sllib olaffub

I think in nickel packages Sheppard is brought out, along with Moats/Morrison, and Barnett and Scott become the two LB's. That would explain some of the missing time for Sheppard, as we saw a ton of nickel last week. Still - I'd have to agree with the questions surrounding Shep. A middle linebacker should be hands down the most remarkable, noticed LB on a squad. He should know how to make big hits, and with our D-line - it's obvious there will be a crease or two up the middle for backs to run in, but that shouldn't be too much of a weakness, since our middle LB should be there to nail the guy when he makes it past the DT's. I just haven't seen that kind of PRESENCE from Sheppard. I, too, think our MLB of the future is not on this roster (although McKillop looked okay to me).

I've walked away from watching both preseason games thus far thinking the same thing: the Bills are not out there trying to win. That is something that should be kept in mind. I see our opponents actually game planning, to some extent, against a Bills team that is DELIBERATELY NOT showing anything that they'll actually be using in the regular season. Washington wanted to give Griffin III a chance to have success early - for confidence sake - and so ran a more complicated game plan against a very vanilla Bills team. Minnesota was very much pressured to have the appearance of success, of growth, as they've been critisized and looked at as a fallen team - both teams priority was to come out and WIN, to look good, to have success, against a Bills team whose priority was NOT to show what they'll really be doing, and NOT to get hurt. If I hadn't seen last year's team come out of preseason and look night and day better than what they did throughout the preseason, I'd be more worried. However, this is now something I recognize as being planned. You can bet their critisisms (Bills coaches) are going to be much different while watching the game than a Bills fan's would be. They just weren't trying to do what a football team normally tries to do, which is win at all costs. Two things have, nevertheless, made me wonder leading up to the regular season - Mario Williams and Mark Anderson haven't really been in the backfield much (I'm hoping they're waiting for the real season to go nuts), and our recievers don't look that good at getting separation. We'll just have to see how this pans out.

The most difficult positions to fill with real talent on an NFL team these days - QB, LT, DE, CB; The Bills walk out of 2012 draft, potentially with 2 of those positions filled for the next half decade, at the least (Gilmore, Glenn). Add in Brooks, who looks like he'll be a very good CB, and the Bills front office made no mistakes in the first 2 rounds. Keeping in mind, too, that this team is not necessarily expected to be peaking for another year or two, depending on QB play. Nix and Gailey must have been thinking this was Fitz's year to prove himself - if he proves he's franchise material, our run starts now. If he proves unworthy - and, that must have been a possibility in their minds - then they'd be gearing up to finally solve the QB problem next year. This only goes to show that the rebuild is not rebuilt - the players they picked up this year will be complimented further in the next few years to come. Getting a top notch CB is never a bad idea (unless it's at the expense of a true top 10 QB prospect - which wasn't the case).

Speed can kill in the NFL - when it is used wisely. I have really high hopes for Spiller this year; we've got to start using him more before his first contract becomes somewhat wasted (I'm thinking he's got to want to resign with us). Anyway, I imagine two back sets with he and Fred, and with Fred so good at blocking, the defense would have to account for run, for screen - you could split either out wide; having those two guys on the field should, I would imagine, force the linebackers at least to be torn - and, if you could then make them account for someone like T.J. Graham, who is lightning quick also - there could be some big plays. I loved the Spiller pick from the beginning. The kid was to college what B. Sanders was to the NFL. Now he's starting to look acclimated to the system and to the NFL. He is the kind of back who can take it 10 yards, 20 yards, or all the way, on any given play - and there aren't too many people in the NFL with that kind of speed/athleticism combination. Can't wait to see what Chan has devised!

At this point, this team hasn't even played a game yet in what I would consider Nix's first season where he and Gailey actually will feel pressure if they don't make the playoffs - so, my guess would be ANY player at any position that gets cut by another squad that looks like they could win a spot on the final roster here, and I think Nix would bring them in. A good QB could have months of time to prepare and learn before they're ever called upon, and to waste a spot on a 53 man roster for a QB who could finally settle the #2 role would not be wasting a spot at all. Likewise, if the right WR were let go somewhere, and he looked capable of outplaying our bunch vying for the #2 spot, we'd go get him. DE, Safety, Center, and LB are all positions we could easily add a player at, if it were the right one. However, I would be surprised if we didn't go looking for the right Safety.

Of course, talk is talk - and often too much talk leads to trouble (as in Jets recent past) - but, I'm not talking about what the players are SAYING. I'm referring to their state of mind, their expectations. You shouldn't be in the NFL if you don't believe you can beat anyone. And, this is a totally NEW team - it is a new year, new players, and so when you say this team has been talking crap for 12 seasons, you are wrong. Those were different teams. Some of the same players (not many). My point was simply this: I don't want our players thinking they are on a squad that simply might learn to play well enough to win enough games to make a wildcard. I want these guys believing they can go out and, on defense, stop anyone, shut them down, and, on offense, score no matter what, enough to win. It is all about where they're at mentally - the words merely suggest what they're thinking.

I'm glad someone started this thread. There is a line that especially draws my attention, going something like, "we can't be the old Bills...we've got to stop saying we can win so many games in a row, and start talking like Champions, acting aggressive and dominant." I've been writing posts on here for a good 4 or 5 years, and one of the themes my writing always revolves around is the state of mind, or attitude, of the coaches and players. I believe players have to go about the whole thing, practice, preparation, but especially playing on the field, in a particular way to be successful. You see it in New England's players eyes and faces when they come down here during a season in which they're like finishing 13-3 and we're going 6-10, and despite that, they act as if we're the team that is going to stop all of it for them, and they get a lead, and then they don't take out their starters, they keep nailing in the nails, crushing us - THEY DON'T WANT TO JUST WIN; THEY WANT TO DOMINATE. That is one of the reasons Bills fans have been so disappointed year in and out, and why the players have seemed soft. When you hear the guys talking about setting their sights for just trying to get into the postseason, or improve from last year and if we make the playoffs, we could make a run, etc. It's like they BELIEVE they aren't going to win the superbowl, but if everything falls their way, they might make the postseason. I'd rather they be dellusional and go out there and think they're going to beat every team they face, and they're going to be dominant, and their sights are on GREATNESS, not just good. It's what we've all been waiting for - a team that exudes a sort of expectation, and it is expecting to be great. The Pats have tasted greatness - in their 16 game winning season, in their superbowls, so when they go out and expect greatness, they aren't just thinking they'll be unstoppable for a game; they're idea of achieving greatness is becoming a team that kind of is almost perfect, that no one can stand up to - it lasts more than a game - it's a season long, decade long, continual MOTIVATOR for them. We need that kind of VISION. I'm glad someone on this team recognizes it and is talking like it.

Wonderful!

Good responses - sure, I didn't think they'd go all no-huddle, but the fact that they'd go out so much last year and just pass in those 4 and 5 wide sets, seemingly abandoning the run, coupled with my imagining Gailey getting it in his head to reinvent the no-huddle as a way to camouflage our weaknesses, all led to that post - I just think we should run more, slow it down, keep the D off the field. But, good points in that the no-huddle doesn't have to be quick, K-Gun style. Also, I didn't get a chance to read a lot of the articles on the game as they hadn't yet been posted. It does make sense, though, in response to the 3-4, that they stuck with their game plan. I really do like that Gailey is using the preseason as he does, without giving away much. I'm not too worried about the starting offense. Don't get me wrong, I think we're lacking a proven stud WR, and another QB on the roster good enough to win. Here's a quote from Gailey that was a real head-scratcher for me: "That’s the one thing you’re trying to find. Who can create that consistency for you at the backup quarterback? That guy doesn’t get a lot of reps during the week so he has to be able to be consistent without getting a lot of reps." If that is the Bills belief, then what have they been doing these past 2 years? Are you kidding me? I happen to believe Tanney, the youtube QB kid, would look more consistent, more traditional, than the two we have. Unless Young starts to really improve - and he very well might - I think the Bills have to pick someone else up.

The no-huddle offense that was supposedly attempted last night, or was hoped to (I didn't get to watch the game), is a quick scoring offense. I think it is great in its potential, and we probably have a QB who could handle it. However, when I look at this team that has been built over the last 2 years, I see a team that might profit from going in a different direction. What I see as our strengths - an opportunistic defense that can get after the QB, and cause turnovers. Our offense appears to have much better personnel for running - 2 star RB's, compared to almost no stars in the passing game. Now, I could see us forcing some quick 3 and outs early in games, while our defense is fresh, and maybe some interceptions. You give the ball back to our offense, and if they were to run a lot, consume time of possession, and use the pass to balance it out - play action, maybe some sprinkled no-huddle, but definitely not often, then we could put some points up, and just as importantly, keep our defense fresh. Contrast that to giving the ball to our offense, having them run off a quick series of passes that go nowhere, give the ball right back to the opponent's offense, while our defense gets gassed, and they become sluggish and vulnerable. I see our team potentially being vulnerable to power running teams who can wear down our defense, teams like Baltimore, the Jets, Pittsburgh of old - teams with good defenses that can shut us down a lot. We're built, defensively, more to stop New England than the Jets, I think. My point is just this - shouldn't we look to become more like, say, the 49er's (as another poster mentioned earlier, on another thread), using our great backs, letting Fitz manage a game. This would play to the strengths of our offense AND defense! The no-huddle looks like a way, if employed too much, to shoot ourselves in the foot!

I've said it before, and I'll mention it here again - what a difference one very good WR would make on this team! Then, all of a sudden these guys we look at as "potentially #2's" could become excellent #3's. Perhaps one of them will blossom into what we need; but, if not, next offseason will definitely be spent on aquiring a developmental, if not potential frachise, QB, and a top end WR. I believe with those 2 additions, we'd be a very solid bet on going into the playoffs for a few years to come. And, by the way, Fitz's contract is not really as detrimental to the franchise as was suggested. His contract pays him money that QB's in the top half of the league make, from, say, 15-8th, but certainly not elite, and, we could dump him next year and be off the hook for most, if not the rest, of it. So, he's definitely got to prove himself, but either way he will have been paid handsomely for his services.

You know, I see truth in both sides of these arguments. Fitz should very well be hitting his recievers - but, I'm not going to write him off until the season is here and the games are played. Brady and Brees, for instance (and, I know they've proved it before) had worse nights. There are many factors involved - maybe wrong routes, various other stuff. All said, it was just practice, and I'm glad we didn't and usually don't show much of what we're planning on really doing come regular season. However - since we have seen Fitz struggle in the past (I've never thought he would amount to anything more than an average Qb), there really is no excuse for Nix to have not tried to bring in a legitimate backup QB. Keeping Thigpen for another season, after last year - is just like keeping a kicker and calling him a QB - they aren't going to use him, even if Fitz is hurt! I just can't figure why they haven't brought in a guy who could potentially win games, at the very least for developmental purposes. I agree big time, BTW, with the suggestion that Gailey tends to pass far too much with this personnel group he has. The 49ers were mentioned as an example of how to use Fitz - and I agree. We should be a running team, with a good defense, and a QB who can take advantage of play action passing and make an occasional nice pass for big yards. We have that type of team. We do not have the personnel of the Saints or Pats, who pass 65 percent of the time, for good reason. That was really my only critisism of Gailey last year - he stuck to a style of play that was proven not to work, when we had better options, and with Nix - he hasn't addressed the QB position thoroughly. Even if Fitz plays great this year, not to have a backup that can spark a few wins is a huge gamble.

If there is ANY issue that coaches, players, and fans can all agree on, it should be this. The ONLY side here other than that of coaches, players, FANS, and officials, is that of the league office. The NFL is ENDANGERING the integrity of this sport - a MULTI BILLION DOLLAR SPORT (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the commissioner makes like 10 million a year?) - a sport which purports to be SO AGAINST gambling, and BOUNTIES, things that could jeopardize the integrity of the game...and yet, they're willing to allow a potentially good season of the Buffalo Bills to be compromised by poor officiating!, due to a disagreement over salary. How outrageous is it, when this game is SOOOOO dependent on accurate officiating, that the NFL would be digging in it's heels on paying these officials a good wage. How many people in the world are qualified to do this? More accurately, there aren't a ton of them - and they're crucial to the sport. The fans, the players, we should all join up and put pressure on the NFL to get this done with ASAP - Does anyone remember the plights of the NFL and the Players to the Fans during the lockout? Those sides were soooo worried about Fans turning their heads away in disgust, YET - they are not so worried about ruining the sport for US! We should all come up with a way to make it absolutely clear, pay the officials, make it FULL Time, specialized work, so they can perfect a trade, make it as clear of scrutiny as possible - the price we pay for tickets, jerseys, and all the other stuff (not to mention time) we are deserving of having the game be officiated correctly (as opposed to watching outcomes of games potentially altered because they NFL won't pay the BETTER officials what they deserve!).

I've thought very highly of Brooks since we signed him - and, because of him, and Justin Rogers, and A. Williams and Gilmore, I think we'll have the best young secondary in the league, not to mention our studs at safety in Wilson, Searcy, and Byrd. I wouldn't put any stock in this game. As for what we didn't see - running, for instance, early on - I count all methods of attack that are left off the board during the preseason as good. We don't have to win now - now is the time to see if we can simply execute various things. I'd like to point out that most teams played poorly tonight - Saints and Pats had as bad of a showing or worse, and we know that means nothing. I recall last year we all thought, "we're doomed" after the preseason, and then we looked like a totally different team when the season started. Now, I have been concerned for a long time now with our QB's. If Fitz doesn't work out, we are in trouble.

I used to think high intelligence was a criteria for any potential Bills QB under Gailey - but, bringing in Young sort of disproved that. I guess they look at it more like they'll make the offense fit the talent, so talent is more important. Yeah, good list. If Young plays well in the preseason I think we stick with him; otherwise, I think they look really hard for a talent that hits a practice squad, and would be willing to lose a roster spot to keep a QB with potential while he's learning the system.

I agree that the question is VERY relevant. I've raised this point various times, when the opportunity presents itself: either Vince Young looks better than we're hearing, or the Bills are putting their whole season on Fitz's health. Now, I know most teams go into a season expecting their first QB to play just about every game. Still, it IS an issue, IMO, if the QB is hurt, to the point where he is no longer effective, and AN INNEFFECTIVE QB is STILL better than the backup. If that is the case, you might as well throw Brad Smith out there. Again, it is a new season, with lots of excitement. The point, though, is why haven't they improved the backup situation. Vince Young appears to be the answer.

Brings a few thoughts to mind: For one, I find it very hard to undestand how Buddy Nix has let the most important position on the football field - by far - to go so totally without competition, for now 2 years! More, if you consider prior to last year no one would have considered Fitz competition for anything but a 2 spot - and some still don't. It seems strange to me that Nix and Gailey would go into a season as important as this one with no #2 QB who could win a few games for them. It's a real head scratcher. Also, I've heard Nix speak highly of Vince Young. He has said it will take him a while to learn the system, but he's always referring to how hard it is to prepare for a Qb with as much talent as Young has. From all the reports I've read, Thigpen, having at least 2 more years of system knowledge than Young, has looked as bad as Young. That, to me, would be more of a warning sign than Young struggling. I think it'll come down to performance in the preseason. I can't imagine them cutting Young without bringing in someone else - and, it's getting late for that kind of thing - because, Thigpen, it was proven last year when they wouldn't even put him in for an injured Fitz without even having anything to play for, just cannot win us games.

I've predicted that if healthy the Pats will win the division - on account of their schedule - but, if they do have a lot of line issues, let's remember, Brady is older, and he's never been good at taking hits. This Bills defense is beginning to look more and more like it will be in the top 5 in the league, and might be the best at getting after the QB. There are intimations by our D-linemen that they don't even consider it fair, how good they are, and this Bills O-line is, even now, a decent NFL offensive line. I hope my predictions are wrong and greatness overcomes all the other factors, and we're the team at the end of the season with the unstoppable Defense that no one wants to face heading into the playoffs!

A lot of thoughts come to mind on this topic. First off, Morrison was considered a very good 4-3 OLB just two years ago, and had produced very respectable stats for a number of years. He isn't old by NFL standards; actually, he is in his prime when it comes to linebacker age, I'd say - so, there is no reason to believe he'll be a weak spot. He might prove to be average, but I don't think he'll end up making a lot of bad plays for us. Now, I was worried when we switched over to the 4-3 that we'd lose 2 players in particular, who I had high hopes for, and who were drafted with the 3-4 in mind - Moats and Carrington. I did wonder if we'd be able to convert Moats to an OLB and Carrington to a DE - which he played in college. We'll see on them, but I'm hoping that Moats can pull it off, even if it is as a situational pass rushing OLB. My opinion is this - the right kind of 4-3 trumps the 3-4 scheme; as long as the players in the 4-3 aren't too small. One thing with Buddy so far - he likes big men. I like that! As for switching Sheppard to OLB and drafting a MLB next year - I'm with the others here who suggest he is in his natural positoin. The good thing about that is, if he proves he cannot be a good starter, he is only a 3rd rounder. We could still draft a superstar MLB - something that is pretty important to a great defense - and use Sheppard as an above average backup. And, if Sheppard proves he's up for it, with players like Bradham - who I think is going to be very good - and Carder, another promising player, these young guys will be playing with passion next offseason and will prevent the vets from complacency. A lot of people have looked at our LB corps as the weak link in this defense. Injuries could make any unit vulnerable, but if we stay healthy, I think being able to rotate guys like Moats, Bradham, and Carder into games, and having Scott as the pass coverage LB, makes our group very versatile. We'll see how it pans out - but if I had to choose which LB would be starting - I like the idea of having a big, QB killing OLB over there (to be honest, though, I'm hoping Bradham ends up with the full time role, as I think he is the best talent of them all).

I look at NFL football teams, and depending on the rosters and GM's, I see most teams are cyclical and are operating within certain windows. This team is just at the first year of it's current window. We've got to resign some key guys, like Levitre, Wood, and Byrd - and keep others, like Spiller, in the next few years, but otherwise, we look to have this nucleus, WITH A CHANCE TO ADD TALENT, for the next 4 to 5 years, before we start to see bundles of contracts ending, and larger portions of the team being turned around. I'd say the one striking difference between this Bills team and the one in 1989 is the QB. Having a franchise QB is kind of equivalent to having an entire D-line, in their respective importance to how the overall units perform. You can have a very good offense if you have a great QB, just as you can have a very good Defense if your D-line is stellar. Anyway, I've read stats on this site suggesting that Fitzpatrick's play over the last 2 years is close to Kelly's. I think Fitz is lacking in something - some kind of confidence, maybe, and also a sort of tendency to win. Anyway - this 5 year window is either going to seriously begin this year, or we'll see a rookie QB come in next year, and then we'll have the first year of "learning" and then the second year - 2014 - will be "the time". At that point, we'd have a window of about 2-3 years, with this nucleus, to get the job done. I think starting a young, promising rookie QB would amount to a year of "learning", so... I sure hope Fitz gets it done this year. If he has a great year, this Bills team can make a push NOW, and we'll have 4 or 5 years of potential to look forward to.

Yeah - choosing the Patriots to win the division is a pretty rational, logical thing to do. I'm a huge Bills fan, and I believe we are capable of beating the Patriots at least once this year, and I think we're 50/50 both games, actually - BUT, the Patriots are regularly winning 12 games a year, AND THEIR SCHEDULE IS RIDICULOUSLY EASY this year. Even if we swept them, they'd still probably finish with 12 or 13 wins. All this is assuming everyone stays healthy. Anyway, I think we'll be a much better team this year, and I think if we make the playoffs we're just as likely to go all the way as any other team. But, I think it is also likely we'll have a difficult time with at least a handful of teams this season, since we are so young, and because we aren't used to winning week in and out. I'm picking us to win 11 games this year. I just happen to think the Patriots will win 13. I hope I'm wrong about that and we win more than they do - but for us to be a favorite to win the division I think we'd have to be looking at 13 or more wins, and who really thinks we're going to do that this year? Again - I hope so, but we've got a lot to prove along the way.

As much as I abhor that kind of behavior off the field, I thought Travis Henry was one of the most underrated players in the NFL while he was in Buffalo. I think, despite his age and time out of the league, that he could still put up 100 yard games with a third of the teams in the NFL. Some people are built differently than most, tougher, more durable - Curtis Martin comes to mind - who defy age. Anyway, if he is in physical shape - and, I suppose he'd know from is years of playing whether he could still do it - I'm guessing he would play till the caps blew right off his knees with the kind of money he owes, knowing he'll never make any kind of a living outside the NFL that could set it right. That kind of motivation behind certain types of players... I'd bet he could still play at a pretty high level.

To begin with, I really have liked Moore in the games I've seen him play. He looks like he has all the tools necessary - and, really, there are more than a few QB's vying for backup jobs who don't have ALL the tools, but who only excel at some things. But, as was mentioned, it looks unlikely that Gailey would bring in a QB as backup now, since the system takes so long to learn. Thigpen couldn't have been better last year - one full season and an offseason less experience, and Gailey was willing to go into the season with him as backup. They've shown a willingness to rely on incapable backups. But, on the other hand, backup QB is definitely a position of need, as in we don't have a player who has actually proven he can succeed in this system. So, if Nix or Whaley spotted a QB on the market who could be had for the right price, and who would undoubtedly be an upgrade, then I could easily see Nix pulling the trigger, and if the guy wasn't ready until next year, or the end of this year, the guy would still be an upgrade. So, yeah - I think the right guy could have a shot at being picked up, but, considering we have Vince Young here, with all he's accomplished, I think the QB in question would have to be the perfect type - probably not so well recognized and respected that it'd potentially create a controversy, but definitely good enough to win. Matt Moore sounds like that type of QB to me.

Another thing about recievers and this team: we simply don't have much room - as surprising as that sounds, considering we're worried about the talent of the WR's - to add any other WR's, unless they are high-end, high draft pick types. If you think about it, we're already on the fence about who we might have to cut going into the season. We're saying they might lose a good WR or two - guys like Roosevelt, Aiken, Easley. Other teams have WR's that were drafted in the mid to lower rounds and who end up being pleasant surprises (Giants rising star comes to mind), but we'd be wasting picks to keep adding guys like that, because we have plenty of guys with borderline starting talent. My point to all this is, despite people saying we need better WR's, or we might be in trouble there, we actually have a very good group of WR's, ABSENT ONE LEGITIMATE starter. So, I think we find that guy next year. IMO, next year's draft, depending on how Fitz plays this year, will see us picking a QB, DE, and WR with our first picks. Imagine how GOOD our recieving corps would be if we had a star opposite Stevie! Then guys like Nelson, Graham, and Easley could be seen as very good 3rd and 4th options. Amazing what a difference one player can make. And, for all we know, Easley or Graham could turn out to be the guy we're all wishing we had. In a little over a month, we'll all find out!

Yeah - you have to give Buddy extremely high marks, and that is compared to other GM's, for the work he's done with F.A. pickups. Something comes to mind now that I haven't really formulated before: If I put myself in the position of a GM, especially one taking over a very talent deprived team, I have to take a long view perspective on building the team back up. First year you see what you have, and you go out and get as many impact players as possible for your team via the draft. Buddy's first draft is his only real blemish, as far as most are concerned - but, I give him a pass on that because, for one, I think Spiller is awesome, and can really be a mega star with tremendous game changing ability. Also, he couldn't very well predict Troupe's back problems, and Carrington is, I believe, a good player. Add to the mix Nix didn't have a scouting dept. in place then, while Modrak knew he was on his way out, and I think you just let that draft go as a wash. Besides, other GM's who have had time to assemble staffs, and who are considered great, have had very bad drafts with no excuses. It can happen. Second year, Buddy assembles his staff, has a very good draft, and adds talent to the team where it is needed. My point here is not to rehash his first years here, but to point to this: There are windows of opportunity for a team. You simply cannot afford to keep more than a few players a year, whose contracts come up, and who have played exceptionally well, while also adding F.A.'s and draftees. You have to try to get as many NFL ready players from the draft, serviceable players from the waiver wire - who will be affordable - and be very selective on big money contracts. Had Buddy gone out his first two years and spent big money on contracts for players that wouldn't have put the team totally over the "hump", then we wouldn't have had the money to sign Mario and Anderson, not to mention we've given drafted players time to develop. Buddy has his hands full next year trying to resign Byrd, Levitre, and Ubrik. So - he's really done an excellent job of bringing in young, AFFORDABLE, talent. He doesn't overpay for players. And, now that our roster is competitive, we can begin to supplement players we might lose with younger guys or rookies. I don't remember seeing anyone build a team so well in recent memory, except San Fran last year, although they were stocked up in certain areas already. I'd guess if Buddy left Buffalo tomorrow, he'd be able to find a GM job with at least 2 or 3 other NFL teams.