the D works, but we can certainly get an even larger human being if he is agile (the way a lot of people refer to Ngata as quick for his size, for example). I think the scheme works but the personnel matters a lot. Larry, Kyle, and Tim just didn't stack up well enough especially considering the LB turnover behind them. Add in McCargo, a year of experience for Kyle, and an upgrade over Tim, and I think things work out, but if that upgrade is 315 instead of 298 I'll be happy with that too.

I think he gets a 2007 second try as we upgrade the guards. I don't love him like I love Peters, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. He seems effective on straight on pass blocking, but his run hasn't looked great (affected by Preston next to him instead of a road grater guard), and he often accomplishes little if there isn't a single defender right at him. He has several times run into JP while looking for something to do (including causing that INT that Royal forced a fumble on a while back), and if you look at the 4th down INT last week to end the game, while Peters and Thomas manage multiple blocks, he really just runs around looking like he is three steps behind the play. Now the negatives I'm pointing out are nitpicking on a big strong rookie, and are only because I've been watching him closely every play through the last month or so, trying to get an idea if he can be our RT of the future. I think the jury is still out, but I'm optimistic and willing to give him 2007 without worry, especially if he has a better RG helping him out.

My thoughts exactly. Too soon to have a real idea, but he is my #1 pick in my make believe world.

10 excellent points. He needs to do it all consistently, but this guy has all the ability, and has proven the right attitude and work ethic. Michael Vick would have had a better first eight games than JP this year behind our line when it was struggling. But I am a big JP fan, and am very excited to watch him develop over the next couple years and become a star who leads us to the playoffs over and over again, and hopefully to a Super Bowl victory.

We should be aggressive with him starting on Monday, and try to make the best fair offer we can make. If he wants to be #1 we can't compete with Snyder's stupid spending, so we have to deal with the reality that he might not be a value to our team at the price he might command. But I do everything I can to try to sign him at a good price (even if it is a huge number) because I think he has some excellent value to our team. Remember, it only takes one team overspending to make a price unreasonable, and smart teams wave goodbye to players if they cost more than their value. Right now Nate's value is how much better he is than the weaker of Ashton/Terrance. That is certainly a considerable value, but it sure ain't worth A-Rod money. There are going to be different economics this off season than we have expected, and last year's deals will seem much much better. So we can't expect to judge this market based on past deals. We just need Marv and DJ to stay smart and focused, and find the best values that the market presents itself. These aren't always the best players or the players we would want all things being equal, because we are affected by how other teams value or misvalue players. It seems possible that the league might overvalue Nate and make him too expensive for us, and we have to move on. The two comparisons are the Patriots and the Oakland A's in baseball. Make smart evaluations, and don't spend more than a player's value no matter how much you feel the "we HAVE to keep him" stuff. With whatever budget Ralph allows us, figure out the way to get the best football team put together, and sometimes that involves letting the best football player go when value isn't there.

I prefer a little bit of national media hush. We are just an 8-8 (or 7-9) team....nothing to see here folks...don't pick us as your team on the rise next year...just go about your business and we'll see you in orchard park in December and January... Although the one thing I hope we get some media attention for is so we have more nationally televised games.

We don't have to play with Have-Tos. That's the fun part of this draft. We need go get at least one guard (maybe two), possibly a tackle, at least one DT, and probably a corner, and probably a Fullback, and we'd like a TE, a possession WR, and some LB help. But we don't have to have it scripted, and we can do the best thing with all of our picks and all of our free agent dollars. Get the best players available with the picks and get the best values available with the signings. I would personally love if the best player available at our #1 pick was an OG like Blalock, but when you make your wish list too early and get too caught up with it, you end up picking and signing badly. Marv is too smart for that, and I'm ready for an offseason where we sometimes scratch our heads, but where when we look at it six months later we are pretty happy.

Some good ideas, but master plans like this have too many moving parts to come together. Creativity is important, and our goal is to find the best football players at the best value, and a bunch of the points are worth considering. I still think TKO will be much better in 2007, and I think that Fletcher will move his tackles from 5-10 yards downfield to 0-5 with better help. Larry is a DT, plays well there, and needs to stay there. We are going to have a rotation of Larry, McCargo, Kyle, and somebody new, so let's hope we get a somebody new that is good. I don't know if it would be possible, but I like Hargrove a lot, and if he could be a good LB that would be nice, although I'm interested in seeing him as DE more too.

I was very impressed with Willis this year, how he played through injury, kept grinding, never complained about our line. He is still only 25 and with an improved line and passing game I think he can be a much above average back. I would love to get him locked up this off season and add RB to the list of positions we don't have to worry about. Who knows if it will happen, and I wouldn't break the bank for it, since it is one of the easiest positions to replace, but having WM long term is a good thing.

This is the one I want to see. I would want to see Ashton start for McGee, or at least get tons of playing time. I wouldn't mind seeing Nall in the fourth quarter if the game isn't close, or some other people get a quarter of playing time (maybe a half), but not starting. Merz and Butler can get mop up time too. They haven't shown enough in practice to be ahead of Preston and Pennington, so I don't think part of a game against the Ravens is the magic bullet here.

Things did not go well this year against the run, obviously. We are not going to abandon the defensive scheme, DJ is way to calm and steady to even consider that, so let's move on. We need fast and agile tackles from the scheme. That doesn't mean we can't have a fast and agile 320. 1) We will get McCargo back and he will be more than a rookie having gone through camp, played some games, and had a year studying the system. We just hope he stays healthy. 2) Kyle will be better. This kid is high energy, and will have a high energy off season trying to get stronger and better. I still want him #4 in the rotation, but he is going to be better in 2007 than in 2006. 3) Larry is in his prime, came on strong in the second half, and will do better with better support around him. 4) We will add a DT that is more talented than Anderson. Whether it is a free agent, our top pick, or a 2nd-4th round pick, we will improve here. That means we upgrade at every one of our four DTs in the rotation. We might not be run stuffers, but we should be able to stop more drives, get the ball back, and limit the points allowed. Might just be enough to make the difference, and if McCargo becomes a star it could be a big difference. The other piece is to upgrade our LBs. I hope that TKO and Crowell healthy plus Ellison with a year of experience is already an upgrade (with London staying), but this is another place we could potentially add someone. I wouldn't want to spend huge resources unless it is really the best value at that draft slot, etc.

Agreed that Preston is the weakest link. I have my doubts on Pennington, who often seems lost, not blocking anybody, running into JP, etc., but he is young and big, and has played better than Preston and Gandy. Gandy is a passable veteran, so if we can't get TWO guards better than he is, he might get penciled in. I would rather replace him, but only with someone who is better than average (not just to make a change), and only if it doesn't use up all our resources. But Preston goes back to being backup G/C competing with Merz on the depth chart, and hoping to pull a Wally Pipp on Fowler at some point through hard work. No chance I start Duke in 2007. Two starting caliber guards could be hard, so it will probably be better to go after one stud (including maybe first round pick), and settle for Gandy. Here's my #1 pick at the moment, although way too soon to be close to accurate: Justin Blalock

It would have been a low percentage kick and depended on moment to moment wind gusts. 2nd and 6 I'd rather try to get the first down. I was disappointed with 2nd down and 3rd down, and they should have known before 3rd what they would try or not to avoid the confusion and give JP a better chance to get 5, but it happened as it happened, and it is time to move on and get ready for Baltimore then 2007. The Vinitieri kick has nothing to do with this kick. That was harder elements to get the kick off well, but had no effect on the flight of the kick. Sunday had nothing to do with getting off the kick well, but the chance that a well kicked ball would not go through the uprights because it came up short or was blown off course. Take a look at the Ten 42 yarder on the Buffalo Bills Cam at buffalobills.com. It is right behind the goalposts and shows that kick get absolutely hammered down at the last second and barely clear it. This from a guy with a 60yd gamewinner leg. Plus if Rian tried the very unlikely kick and missed he gets run out of town wrongly (this kick plus the Steelers one). The right call not to kick. Probably not the right call on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the process, but I think that not kicking was the way to go.

Remember that our tie breakers for the playoffs where not strength of schedule at all. We were taking the conference record and strength of victory tie breakers. I still think we will not win out too well on strength of schedule with Indy, NE, NE, CHI, Bal, and SD, so I guess we wouldn't mind if a bunch of those teams listed won (whether we win or lose, and I hope we win). I think when the dust settles we will be around 12-14, but I'm rooting for a bunch of these 7 and 8 win teams to win on Sunday to help us out at no cost to us (unlike rooting against the Bills to help us out which is dumb).

I responded to this in another thread where you said 8-8 best, 6-10 likely, but since our stadiumwall has no focus (let's work on this this offseason guys by not starting duplicate threads or responding to pointless threads), I'll answer here as well since you phrased it as a question: 1) Young team gaining experience 2) Getting McCargo, Crowell, Youboty plus another good draft and FA that does not have to address glaring holes. 3) D-Line and O-Line will both be better 4) Since our 3 losses by more than three points was behind only SD, BAL, IND, and CHI we had more close losses than anybody (5) and only two close wins. That's an indication that we were in games regularly and were only a couple bounces from being a playoff team this year. The bounces even out over time.

1) We will have a good smart draft. Marv and Dick know what they are doing and we should have some faith after this year's success. 2) All things being equal higher is better. You can always trade down, but can generally get better players. 3) All things are not equal. Winning is worth WAY more than a few spots in the draft. Finishing 8-8 with a huge road win against a top team is much better than a loss to set the tone for the off season and next year. I want the team to win because it would help us be a better team in 2007 MORE than picking higher would help us. 4) If we can't pull off the stunner, the silver lining is we could end up with a very good draft position, especially if a few of the other week 17 games go our way.

Merry Christmas and have another Is this based on: 1) depressed pessimism? 2) the belief that next year's team will be worse? (because Clements is THAT good and we have so many veterans who will lose a step, and that adds up to more loss than a year of experience for our young players, McCargo + Youboty + draft + FA) 3) the belief that the schedule will be harder? (this year we got SD and BAL who were not even playoff teams last year as the schedule was planned but are now bye teams) 4) the belief that we have gotten the ball to bounce our way this year and luck will worsen? (TV, McCargo, Crowell, Spikes, Willis + other injuries; four close losses but only two close wins) 5) The belief that things will be better next year, but 8-8 in 2007 is better than 7-9 in 2006, and we shouldn't hope for more of a leap? 6) not wanting to jinx us when you really think we could be good? I think that this team right now should be one of the up and comers for next year, and should be expected by smart money to win 8-10 games most likely (instead of 6-8). 11 wins or more is everything going right, and 7 or less would be some serious things going wrong. I think there is a lot of reason for optimism, and this will be a fun off season.

Don't forget Indy. They have struggled mightily with their injuries despite having Dungy and experience with the D. I don't know if I really like the Tampa-2, but with two rookie safeties, McCargo out, Crowell and Spikes having injury stuff, and the whole team being new to the system and having only three losses by more than a field goal shows that our D kept us in games more than it feels like. But one of the most interesting things is us only losing three games by more than a field goal. I'm sure lots of people can see this glass as half full and that we don't know how to win close games and all that BS (the same reasons probably are near the top if not the top in close losses). Losses by more than three points: SD - 0 CHI, IND, BAL - 2 BUF, NE - 3 PHI, NO, CIN, DEN, JAX, KC, NYJ, TEN - 4 DAL, CAR - 5 SEA, STL, WSH, MIA, NYG - 6 ARI, ATL, GB, MIN, PIT - 7 TB, SF - 8 HOU - 9 CLE - 10 DET, OAK - 12 But if you look at the order of these results it is interesting to see of the four teams ahead of us two are homefielders and two are competing for a bye, the one team tied with us for 5th is a strong division winner. The whole rest of the league had more losses that weren't fieldgoal close than we did. I can't help think this has a very strong silver lining, and certainly has made it a fun season, especially in the second half. Our D might have been run over in a bunch of games, but they (and our O and special teams) kept us in more games than almost all of the league, and I think that is a strong sign that another year of experience for our young players and with the system, and another well planned off season, and we are a playoff team in 2007. Go Bills

McCargo will be a good player. How good we will have to wait and see, but wait a couple years before saying he is a waste. Spikes will be better at training camp, and could not have been at 100% this year just based on missed workouts and rehab and the way the body works. He might never get back tot he old TKO, but I think he will hit next training camp better than last training camp without any doubts. Fletcher does not blow up plays and intimidate offenses, but is very solid. He makes a lot more tackles 8-15 yards downfield than at the line of scrimmage, but that is a reflection of our run D as a whole. I think what is impressive given the circumstances is that he made the tackle most of the time, and rarely misses his tackles (I'm ready for the evidence to the contrary to be thrown back at me, and of course he missed some). Crowell and Ellison have a lot of upside, but I'd love to get our hands on a talent in the draft even if he is a lower pick who is a little more raw.

Right, being eliminated week 17 against one of the top teams on the road is better than being eliminated in week 16 at home against a team that won't make the playoffs. I would have loved to play a meaningful game in the final week even if we would have lost. But it wasn't meant to be, and this team is still pointed in the right direction. We will be better against the run in 2007 and have a better O-Line.