nichebiche

pretty hard to believe the 1st two guys never were drafted. both guys were thought of as Round 1 or 2 guys following the bowl season. bad combine and pro day results did them in i guess. everyone knows by now why Bowman has suffered his plight.

that pick sucked. just figured i'd get the ball rolling here. once the Bills actually make their pick, my comments should be relevant as far as most people on the board are concerned...

totally agree. we only have a need for 1 big WR. drafting 2 WR's is not necessary. if one falls to them that they can't pass up, i won't be upset, but the team needs depth in many areas to just focus on WR for 2 picks.

Swap Buffalo's 1st (#11) & 2nd (#41). Value = 1740 pts. for KC's 1st (#17) & 2nd (#35) and 3rd (#66). Value = 1760 pts. This trade would give the Bills better value at #17, would still net them one of the top WR's or CB's, and put them in better position in Round 2 to grab the best of the rest at the other position.

lucky for you, since you are not doing the picking.

you fail to make the connection as to how this potential trade COULD affect the Bills. at #17, Minnesota is a perfect draft day trade partner, whether for an OT to replace McKinnie or to move up to get that pass rushing DE like Derrick Harvey if the Taylor trade doesn't come to fruition. for the Bills, they could only move down 6 spots and still pick up a guy that will help them at WR, CB, DT or even TE or LB. they would also get an additional 3rd rounder and a later round pick.

i am cheesing on Ko Simpson right now. would you take a look at those titties???

i think it's hilarious that you forget that the team will carry 8-9 D-Linemen. and that a front office must think into the future as well as the current year. oh yeah, and that injuries happen.

i bet you could see Spencer Johnson gets lots of time at DE, regardless of drafting another DT or not. if the Bills can grab a guy like Dorsey or Ellis or other DL they feel good about to build a dominant D-Line, without sacrificing too much from the consequences of ignoring another area of the team, i would be all for making that pick.

if you can sign him for the same or less than you offer guys like Bryant Johnson or DJ Hackett, and he has a clean bill of health, i would sign him and then draft a tall WR early. Jackson, when he was right a couple years ago performed as a Top 10 WR. dropsies can be cured -- just ask Josh Reed. if the Bills can get that type of WR and believe his injury problems are a thing of the past, they should go grab him. then they could truly go after the best available player regardless of position in the draft.

where in this article does it mention that he may retire??? if he passes a Bills team physical, i'd say yes. if not, no.

alright, he's chatting right now. i can deal with illiterate as long as can keep commitments. i take it all back -- if he's there at #12, he's our guy.

doesn't look like he is showing up for his chat. can't keep a commitment??? 1st he's illiterate, then he's got character issues. guess the Bills will pass on him if he's available at #12.

Peterson is scheduled to be chatting on espn.com right now.

YEAR TEAM G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT 2003 SDG 11 205 356 57.6 2108 5.9 11 68 15 67.5 2004 SDG 15 262 400 65.5 3159 7.9 27 79 7 104.8 ok, you got me on the timing of when Brees had his 1st big year vs. when Rivers was drafted. my bad. this still does not change my argument that AJ had an opportunity to trade Brees or Rivers after 2004 after tagging Brees, instead choosing to keep both and risk losing Brees after 2005 without compensation.

call it what you want. insurance or not. although having 2 QB's of that caliber on the same team at once is insurance, whether that is the intention or not. you don't invest a #4 overall draft pick in a QB unless you think he was special with a proven QB already on the roster. Brees was an impending FA the following year. they put the tag on Brees after Rivers 1st year to give him more time to develop. the window of opportunity for the Chargers to get value for one or the other (whichever brought more value in return) was in the year they franchised Brees. after Brees injured his shoulder, their decision was made for them. perhaps they would have put the tag on Brees once again if the injury didn't happen, hoping to strike a trade for one or the other. the uncertainty caused by the injury negated that option. the point is not whether having the 2 QB's was insurance or not. the point was that AJ had an opportunity to trade one or the other but chose to hold both and risked not receiving any compensation when Brees became a FA the following year. AJ took that risk knowing it gave his team a better chance to win in Rivers 2nd year with him on the bench as opposed to having him start while making a below market value trade in order to receive compensation for Brees. with this in mind, it is not a given that the Chargers will trade Turner just for the sake of getting something for him now, as opposed to letting him go for nothing after next season, unless they receive what they want. AJ is not afraid to keep him as insurance otherwise.

you have to remember that this is the same GM who drafted Phillip Rivers despite already having Drew Brees on the team, having put up an excellent season at QB prior to said draft. then AJ put the franchise tag on Brees for a year with both QB's on the roster. it was pretty clear that Rivers wasn't drafted to sit on the bench. but was Brees traded with the knowledge that they couldn't keep both QB's on the team forever? no. instead of receiving some compensation for Brees, no trade was made and he walked the next year. he went on to lead the Saints to the NFC Championship game and the Chargers got nothing for him. the only compensation the Chargers received was having an insurance policy for 2 years with 2 excellent QB's on the team while Rivers got to learn the system free of the pressure to succeed right away. i believe AJ will be just as likely to keep Michael Turner as insurance to LT before he will trade Turner for what he deems to be less than value, solely for the sake of receiving "something" for him before he hits the unrestricted FA market after next season.

you must be asking because you weren't aware that the 32 year old Mathis did not play the 2nd half of last season due to his 2nd serious neck injury of his career. at his age and with his medical history, do you think that he would be an upgrade for the Bills?

yes, but that happens for a different reason. that happens when a guy in high demand is available and a team wants to move up to get him. they make an agreement with another team to choose him so that other teams cannot take him. in this instance, if the Bills don't take Lynch, no one else will until it's the Packers turn to pick. he is not in high demand. the Packers are not worried about the Rams, Panthers or Steelers taking him, or someone else trading up to get him. if the Bills took Lynch, hoping to make a trade, they would have to be prepared to keep him in case they cannot work something out. it could happen, but if the Packers really thought Buffalo wanted Lynch, they would move ahead of the Bills, not trade with them.

if i was the GM of the Packers and i received that call from Marv, i'd say "i'll believe you'll be choosing Lynch when i hear the Commish announce it. otherwise, why would you be calling me attempting to give up the guy you want? thanks for the call, but i'm not buying it." if the Bills are making that call, it's because they don't want Lynch or don't care if they get him. if they wanted Lynch, they would take him and not make the call. if the Bills don't want Lynch, the Packers can sit tight and take him without having to give up anything to get him. if the Packers really believe that the Bills will take Lynch, they will call Houston at #10 or the Niners at #11 and attempt to trade with them to position themselves for Lynch. as for the Bills, you could go ahead and take Lynch and then try to trade him. but if the guy you really want is Willis or Poz, and the Packers or another team really don't want to give up what it takes, then the Bills are stuck. bottom line -- a trade with the Packers is very unlikely

that trade makes very little sense. if the Packers believe that the Bills will take Lynch, and that is truly the case, the Bills will not trade places with the team that is going to take the guy they want. if the Bills want Lynch and the Packers do as well, the Pack would have to trade ahead of Buffalo to get him. if Buffalo doesn't want Lynch, then GB can sit at #16 and let him fall to them since no other team ahead of them has their eye on Lynch. this is one trade that does not add up.

they do pick at #11 in the 2nd round. that's no mistake on his part. the mistake is yours for thinking he was wrong.

no way Pat Williams is only 317.

his agent said he likes Tennessee. not prefers Tennessee. not likes Tennessee better than Buffalo. all he said was that he likes Tennessee. i was in Tennessee a couple years ago. i liked Tennessee also. i would probably move there if someone paid me enough. if someone asked me while i was down there for a job interview involving a big pay raise where i preferred to live, i would tell them i liked Tennessee. but, i wouldn't say that i preferred it to upstate NY.

he signed his tender. no negotiations were needed to make this happen. nothing earth-shattering here.