After the mess O'le Whitey left here,

[eball]

Hopefully the O-line we be at least average.

Hopefully the D-line will be at least average.

Special teams hold their own.

I'm through bashing Donahoe -- the Bills do have a number of key players (JP, Evans, Peters, etc.) on the roster that are a result of his work -- but you hit on the key points to success, IMO -- the lines and ST.

 

There's no reason to believe Bobby April will suddenly forget how to coach ST. Moorman/Lindell could be the best kicking tandem in the league.

 

OL additions -- Dockery, Walker, Whittle. Two starters and quality depth. If the line is not significantly improved it's not for lack of effort in the front office.

 

DL additions -- Walker is a solid veteran who will produce. Getting a healthy McCargo is almost like having an extra 1st round pick this year. Re-signing Kelsay was also important.

 

Remember as well that the Bills do not have to install any "new" systems on either side of the ball this year.

 

The Bills' schedule is tough; I'll need to see how they draft and what the final roster will look like before feeling comfortable making any W-L predictions, but the signs of progress are clearly evident.

[The Dean]

Nah, I am sensing that he means that Marv shouldn't have made such a promise because Nate gained 82 million and the Bills and their fans gained zero.

 

TD was too arrogant for my tastes, but he DID accomplish a few things. In addition to having a wideout with superstar potential, we appear to be strong at LT, QB, and DE. These are the 3 hardest positions to fill, and I thank TD for this.

 

Imo, Mike Williams was the nail in TD's coffin. He passed on 2 good LTs to take this slob and the team never recovered. A case can be made that the Raiders and Cardinals suffered the same fait when they bombed on Gallery and Davis (I still can't understand the contract Dallas gave him). Jennings was great for a late 3rd round pick, but he couldn't stay on the field, leaving us nothing up front.

 

TD also screwed himself and the team by hiring 2nd rate head coaches as well as coordinators and no, I cannot defend the 05 draft. It was a total disaster.

 

In all, the whole TD experience wasn't good, but I will always feel as if TD had a good eye for talent and player evaluation. His mistakes however were too colossal to overcome.

 

 

I think that Marv is a straight-up decent man. He didn't HAVE to make the deal with Nate. (In fact, didn't TD make the initial deal not to re-franchise Nate? IF that's the case, Marv didn't have to honor it.) But he did.

 

I'm a believer that Marv knew he needed Nate, and needed him playing hard, for this team to show progress last year. I think Marv also had a good idea Nate would be gone this year and probably hated knowing the Bills would get nothing in return. But...BIG MOTHERFUC#ING PICTURE, kids.

 

After the TD debacle and after the abuse Ralph took for picking Marv, taking a step backwards last year, while rebuilding, was not an option, IMO. That s#it wouldn't flush in Buffalo. So, Marv had to balance making improvements and righting the ship while also rebuilding the team. So far, he has done a remarkable job, IMO. Of course, the job is only halfway done.

 

As for the bold section, I completely agree. He was a high-roller and made a lot of bad bets, in the end. He left the place in shambles.

[Dawgg]

Nope, I'm saying he shouldn't have kept that promise to begin with.

 

Nate could have held out all he wanted, but the Bills held all the cards. He still would have reported eventually in order to get paid for the season and more importantly, the Bills get "something" for him.... when asked why he made this promise, Marv said it would be "unfair." This is rather laughable coming from an NFL general manager. It's "unfair" to guarantee him a top-5 salary at his position? The Bills did that to Peerless and Peerless ended up with a $50M contract!

 

 

 

i think he is saying "Marv kept his word. Damn him!"

[Dawgg]

(In fact, didn't TD make the initial deal not to re-franchise Nate? IF that's the case, Marv didn't have to honor it.) But he did.

 

Nope, Marv made that deal. Make no mistake no GM who knows what he is doing would make such a promise, especially when they have a top-notch free agent on their hands. It was well known even before the season that Nate would be THE top free agent available at season's end along with Adalius Thomas.

 

I'm a believer that Marv knew he needed Nate, and needed him playing hard, for this team to show progress last year. I think Marv also had a good idea Nate would be gone this year and probably hated knowing the Bills would get nothing in return. But...BIG MOTHERFUC#ING PICTURE, kids.

 

Nate had every reason to play hard for the Bills because he was playing for his next contract. The franchise tag would not have changed that. Now if Marv planned to make a legitimate run at signing Nate, then I can understand the move. In fact, when Marv made that boneheaded move, I figured that meant he was going to at least "attempt" to resign him... clearly, that was not the case. As you say, KNEW Nate was gone, which makes that move even more senseless.

 

After the TD debacle and after the abuse Ralph took for picking Marv, taking a step backwards last year, while rebuilding, was not an option, IMO. That s#it wouldn't flush in Buffalo.

 

Franchising Nate Clements wouldn't fly in Buffalo?

I understand that you will support any move Marv makes to the grave, but this is stretching it. It is completely within the rights of a franchise to apply the franchise tag and more often than not, it results in the player re-signing with that team. But if the Bills had no intention of paying Clements what he was worth on the open market (a GOOD decision IMO), they owed it to themselves and the fans to attempt at getting something in return. You think the 49ers would have surrendered a 2nd round pick for Clements? In a heartbeat.

 

By your logic, why not give Spikes his release and allow him to negotiate with any team he wants?

Why not release Willis and allow him to choose his team?

Why did they wait so long just to get a 5th for Moulds?

 

The bottom line is that when you have an asset that commands a value, it is the front office's job to ensure the franchise gets value in return. Marv botched this one up.

[Bill from NYC]

So, Marv had to balance making improvements and righting the ship while also rebuilding the team. So far, he has done a remarkable job, IMO. Of course, the job is only halfway done.

 

There is much to praise Marv for in year one, including ousting disgruntled vets, and hiring good coaches (I think that Fairchild will be a head coach very soon). Again, he DID have TD guys such as Losman, Evans, Schobel and Clements. A little luck never hurts either, whereas the Bills have a potential standout at Left Tackle, and he was an undrafted free agent.

Spending the cash on Dockery and Walker was the right thing to do, and I am fond of the day 2 draft in 06.

 

Again, TD failed in Buffalo, but he left Marv something to work with. This draft is extremely important. I know, we say it every year, but we do so because it is true, especially to a team with a relatively "poor" owner.

The Bills need to get more physical. It looks like they have started to do so on offense. They need to be able to grind out first downs at home, in the cold. JP has enough arm strength to throw in bad weather. With a solid OL, it's all good (of course we can use a RG ).

 

Most of the Bills needs (RB, LB, a #2 wideout, RG) are traditionally not so hard to fill. Yeah, I know....another corner wouldn't hurt either. Marv will have a great opportunity this month to turn the Bills into a winning team once again.

[The Dean]

Nope, Marv made that deal. Make no mistake no GM who knows what he is doing would make such a promise, especially when they have a top-notch free agent on their hands. It was well known even before the season that Nate would be THE top free agent available at season's end along with Adalius Thomas.

Nate had every reason to play hard for the Bills because he was playing for his next contract. The franchise tag would not have changed that. Now if Marv planned to make a legitimate run at signing Nate? That's another story... in fact, when Marv made that boneheaded move, I figured that meant he was going to at least "attempt" to resign him... but if he, as you say, KNEW Nate was gone, that move was absolutely senseless.

Franchising Nate Clements wouldn't fly in Buffalo?

I understand that you will support any move Marv makes to the grave, but this is stretching it. It is completely within the rights of a franchise to apply the franchise tag and more often than not, it results in the player re-signing with that team. But if the Bills had no intention of paying Clements what he was worth on the open market (a GOOD decision IMO), they owed it to themselves and the fans to attempt at getting something in return. You think the 49ers would have surrendered a 2nd round pick for Clements? In a heartbeat.

 

By your logic, why not give Spikes his release and allow him to negotiate with any team he wants?

Why not release Willis and allow him to choose his team?

Why did they wait so long just to get a 5th for Moulds?

 

The bottom line is that when you have an asset that commands a value, it is the front office's job to ensure the franchise gets value in return. Marv botched this one up.

 

"Franchising Nate Clements wouldn't fly in Buffalo?"

 

NO...Losing while rebuilding wouldn't have flown last year in Buffalo. I think Marv knew he had to win while, at the same time changing the culture of the team and rebuilding it. Now, I don't KNOW what MArv knes and thought...I'm guessing based on his recent results and his past results.

 

I will support MArv's moves (even if I don't initially understand or agree with them) as long as it is apparent the overall job is being accomplished. What you want to seem to do is jump on him for a move you don't understand or agree with without discussing his overall performance as GM to date.

 

Without totally rehashing it, the team has improved, the QB situation is straightened out (The Dean knocks hard on wood), the 2006 draft looks to be an excellent one and the team is in good position or this year's draft.

 

My problem with your approach is you are trying to micro-criticize (or micro-evaluate, if you like that better) Marv. If you were his boss, you'd suck! My experience as a boss and as an employee have convinced me you get the best results by letting people do the job their way and evaluate the job they do. There are times you may need to step in, but those occasions are far fewer than you might imagine...IF you hire smart and decent people.

 

Players are not simply "assets". Players may play hard for a contract, but they play even harder for their teammates and their coaches if they like and respect them. I'll play the old-man experience card, one more time. People will run into a brick wall for themselves and their pocketbook. People, treated with respect who are motivated by more than money, will run THROUGH the brick wall. (Where's the motherfuc#ing poster of the eagle we can hang on the wall for this motivational tripe?) If you treat all of your employees or underlings simply as assets and treat them all exactly the same, you must suck as a manager.

 

You have to believe the players (especially the young ones) respect the s#it out of old Marv for the decent way he treated Nate.

[GhostsOfTheRockpile]

think a solid team going 9 - 7 this season could be a real step towards

getting this team back to stiking distance of the playoffs for the 2008 season.

 

With the schedule being what it is, I think the Bills could end up 7-9... and still have taken several strides forward this season. It is going to be very difficult to come out of the gates flying, with so many young, new pieces in place. The going should be tough to start, but my hope is the team ends the season with a flurry, setting up '08 as a year to make a strong bid for the playoffs, especially with another off-season and draft to improve the squad.

[Dan]

You have to believe the players (especially the young ones) respect the s#it out of old Marv for the decent way he treated Nate.

That... is something that I don't think should be quickly dismissed.

 

 

How often do people here ask why a FA would want to come to Buffalo? Or question how much extra we'd have to pay to get a high profile FA? Yet this year, alone, Marv brought in one of the top FA guards on day one and re-signed Kelsay. I think you have to factor into that, that the players like playing for a team that respects its players.

 

Sure, Marv could have franchised Nate again. But does he not make that promise, a year ago, you have a disgruntled player and agent that bad mouth the Bills to every player that listens. The bottom line is Nate wanted to test the market and for good reason. I'd suggest Marv knew that and Marv probably knew they'd be unable or unwilling to match any offers. As was suggested, Marv got another year out of Nate. So why push it for two when you know the guy wants to leave?

 

I agree, we could have tagged Nate again and gotten some compensation. However, look at the bigger picture. What would we have really gotten? Another pick in a weak draft along with more player negativity. By making the moves Marv did, we got Nate for an extra year (theoretically giving someone like Youbouty time to acclimate) and we gained the respect of players in the league.

 

The thing about Marv is.... he leads by example. He wants character players. So he displays character himself. Look at the TKO situation as yet another example. That could have gotten ugly in the press, but both sides appeared to win and both sides are wishing well of each other. I would argue that one of TDs biggest flaws was this apparent lack of character in player dealings. Sure he was shrewd in his dealings and made some great moves, ala Travis and Peerless. But in the end, so what? None of that shrewdness got us any closer to the playoffs. I'm more than eager to gives Marv's approach a try.

 

If after another 2 years or so, we're still no closer to the playoffs then I'll be the first to say lets try something else... Marv failed. But, for now, Marv seems to have turned the attitude at OBD around. And that is arguably the first and most difficult step to turning a team around. Now, we have to see if the players and coaches he's bringing in can in deed begin winning the games.

[The Dean]

That... is something that I don't think should be quickly dismissed.

How often do people here ask why a FA would want to come to Buffalo? Or question how much extra we'd have to pay to get a high profile FA? Yet this year, alone, Marv brought in one of the top FA guards on day one and re-signed Kelsay. I think you have to factor into that, that the players like playing for a team that respects its players.

 

Sure, Marv could have franchised Nate again. But does he not make that promise, a year ago, you have a disgruntled player and agent that bad mouth the Bills to every player that listens. The bottom line is Nate wanted to test the market and for good reason. I'd suggest Marv knew that and Marv probably knew they'd be unable or unwilling to match any offers. As was suggested, Marv got another year out of Nate. So why push it for two when you know the guy wants to leave?

 

I agree, we could have tagged Nate again and gotten some compensation. However, look at the bigger picture. What would we have really gotten? Another pick in a weak draft along with more player negativity. By making the moves Marv did, we got Nate for an extra year (theoretically giving someone like Youbouty time to acclimate) and we gained the respect of players in the league.

 

The thing about Marv is.... he leads by example. He wants character players. So he displays character himself. Look at the TKO situation as yet another example. That could have gotten ugly in the press, but both sides appeared to win and both sides are wishing well of each other. I would argue that one of TDs biggest flaws was this apparent lack of character in player dealings. Sure he was shrewd in his dealings and made some great moves, ala Travis and Peerless. But in the end, so what? None of that shrewdness got us any closer to the playoffs. I'm more than eager to gives Marv's approach a try.

 

If after another 2 years or so, we're still no closer to the playoffs then I'll be the first to say lets try something else... Marv failed. But, for now, Marv seems to have turned the attitude at OBD around. And that is arguably the first and most difficult step to turning a team around. Now, we have to see if the players and coaches he's bringing in can in deed begin winning the games.

 

 

By George (or Ralph), I think he's got it! This is what I was trying to say...you did a much better job.

[Dan]

By George (or Ralph), I think he's got it! This is what I was trying to say...you did a much better job.

Thanks. I know we get it, many other people get it, others will continue getting it for years to come; but I fear some will never get it.

[Bill from NYC]

By George (or Ralph), I think he's got it! This is what I was trying to say...you did a much better job.

 

Yes, my compliments as well to Dan for that well thought post, although I have a comment and a question....

 

My comment is that draft picks are vital resources. I know of few great teams on which their core of good/great players were not drafted. Free agency plugs holes, and trades don't happen often.

If this draft is as weak as Dan states (and it might be), remember that picks can be traded away for future picks. Remember how TD got JP?

My point is that it is NEVER bad to hold a lot of early picks. Ask New England.

 

My questions is simply, are you glad that Marv made this promise and received zero compensation for Nate?

I for one am not, but of course acknowledge that we all, even Marv Levy, make mistakes.

[The Dean]

Yes, my compliments as well to Dan for that well thought post, although I have a comment and a question....

 

My comment is that draft picks are vital resources. I know of few great teams on which their core of good/great players were not drafted. Free agency plugs holes, and trades don't happen often.

If this draft is as weak as Dan states (and it might be), remember that picks can be traded away for future picks. Remember how TD got JP?

My point is that it is NEVER bad to hold a lot of early picks. Ask New England.

 

My questions is simply, are you glad that Marv made this promise and received zero compensation for Nate?

I for one am not, but of course acknowledge that we all, even Marv Levy, make mistakes.

 

 

If you look at it that way, in isolation, and believe the only type of compensation available is another player or a draft pick...well, then yes, this would be a mistake.

 

But, I think that misses the point. The "compensation" he got by tagging Nate with the promise and then keeping the promise, was Nate playing all out (and happy) and the lesson learned by the rest of the team. That's worth WAY more than a draft pick, IMO.

 

Of course, Marv can and will make mistakes. Of course, he HAS made mistakes. It's perfectly acceptable to to think the handling of Nate was a mistake. I don't agree, but I see your point.

 

To think Marv did what he did because he was stupid or because he was a rookie GM, is nuts, IMO. Marv, most likely, did what he did for a reason (and probably a pretty damn good one...at least to him.)

[Dan]

Yes, my compliments as well to Dan for that well thought post, although I have a comment and a question....

 

My comment is that draft picks are vital resources. I know of few great teams on which their core of good/great players were not drafted. Free agency plugs holes, and trades don't happen often.

If this draft is as weak as Dan states (and it might be), remember that picks can be traded away for future picks. Remember how TD got JP?

My point is that it is NEVER bad to hold a lot of early picks. Ask New England.

 

My questions is simply, are you glad that Marv made this promise and received zero compensation for Nate?

I for one am not, but of course acknowledge that we all, even Marv Levy, make mistakes.

I completey agree its always good to have high draft picks, low picks even. However, there certainly are years with less talent coming out of college; therefore, poorer draft classes. 2007 appears to be such a year (at least from what I'm reading here and elsewhere). I'm not saying this year is a complete wash, but it doens't appear to be a deep draft. Perhaps Marv and co. saw this coming.

 

To answer your question.. am I glad we recieved zero compensation? In short, no. Of course you want compensation for any player, especially the ones of Nate's caliber. However, I'm suggesting (as I think the Dean is) that perhaps we have to look at the forest and ignore some of the trees. There are many forms of compensation and I would argue that the compensation we got for Nate was respect and a positive attitude towards Buffalo by many players and their agents. And that is not completely without value.

 

I wouldn't suggest or be happy if we did this with every player, but I can see the value in making an example out of Nate. Not too dissimilar from benching a player for not performing.

 

I know there's concern that we let all our best players walk rather than pay them the big bucks. In the past few years, who could argue with that? However, I'm not sure Marv will operate as such. We'll have to see how he handles certain key players (Losman, Evans, Peters, for ex.) before I say that's completely true. To this point, I think Marv's let players go that either he (or the coaches) didn't like, or who wanted to leave. Conversly, they've kept some that they presumably wanted - and paid them quite well I might add.

 

Marv certainly makes mistakes. And I would certainly call this a potential huge mistake. If Youbouty blows, then it'll look alot worse. However, if Youbouty plays reasonably well and we gain the good will of players, would it have been a mistake? Maybe still, but maybe one that we can all live with.

[Bill from NYC]

I completey agree its always good to have high draft picks, low picks even. However, there certainly are years with less talent coming out of college; therefore, poorer draft classes. 2007 appears to be such a year (at least from what I'm reading here and elsewhere). I'm not saying this year is a complete wash, but it doens't appear to be a deep draft. Perhaps Marv and co. saw this coming.

 

To answer your question.. am I glad we recieved zero compensation? In short, no. Of course you want compensation for any player, especially the ones of Nate's caliber. However, I'm suggesting (as I think the Dean is) that perhaps we have to look at the forest and ignore some of the trees. There are many forms of compensation and I would argue that the compensation we got for Nate was respect and a positive attitude towards Buffalo by many players and their agents. And that is not completely without value.

 

I wouldn't suggest or be happy if we did this with every player, but I can see the value in making an example out of Nate. Not too dissimilar from benching a player for not performing.

 

I know there's concern that we let all our best players walk rather than pay them the big bucks. In the past few years, who could argue with that? However, I'm not sure Marv will operate as such. We'll have to see how he handles certain key players (Losman, Evans, Peters, for ex.) before I say that's completely true. To this point, I think Marv's let players go that either he (or the coaches) didn't like, or who wanted to leave. Conversly, they've kept some that they presumably wanted - and paid them quite well I might add.

 

Marv certainly makes mistakes. And I would certainly call this a potential huge mistake. If Youbouty blows, then it'll look alot worse. However, if Youbouty plays reasonably well and we gain the good will of players, would it have been a mistake? Maybe still, but maybe one that we can all live with.

 

Hey, let's cut out the interesting, intelligent dialogue, OK?

 

Maybe Marv DID see a weak draft coming, and structured the MaGahee deal as such, I don't know. This is what I was trying to say about getting picks in future drafts, something that would require a good deal of patience at his age.

 

I also think that you are right about late draft picks being important. When you get a guy late and he performs well, this is huge for a team because of the low salary involved. It frees up resources to be used at other positions. Marv is to be praised for day 2 in 06.

 

I totally agree about Youboty. The Bills truly do need for him to be a player so losing Nate doesn't in fact cost us a first rounder.

 

Btw, the good news is that we already did extend Peters!!!

[drnykterstein]

The Bills got rid of an undersized ageing MLB in Fletcher, who could not stop the run. They will replace him with someone with size & speed - upgrade. Crowell & Ellison both have a years experience in the Tampa 2 (Urlacher of the Bears said year 2 was when everyone catches on) both should be improved.

[Dawgg]

While I appreciate your point, and it sure does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside, I think it's very much overstated. Free agents AND agents look at three factors when they shop for teams (and contracts):

 

1. $MONEY$

2. A chance to win

3. $MONEY$

 

Look no further than New England, where Bill Bellichick and the front office has proven to be among the most ruthless in the business. He cut team captain Lawyer Milloy a day before the season started, completely screwing him over. He demanded that Ty Law, who was arguably the MVP of their Super Bowl run, to take a paycut. He refused to even talk extension with the grossly underpaid Deion Branch.

 

Yet they have no problem signing one of the Top 2 free agents on the market in Adalius Thomas? Wes Welker was happy to play for them, as is Donte Stallworth. So let me get this straight... players are willing to sign with a team that is KNOWN for underpaying its players and has a coach that would cut them in a heartbeat?

 

Absolutely. You look at the way Tom Donahoe treated some of the incumbent veteran players when they walked out the door in 2001. Yet he had no problems signing some of the premier free agents in the NFL, like London Fletcher, Takeo Spikes and Sam Adams. I'm not going to sit here and say that Marv has done a bad job... I feel quite the contrary. I like the fact that he purged this team of excess baggage moving players such as McGahee and Mike Williams. But this was a mistake.

 

 

 

To answer your question.. am I glad we recieved zero compensation? In short, no. Of course you want compensation for any player, especially the ones of Nate's caliber. However, I'm suggesting (as I think the Dean is) that perhaps we have to look at the forest and ignore some of the trees. There are many forms of compensation and I would argue that the compensation we got for Nate was respect and a positive attitude towards Buffalo by many players and their agents. And that is not completely without value.

[Mark Long Beach]

While I appreciate your point, and it sure does make one feel warm and fuzzy inside, I think it's very much overstated. Free agents AND agents look at three factors when they shop for teams (and contracts):

 

1. $MONEY$

2. A chance to win

3. $MONEY$

 

Look no further than New England, where Bill Bellichick and the front office has proven to be among the most ruthless in the business. He cut team captain Lawyer Milloy a day before the season started, completely screwing him over. He demanded that Ty Law, who was arguably the MVP of their Super Bowl run, to take a paycut. He refused to even talk extension with the grossly underpaid Deion Branch.

 

Yet they have no problem signing one of the Top 2 free agents on the market in Adalius Thomas? Wes Welker was happy to play for them, as is Donte Stallworth. So let me get this straight... players are willing to sign with a team that is KNOWN for underpaying its players and has a coach that would cut them in a heartbeat?

 

Absolutely. You look at the way Tom Donahoe treated some of the incumbent veteran players when they walked out the door in 2001. Yet he had no problems signing some of the premier free agents in the NFL, like London Fletcher, Takeo Spikes and Sam Adams. I'm not going to sit here and say that Marv has done a bad job... I feel quite the contrary. I like the fact that he purged this team of excess baggage moving players such as McGahee and Mike Williams. But this was a mistake.

 

 

The two teams are not identical. The Pats have had a lot of recent success. We have not. They are perceived by players to be one of the teams with the best chance to win the superbowl. That counts for a great deal. We've not been to the playoffs in (too) many years, and have had a revolving door of poor coaches. We can't act like the Patriots because we're not them.

 

Why is it so hard for you to see that there are different ways to organize people into a successful group? It seems that your complaint seems that we're not ruthless enough, and we don't attempt to maximize value at every opportunity. Your so called "warm and fuzzy" actions get solid value on more than one front. Especially related to the fact that the football team is a team of 100+ people that have to be working in the same direction. We got a good, harmonious year of service from Nate. The new management team got an opportunity to see how good he was, and the opportunity to see if he was going to be worth the price it'd take to keep him. They obviously felt otherwise. This has to do with more than just talent.

 

You seem to think that there is only one way to do this. I and many others on this board disagree. You really can be better off by not taking the so-called most optimal (ruthless) choice. See the psychological experiment called the "prisoners dilemma" where if everyone chooses the most self-serving choice everyone involved is worse off.

[Dawgg]

By no means am I suggesting that the Bills take the most ruthless approach at all times.

 

Nor am I saying that they should maximize value at every single opportunity.

 

What I am commenting on is THIS opportunity in particular. When you have the undisputed #1 player in free agency, you simply must try and get something in return. The Bills could have given Nate and his agent full permission to speak with other teams and negotiate a contract and then afterwards could seek out some compensation, be it a 2nd or 3rd round pick. It doesn't have to be as acrimonious as the Lance Briggs situation. In the case of Peerless Price, all parties came out winners. Peerless was able to negotiate with the Falcons and get the contract he wanted, and the Bills were able to work out adequate compensation.

 

These types of opportunities are very rare... when you have a premier young pending free agent on your roster and you have a chance to improve your team. Marv should have taken advantage of it. I understand your argument that this build goodwill with other players, but the reality of the situation is that it really doesn't... players follow the money -- as they should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it so hard for you to see that there are different ways to organize people into a successful group? It seems that your complaint seems that we're not ruthless enough, and we don't attempt to maximize value at every opportunity. Your so called "warm and fuzzy" actions get solid value on more than one front. Especially related to the fact that the football team is a team of 100+ people that have to be working in the same direction. We got a good, harmonious year of service from Nate. The new management team got an opportunity to see how good he was, and the opportunity to see if he was going to be worth the price it'd take to keep him. They obviously felt otherwise. This has to do with more than just talent.

[Snorom]

After the 2005 season and the departure of Teflon Tom, think the Bills went 5 - 11 after five

years of the TD regime, I think a solid team going 9 - 7 this season could be a real step towards

getting this team back to stiking distance of the playoffs for the 2008 season.

 

Hopefully the O-line we be at least average.

Hopefully the D-line will be at least average.

Special teams hold their own.

 

Depending on what happens in two weeks, the Bills may be in position to

have a stable roster and draft for those couple players that can put you

over the top.

 

This team will probably me among the youngest in the NFL again this year.

 

 

 

Heck 9-7 would have me pretty damn excited. A young team getting better while missing numerous veterans from the year befores team.

 

Actually a 7-9 season would allow me to remain pretty optomistic about 2008 and beyond.

[Dan]

Hey, let's cut out the interesting, intelligent dialogue, OK?

 

Maybe Marv DID see a weak draft coming, and structured the MaGahee deal as such, I don't know. This is what I was trying to say about getting picks in future drafts, something that would require a good deal of patience at his age.

 

I also think that you are right about late draft picks being important. When you get a guy late and he performs well, this is huge for a team because of the low salary involved. It frees up resources to be used at other positions. Marv is to be praised for day 2 in 06.

 

I totally agree about Youboty. The Bills truly do need for him to be a player so losing Nate doesn't in fact cost us a first rounder.

 

Btw, the good news is that we already did extend Peters!!!

Agreed! I definitely missed one or two oppurtunities to call someone a nappy headed hoe. I'll try to do better

 

I think the key to this whole Nate situation comes down to Youbouty. If Nate's replacement is currently on the roster and plays well next season, its all a wash in my opinion. If we draft a CB at #12 to replace Nate, then it'll look more and more like a huge mistake.