WhitewalkerInPhilly
-
Posts
7,214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WhitewalkerInPhilly
-
-
No. Neither was a journeyman.
Warner was an instant superstar with the Rams.....and Hasselbeck went straight from being a young backup behind Favre, to being a solid starter at the Seahawks.
I would still argue that Warner was a journeyman. After his great Superbowl year he slumped and was cut, went to the Giants and lost out on the job to Eli manning, went to the Cardinals, lost out on the job to Matt Leinhart, and then led them to the playoffs in '08 and the Superbowl in '09. If that doesn't speak to being a journeyman, I don't know what does.
-
That's not what the post said. The post said it was "a lock" that they would draft Nassib at #8 now. Completely the opposite. And, it really doesn't make sense since Nassib is rated as a 2nd or 3rd rounder, not a top 10 pick..
Ahh, I misunderstood. Thank you for setting me straight.
-
I think, given Nix historical lack of wheeler-dealering in the draft, this is probably the correct diagnosis. They found 3 QB they believe have potential as starters, they're willing to take whoever's there, and they don't think any of them will be ready to start his rookie season so they wanted a reasonable option to TJax to avoid throwing a raw prospect into the fire and ruining him. When the Kolb contract comes out, I'm betting there will be little guaranteed or dead money and mucho incentives. They may keep both Kolb and TJax to hedge their bets, or they may cut one in camp.
I think it's also probable there are several other position players they believe will be available at #8 and they plan to stay pat and draft one. I would personally like them to trade back, but I don't see it based on Nix' history.
Seems like. I won't rule out the possibility of someone we think is a starter at QB dropping into our lap at #8, but I'm thinking that the Bills are looking at Manuel, Nassib and possibly Wilson at #41, with an eye out on Barkley if he drops and possibly Matt Scott if we think we can wait until round 3 or 4.
-
Look, for some perspective, if the Bills had gotten Romo for the same price that they just got Kolb, how stoked would everyone be right now?
I would be pretty happy. Really happy. Tony Romo is a good quarterback, a damn good quarterback. What he isn't, is a good field marshal. How many times did we look at Flacco and go, "what the hell do the Ravens see in him". Remember when we looked at Eli Manning and said "Man, what a bust"? What these guys have is the ability to go up and over their limitations when it matters, as opposed to Romo who regresses.
Romo is a good quarterback, but that's Super Bowl winning money. That's "Flacco has you by the short hairs after having the greatest playoff performance since Joe Montana and it's the last year of his contract" money. Tom Brady doesn't get that deal. Aaron Rodgers doesn't get that kind of deal. Romo doesn't deserve it, but I don't mind seeing the Cowboys overpay for him.
-
Ive read this in other posts and still dont get the logic. How does signing a mediocre QB allow the Bills to draft lesser talent at #8? How does that make any sense?
While I don't agree with the idea that "it's a lock that we don't take a QB at #8", I think that the logic is that the Bills no longer have to run a rookie as a starter no matter what. The Bills can pick someone who is physically gifted like EJ Manuel or Matt Scott, and give them a year to polish. After all, even Kaepernick only started after an injury in his second year, and suddenly everyone is going on about how brilliant the 49'ers were, even though they were perfectly content with Alex Smith at the helm.
Of course, if there is THE GUY at #8, whoever that is, the Bills can take him, and with the incentive laden contract we suspect Kolb got offered we don't have to scream about how we're paying a fortune to a backup.
There has never been(in the modern era) a journeyman QB who became really, really good. There has been a few like Rich Gannon &....um....others similar(?)....who had themselves a couple of good seasons.....but never one that was mediocre, moved teams, and then became great.
Ehh, maybe I'm Kool-Aid drinking. And, to be honest, I don't need great from Kolb. I would be happy with "serviceable" . I would be thrilled if he somehow became the exception to the rule, if indeed the source of his troubles were a bad O-line and non-existent running game, but right now I see him as the wily vet who chases off the rookie for the starting job at first. After all, he's never finished a season, so I think this really just places us as the same situation as with Fitz...only paying less money to a guy with more experience in the new coaching staff's system, and with a bigger arm.
Kurt Warner? Matt Hasselbeck?
Thanks coach! Warner is pretty much the perfect example.
-
You know, I thought there would be no chance in hell of us taking him. He clearly doesn't seem ready to start, even if he has the physical tools, and the Bills were definitely in the market for a starting QB.
Now though...Kolb is a starter, even if he isn't a top tier one, and if the contract is structured like we suspect, we won't be behooven to him is something better comes along. I can see Matt Scott being brought on, and given a year or two to get his head about him before getting a shot.
-
If we don't go with a quarterback at number eight, the team will HAVE to give up MULTIPLE picks to move up in the draft to evaluate whoever is left, consider who they think can win the job if taken in later rounds, and remember that there are large holes to fill at a decimated WR position, as well as losses at LB, SS and LG, an injured TE, and no clear CB in the depth chart after Gilmore.
There, fixed it for you.
-
Matt Moore has always been a better QB than Kolb. I can't see why the Bills didn't go after him. He would have had the chance to start in Buffalo where he doesn't in Miami.
I don't know if Moore has had any experience playing a WCO. I would rather have Arizona's castoffs than Miami's anyways...
Drew Brees? Was the starter in his second season in SD before moving to the Saints to be their starter and lead them to a Super Bowl win and has been arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the league during the course of his career. Hardly a journeyman who has bounced around. You sure you didn't mean someone else?
Well, that's what you get for skimming the Wikipedia article...entirely my bad. I'm sure there's someone who bounced around for a while before getting really, really good.
Still, I think Kolb fits Hackett's system much better than Fitz, has the arm for Buffalo weather that Fitz doesn't and is taking the money Fitz wouldn't. I'm willing to be proven wrong about the guy, especially if we're sticking with a run first system which takes pressure off the guy, and with an offensive line which (hopefully) doesn't give up 58 sacks a year.
-
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO QB, WRS, LBS, OR A LEFT GUARD.
This is pretty much my point...though I can guess you can argue that we have a QB now. Am I completely sold on our CB corps? No. But a reasonably priced sure thing for #2 or #3 CB gives us some much needed depth, especially considering what Pettine has been talking about with a nickel base defense. Considering how often our CBs are injured, I would happily take some insurance before taking someone in the late rounds.
-
OK, to be honest I was ready to bust every blood vessel in my body last night when I heard. But as the morning comes, and I've had the chance to sleep on things a little I have to say that it's not a bad move. Granted, I *want* a rookie to come in and surprise us all, and win the starting job but in the end I think Kolb may be a better QB than Fitz and we're getting him for less money...a lot less money. The phrase "$13M maximum" and the phrasing that was in the contract Fitz got offered makes me think that it's incentive driven.
If the Bills don't see a rookie they like, oh well, there's next year. Kolb somehow becomes the next Drew Brees Kurt Warner, a journeyman who bounced around as a backup before slowly earning his stripes as the starter, we have him for one more year at a ridiculously reasonable contract. If the Bills find a guy they like, but want to give him a year or two to develop, same thing. If the rookie knocks us off our feet, he's in an affordable contract for a backup and we can let him hit the open market, or let him see what the value is for a 29 year old who wasn't started in two years.
In the end, we no longer have to consider trading valuable picks to get Geno Smith at 8. We don't have to talk about trading Flynn from the 'Hawks. We can feel comfortable waiting for round 2 or 3 to pick a developmental QB, or even skipping QB completely if they think that Kolb, a WCO QB, is great in the system. Hey, I'm willing to let myself be completely surprised.
Edit: Ok, I've been shown that my original comparison is wrong, and have substituted a much better one. Let's move on.
-
Well, I guess it's not too bad. Kolb will be injured pretty quick and we'll the rookie in there soon enough.
There's going to be a rookie, right? Right?
...
Excuse me, I need a freaking drink.
-
DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!
Well, I hate it. I'm not even going to sugarcoat it, and everyone here damn well knows that they didn't want this. Even if he's not starting, it's still additional drain on the cap, and the man is not going to be our savior. If we are resigned to suck TJax can do that all on his own.
-
Well thought out post, but any instance that has Scott as a coverage LB is fail. He's not a coverage Lb. he's not a Lb at all. He was terrible in coverage last season. Terrible. I view him as a backup SS. He can't play Lb effectively, hopefully Pettine isn't as stupid as Stache and realizes that.
He had some good picks and I thought in coverage situations he was OK. His big problem was playing the run.
I am wondering if they would want him back at Safety. That way, Sheppard, Bradham and anyone who we pick up would be the ILB's. People have been saying that Pettine likes three safeties, so I wonder if he'll want Scott to fully embrace his role as tweener.
-
We're all either still digesting what you wrote, or plotting how to marry you so we can watch porn together.
"Defensive talk is like porn to me" HA!
I could recommend a few sites.
For defensive talk?
And now that we've Rule 34'rd it, there is a website that combines the two.
-
SJBF put up the CowSignal, eh?
I think the SLB/WLB label gets a bit fuzzy here with Pettine. Some say Lawson can cover in a 3-4, but in a 4-3 he could not, as was proven. However, in both cases it was proven that he could tackle. Being that anything going to Mario's side is not going to get outside the DE's containment I think wewould be better served putting Lawson at SLB. He does not have to wait on his heels deadfooting to assure that containment is not broke, instead he can keep the TE inside and send him to the SS - Bryan Scott/Searcy/whoever.
The WLB is where I am concerned with regard to the 34. In a 34 we are going to have to have someone who can slide around and make sure they can cover a 3rdWR or essentially be a nickel back - see Bryan Scott.
Putting a DE inside like that is like sending a sheep to the wolves. In the NFL today few DE's are good enough to face exposure on all three sides. Some are quick enough to shoot the gaps, but that could pose a problem for our D. If we put fast motors, Carrington and KWilliams (playing them in in the gaps as shown) they will cause pressure to role outside. This - well - if it is a run with a decent back would cause LB's to be exposed. If it is a pass I expect it to create pressure like we saw in 2011.
There is no benefit to putting Mario or Anderson inside in those positions when they can contribute more outside. Belicheck used Anderson at OLB sparingly in NE. KWilliams is like the article mentions, an undertackle, while Carrington is possibly one, too, but more agile against the run with his larger frame.
The strong side in this picture is the left, TE. If we want to play this scheme I would put Lawson over the TE to see if he could handle it against the run. I do not know enough about him but I am curious if he is able to shed blockers enough to stop a run, if not, I would bring Mario to play stand up DE there beside him, with Lawson next to him. Let Mario handle everything, let Lawson clean up what Mario leaves on the plate. That would mean removing the DB pictured - who would probably be Bryan Scott? At the two ILB's we would have to choose Bradham and Sheppard. At the opposite WLB we would possibly have Anderson or another guy snuck in that would strictly rush the passer. It is easily over looked how valuable it can be to rush the passer from the weakside. If Lawson could hold his own you want to have Mario at WLB, much like Philips and son did with the 44 and variations.
Dick LeBeau likes zone blitzing. We do not have the LB's to do that at this time, from my brief observations.
The article says you need 4 very good linebackers to run the scheme but I believe it is wrong. Know it is wrong. You need good coaching to run any scheme and the 43 and 34 are just names to schemes we relate to defenses. You need better DL in a 3-4 then you need LB's. In a 43 you need better LB's then you need DL. If the 3 DL's cannot do their job they will not hold the OL off of the LB's, regardless of how good they are - unless they are exceptional and there are only a handful of exceptional LB's in this league.
So, coming back to your issue with replacing an NT with two DE's - we would be replacing one position with two. Meh, not too happy to do that.
So, lets look at the 1-5-5. In this case it is basically going to be a 3-4 for our defense being that Anderson and Mario could pick their hand up to the OLB position, Lawson is pretty close to playing a SS, and Bryan Scott is a Monster back.
To illustrate this, look at the lineup below and tell me these guys are fit for any one position.
MWilliams - MDareus - MAnderson
Lawson - Sheppard - Bradham? - Scott
Gilmore - Searcy - Byrd - McKelvin
McKelvin and Gilmore are CB's.
Searcy and Byrd are S's
Sheppard is an ILB.
Bradham or someone like Carrington can just as easily blitz the QB from the inside.
Lawson can come outside to buffer Gilmore's man, at least in a short zone. Gilmore keeps him inside - Lawson keeps him out of the middle.
Scott goes toe to toe with 3rd WR or 2TE.
Mario unleashes against the QB.
MAnderson drops to the flat as he showed possible in 2012, and 2011 with Belicheck.
Dareus just has to steer anything up the middle because in most cases the offenses kill to the run and we watch the RB get 10 yards. (Wish we had Whitner, at least he'd stop them at 8 yards).
Gotta run wish I could write more. Defensive talk is like porn to me
OK, now that I have a moment...
As I've been thinking about it, I keep wondering if Scott is intended to be put back as a Safety. It was technically his position before getting moved to LB last year, and this would help alleviate concerns with our thinness at SS. With that, Sheppard and Bradham (or whoever we add in the draft) will be in the ILB spot.
I really don't like having Anderson or Williams anywhere except OLB, and even then I would have reservations with having more than one on the field at a time unless we knew it was a passing down. Mario showed that he could stop the run, but Anderson has a lot to prove.
I do suppose that Lawson might be able to work as a MLB, which would help the situation, especially if the WLB can be done by Bradham with backup from Scott.
I really am curious to see what Pettine has cooking.
This has been the most enjoyable original post and subsequent thread in weeks. Thanks to OP. I can actually see this working out to make a serviceable front seven and allow us to focus on the even greater needs at WR, QB, OL.
Thanks. I'm surprised and happy to see that people seem to be enjoying it.
-
Your pic is missing a NT :-)
I may not have clearly mentioned it, but in this scheme the setup is 2-4-5. As such, there is no true tackle and you really stick with the NT and a DE, or two DE's. I can believe you can also run a 3-3-5, but then you have questions over who will be the NT, and what do we do with Mario Williams.
I am the first to admit my lack of expertise in this area......but 2 possibly stupid questions immediately spring to mind.....
Wouldn't having 5 DBs starting leave us even thinner in the secondary?
Wouldn't it also leave us even weaker against the run?
Admittedly...yes. Yes to both. I am rather happy to have Byrd back, and happy with Gilmore. I think Seacry is pretty close a swap for George Wilson, so we're ready to go there, and I think that between Williams and Brooks we can get a decent NB, but without some reinforcements we are quite thin. The problem is that there don't seem to be any stud stutdown players in the draft past Milliner and I don't see any in free agency so I think we're stuck with it either way.
And yes, the nickel's primary weakness is against the run. However, another subpackage out of the 3-4 is the 46, and we could play it with a lot of the same personnel. This would primarily act as our previous 4 man D-line front, with Lawson coming in for run support. It's not perfect, but I think you can argue that in the increasingly pass-centric league it makes more sense to gameplan against that first.
I will get back to JBoy when I have time later today, as I'm enjoying all the Defense Talk too
-
Very interesting post, I tend to agree that the Bills are more set at LB than outsiders think but I still see them bringing in one ILB during the draft. Not saying its going to be a 1st-2nd rounder but it seems to me we have far more flexibility (in regards to players having the skills to man those spots) at outside linebacker than we do with our inside linebacker spots.
Keep an eye on Nico Johnson, the ILB out of Alabama. He's a Bart Scott clone and plays with a lot of ferocity, only problem is he's a 2 down ILB...kind of a dying breed in the NFL. I think he would fit Pettine's Defense perfectly though and would really shore up our run Defense, I like him in the 3rd-4th rounds.
Nice catch. I agree that if the Bills have a weak link in their front seven, it's at the ILB position, whether or not we go to a 3-4 or stay in 4-3. Now, I wouldn't hate getting Kevin Minter or *wince* Manti T'eo, provided that they dropped to 41, and still walked away with a decent QB option but I'm increasingly convinced that QB and WR will be first on our docket.
-
Do we have to berate you on this subject or can we do so generally?
BTW, cue JBoyst in 3…2…1...
Well, we are talking about Two Bills Drive here. Whenever have you needed a reason?
That drawing is straight outta the original Microsoft Paint... just sayin...
And yanked straight from the article I was stealing from referencing...but hey, it does the job. If it's good enough for SB News...
-
I have a couple of problems with this idea:
1) How do you pick which team you think is going to flop? Because if you're going to give them two first round talents, they may might not completely bomb. It seems like whoever bombs each year keeps changing, but who stays in the top 10 is pretty consistent.
2) There is real talent in this draft. It may not be quite where we want it, but if we are resigned to a flop year, I would much rather see a few talented rookies brought in and be built in anticipation.
Trading back in the draft for more picks? Yes, this seems like the year to do it. Gambling it all on getting two picks next year, who might, MIGHT give us a shot at a franchise QB which we very may well get in the second round doesn't seem like the answer.
-
Hell, McShay even apologized for it.
"I feel like I should apologize to Bills fans for this pick given the team's quarterback situation, but there are reasons this makes sense."Of course, I don't blame him for the second round QB pick, but I have to deeply question his rationale for Warwick, especially with all of the holes elsewhere.
-
I have to give credit where credit is due, as this idea got sparking in a different thread.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Bills' brass might not feel linebacker is a need? Think about it. They like Shepperd and Bradham. They can use either Mark Anderson or Mario at OLB. And they just signed Lawson to man the SS.
Now I'm not saying I agree with that, but that could be the case. They might just bring in some UDFAs and UFAs to fill in the back up spots.
This is the Bills we're talking about.
Since most topics are about why McShay is an idiot (an opinion I share) I thought I would move it here.
I've been considering this question too. There's been a lot of guessing about what type of defense Petting is going to run but he has gone on record saying something along the lines of "hybird, multiple look" and in addition "base nickel"
Manny Lawson seems to think that we're running a 3-4 from his interview. Well, what would that look like?
Picture taken from Behind the Steel Curtain:
Line backers from left to right: Sam, Mike, Will, Jack
So, remember how people people have been saying "We can't play a 3-4, we don't have a proper Nose Tackle". Well, in this scenario, that's not a problem, as Kyle Williams and Marcell Dareus are ridiculously qualified for the job up front. In addition, look at the placement of the linebackers. If the Bills want to run their 4-3 nickel, all they have to do is plug Mario and Anderson at the ends and have them put their hands down.
So who would go where? Well, what places are there, and what does each do?
Jack Back (the Hybrid OLB/DE, Weakside outside): Mario/Anderson-Rushes,rarely drops into coverage
Sam Back (Strong Side Outside): Manny Lawson-run stuffer, covering tight ends and RBs, possibly put Anderson in here if we're looking for an extra pass rush, Bradham as depth
Will Back (Weak Side Inside): Coverage Back. Bryan Scott's only real qualifications are in this role, primarily on covering the four receiver or a tight end
Mike Back(Strong Side Inside): Sheppard, maybe Bradham if they think he can do it and are willing to cut Shepp
I'm not saying this is where everyone will wind up, or that we'll use this, but this does promise the flexibility that Pettine has been talking about, since it allows them to mix and match coverage, giving us the diversity of a 3-4, while mitigating our lack of a true 3-4 NT.
Suddenly we don't look awful in our front 7. Not "great" mind you, but functional, functional enough to wait for a second or even mid-round pick to solve some of our other problems such as a lack of SS, WR, and QB.
Thoughts? Questions? Berate me?
Resources: http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2009/9/21/1047264/the-2-4-5-and-1-5-5-revealed
-
Well, as I'm looking I don't think that in the end he's not a bad choice. Can I look at him and say "There's someone, ANYONE, in the draft who is better than him?" I keep thinking that I don't see it.
Of course, there's the problem with his contract. He's being paid like a sure thing, while nothing is further from the truth. If he was willing to take less, I would say yes. If not, I say there is a lot less risk in getting a rookie with an incentive heavy contract.
-
I completely understand the reasoning. From what I can tell, he would rather like to stay in Washington. However, it seems that the Redskins don't consider him important enough to shell out big bucks for him. These trips are likely as much bargaining chips for Davis as they are prospective interviews. In the end, I'm not worried about the Jets outbidding us, because quite simply they don't have the money. They'll have *maybe* three million after their draft picks and they've already jettisoned a good chunk, if the not the majority of their starters. A second linebacker really isn't going to be high on their bidding list.
In the end, I see one of two scenarios.
1) The Redskins ease up and make a competitive counteroffer. Considering that the 'Skins are in dire cap space problems and betting on a player coming off ACL surgery, I doubt it.
2) The Bills throw in more cash than he's going to get anywhere else, which is likely more than he appears to be worth, and hope that he plays above it.
-
^Not true. Whaley was there.
Indeed. But I'm still too shaky with Barkley to care too much. Maybe Fitz is too fresh in our memory but I'm getting a little tetchy at the mention of, "Great football IQ. no long range , but can sneak it into tight windows". That sounds just like Fitz before his play took a swan dive.
As much as I hate to say it, EJ Manuel is slowly winning me over, as there's a chance we can get him in round 2 and get a great WR or LB in round 1.
Confirmation:http:// http://www.wgr550.com/Bills--Whaley-present-at-Barkley-s-pro-day/15901655
Bills officially sign QB Kevin Kolb
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I completely agree on that one. Look, I'm willing to entertain the idea that Kolb surprises us all. I would welcome it in fact, and it does seem that the Bills put some effort into getting him to sign. But there really is no excuse to forgo have a rookie being groomed behind Kolb in the likely event that he gets hurt, or isn't the QB of the future.