Bills trade may affect Pack's first pick

Carr as a backup to Favre? Overtime rules change proposition a dud

When the Buffalo Bills traded running back Willis McGahee to the Baltimore Ravens it opened a huge void in the Bills' backfield.

Considering the Bills don't have an ample replacement for McGahee, the Bills must go shopping for a featured running back. The Bills could wait until the NFL draft, where California's Marshawn Lynch – the No. 2-rated running back in the draft – should be available.

If this is the Bills' plan, this may affect how the Packers approach the first round. Check out 10 mock drafts and it seems nine have Green Bay picking Lynch at No. 16. The Packers' No. 1 running back today is Vernand Morency, who has yet to prove he's a featured back, although he has displayed good ability. Buffalo picking Lynch makes a lot of sense.

If the Packers are high on Lynch – they interviewed him at the Scouting Combine – they need an alternate plan if Buffalo takes him. Or try to trade ahead of the Bills in the draft. The Packers' plan should include looking at a tight end or the best defensive player left at No. 16.

And then in the second round, the Packers could consider a running back, like Ohio State's Antonio Pittman, who has had a good off-season.

The Packers' interest in trading for Oakland wide receiver Randy Moss appears real, but just how serious are the Packers in acquiring the "Mooner?"

If GM Ted Thompson can avoid trading what he considers a valuable commodity – QB Aaron Rodgers or a draft pick – I think it happens.

Here's something to gnaw on, however, in regards to trading Moss:

After the Texans acquired Atlanta QB Matt Schaub this week, they cut David Carr on Friday. How about the Packers send Rodgers to Oakland for Moss and then sign Carr, who can back up Brett Favre?

Carr has been sacked 249 times in five seasons – basically 50 sacks a season. He's been beat to a pulp, and his sub-par performance for being a top pick in a draft has to heavily be based on playing on an expansion team, which had an offensive line that couldn't block Jamal Reynolds.

Get Carr in an established situation like Green Bay, watching Favre, who's playing behind a reliable offensive line which will only get better with age and Carr could be a nice addition.

He might need a season of rest, which he would get in Green Bay. Then if Favre retires after 2007, the Packers have an experienced QB ready to play pitch and catch. Will this happen? Doubtful. But it's nice to talk about.

If you've followed the NFL, you realize when games enter overtime the team which receives the kickoff to start the extra period wins more than not, meaning the kickoff team never touches the ball.

To never get a chance on offense is wrong, so the NFL is proposing a change at next week's NFL meetings: Move kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35.

"The rationale for moving the kickoff position in overtime is to take away the advantage that has now shown up for the team that wins the coin toss," said Atlanta president and GM Rich McKay, who is a co-chairman on the NFL Competition Committee. "The field position has obviously helped them in winning games. It doesn't mean that they are going to score on their first possession, because those numbers, although they are up, are not wildly up.

"But what has happened is that that field position has carried the day in some way, shape or form because the teams that are winning the toss are winning approximately 62 percent of the time."

Personally, I don't see five yards making a difference. What the NFL should allow is each team a possession in overtime. Most winning teams in overtime score on their initial possession, never giving their opponent a chance.

The NFL doesn't like this idea as it doesn't want games to drag. Still, isn't a longer game better than one team never seeing its QB on the field in overtime?

Scrap the five yards and make this change, please.

Doug Ritchay

Doug Ritchay is a frequent contributor to and Packer Report magazine. E-mail him at

Packer Report Top Stories