Mister Defense

Huh? You are actually trying to make the case that because the Bills did not get the "projected" best players and the ones you wanted, think we need, and instead they got the players they got that even though it includes one of the best running backs, slot receivers and corners in the league, and a quality starting linebacker, that the Bills had "no plan" (and you actually said it not me), that "The year we drafted elam... It was different. Bad draft." How would someone even respond to analysis like this? It is sooo far gone,, bizarre, and off kilter that there is almost nothing to say---just read over his comments, let them sink in.... But i will try to briefly hit some of these 'points'...from his post above: 1. "Got a steal there but it wasn't until round 5 that we projected to actually get someone that was at the time considered a great pick - Shakir." I am literally laughing, and no offense meant, when I read that sentence again. For real. Your analysis that it was a "bad draft" with "no plan" is based on this, one of the most bizarre takes ever. Not good because while the Bills did get three of the best players at their positions, all stars in this league already, and a a quality starting linebacker, it somehow doesn't count. A shocking way to look at this draft, or really, the same can be said for any other area in which this 'logic' is applied. 2. "We needed help at CB and double dipped hedging our bets. I don't think that's effective. Hindsight is 20/20 so judging the results by the fruit on the vine isn't fair." So, let me sum this up: It is "not fair" to judge a draft by the performance of the players picked in that draft, not fair to judge "the results by the fruit on the vine" "Isn't fair." The poster is saying what I point to in #1 above, in an even more direct, bizarre way. I will just repeat his crystal clear ideas--it is not fair to judge a draft by how the players actually play, but on things like how they were projected to play! Laughing again. I cannot believe someone can believe these things. An understatement. 3. See his post above--HUH? Because they did not pick the players you wanted, as YOU had the far superior plan, not the folks who actually had one of the best drafts in the NFL that year, it was a bad draft, no plan. Makes sense--for maybe one person in the world. 4. And as for the last point, well, we could not ask for a better last point to bring these remarkable ideas together sharply. It is is the perfect ending for, well, a remarkable post, analysis of the Bills 2022 draft. And I am not just saying that to be nice: " I never said it was a bad draft. I said it was not planned well.See above. Words matter." His actual words, his post, yesterday at 1026 am: "The year we drafted elam... It was different. Bad draft. The plan sucked." 5. Yup, I agree words do matter. That is why I responded to the original posts and to this beauty. Truly a striking post and analysis, and from beginning to end. Don't judge that draft, or any draft, by "the results", the "fruit on the vine", by the way the players actually perform, as that is "unfair". Instead, the fair way to judge it is by these other criteria that the poster so painstakingly lays out. If any other posters believe this, raise your hand right now, please. The one thing I agree with in your post is that "words matter"

Yes, I agree and did not say Bernard was in the same category as Cook, Shakir, and Benford, and called him a solid starter only, which overall he has been for the Bills, a pleasant surprise. This year hopefully he joins the rest in the higher tier, but his size may prevent that. We will see. But I really do think that they did get those elite playmakers you speak of, and that we all want more of, and in the 22 draft that the other poster rips apart. See bold above.

Probably been said on this thread, but with the Ravens, Jags, Lions, and Commanders all coming up for the Chiefs before the Bills, and we all know the Biils' much easier schedule (an understatement) it sure looks like the Chiefs may be out of the running for a top playoff spot by then, with the Bills 4 or more games up on them by then. It is hard to imagine this current Chiefs' team overcoming their weaknesses, and their high level opponents, and being any factor at all in the fight for the top seed this year. Bills, Ravens, Chargers?, Broncos? Still catching up on weekend NFL games, so likely a few more in there too.

Wait, you think the 2022 draft was "bad"? "No plan"--and then that this most recent draft was also like that? 2022 draft--Four quality starters: James Cook, a pro bowl running back, and by almost anyone's standards, one of the top 5 backs in the NFL now, Khalil Shakir, a great slot receiver, a vital part of this great offense, and our Superstar's go to player, Terrel Bernard, our solid starting linebacker, playmaker, and Christian Beford, one of the best cornerbacks in the league. 4 high quality starters, most of them likely pro bowl players, several of them some of the best players at their positions--Cook, Shakir, and Benford--and you just flatly say it was a "bad draft"! Am I missing something here? What the heck would a good draft be to you then? That is your evidence to support your post I challenged, in which you said they "seem to go into the draft without a plan"--but somehow, with no good plan, draft 4 high level starters? And you are making the point that they did the same thing, "no plan", for the draft this year. I really hope, by your definition, you are right--and they had the same kind of "bad' plan this year they had in 2022. And have drafted 4 more high level, pro bowl caliber starters. I would take that--and every GM in the NFL would as well, I think. Sheesh, what would you think makes a good draft, by your unusual standards? Do you really believe this stuff?

Yes, it was clear to all, I think, and clearly indicated by McBeane, that they were undermanned on defense last year, rebuilding, especially in the secondary and line. Yes, Douglas was a great, needed pickup, and played well, but fell off a cliff last year. I really don't think those 2 new D-line suspensions will have much of a negative impact though. They were so dedicated to that area in the off season that they should be fine. Especially true because of the rather easy schedule early, with games against the squished, Saints, Pats (maybe their most difficult test until the Chiefs) but in the Ralph, the Falcons, and Carolina coming up. Those suspensions could pay dividends even---the young'uns getting lotsa playing time--some fresh D-line players for the 2nd half run. Let's hops we see Bishop continue to grow and grow, but I like the fact that he is playing better now and more physical. I think how well he plays, and Hairston, will be key in the second half of the year. If those two come through, and the D-line keeps improving, I think that will be enough to make this a great team by December.

What are you talking about? They clearly had a plan, to bolster the D tackle, D end, and cornerback positions, first and foremost, and then some more. Those were the glaring weaknesses last year that prevented the Bills from taking the next step. I loved that focus, although I really wanted them to get another cornerback earlier than they did so, as there was no quality depth at the position, beyond the need for a starting CB. To say they had no plan makes no sense, so can you elaborate? You mean a plan you liked? Offensive weapons early, instead?

well, yeah, but last year things were not good on the defense, like I said, and though we saw spurts of excellence, there was not a consistent progression in defensive quality last year. I assume a huge majority of Bills' fans had the same kinds of concerns I did. And many likely the same concerns about Babbich. But the game outcome was almost exactly what I was hoping for when I posted this. Almost a perfect game defensively. A good sign, even if the Jets have a weak offense this year, again.

yeah, I agree, as last week was the first time I had ever seen Fields like an actual starting caliber NFL quarterback in his career, though I had not seen a slew of his games. But even so, yesterday the defense looked disciplined and sharp, big changes from last week. We need to see more of course, but no high end offenses coming up soon to evaluate.

Yup, I do give my constructive criticism at times, like this! (Just check out my comments in the prediction thread before the Ravens’ game.) Here, I assumed many had some of the same concerns that I do. And yeah, those two extremes probably don’t define either of our views—eternally optimistic or pessimistic! I knew I could not watch the game in real time yesterday, hence was able to post that OP close to kick off. Was able to watch the game late yesterday. That is also why I did not respond to anything in this thread until now--had not watched the game, did not know the score, all phone notifications off until I did so. The defense we saw yesterday had ALL of the qualities I, and probably most on here, wanted to see, and had been concerned about in the OP: --Yesterday, the defense was sharp and disciplined and detail oriented, in all areas, consistently, the big picture things and in the details, player performance --Looks like there were excellent fundamentals and they were likely the hallmark of their success--the assignments, the tackling, and teamwork etcetera, al looked top notch. A great relief. --This time, the defensive line and linebackers played lights out, stopping the run, stopping the pass, pressuring the QBs, showing what they are capable of consistently yesterday. And like you said, BOSA! If BOSA is the guy we have seen the last few weeks, and yesterday he took the next step, this defense is much better with that improvement in itself. --Almost no big plays given up and great work on 3rd downs. Yes! -And looks like an excellent game plan, and consistently, throughout the game. I never said I was there yet, as far as Babbich being the problem, but leaning in that direction. More than anything yesterday I wanted to see the defense look, well, the way it looked yesterday! I am not discounting Babbich in this performance, but it seems after dismal performances like against the Ravens, the defense usually plays much better. Same was true even at the end of the Ravens’ game--they finally looked like the defense I describe above, that we saw yesterday. Do you and others think McD becomes extremely hands on in these situations , after very poor defensive performances? That he is much more directive with Babbich and the defense after big defensive breakdowns in game? The defense sometimes looks like a different animal in these cases, as they did yesterday. Not off my hot seat yet, and I am sure Babbich is concerned about my views, very likely read them just as the game started yesterday, motivating him to do better. But a great game yesterday. Now, will we keep seeing that discipline and competence, even against the top offenses?

Yeah, but like with Dorsey, it may be more than that--Dorsey did not have them prepared to play, hence those dismal starts, game after game. McD blasted (many) key areas of the defense in his press conference--it sure sounded like he was talking about the coaching more than anything else. But I agree that Babbich may have a longer leash. That is why I posted this today, though I had planned to do it yesterday. If it is clearly a Babbich problem, he may not to just go.

Yup! Slept in. But it is the main question I had for today's game. And I am thinking others may be on the same page.

Hey, not for five minutes!

The defense was poor last year. But worse, overall they did not seem to improve last year, just tread water, not being able to stop the run, 3rd down conversions, long plays... The sharpness and discipline that had been hallmarks of McD's defenses previously were missing too often. It was tough to determine how much of that was related to the player turnover and/or the Bills clearly being undermanned in the secondary and D-Line. And how much fell on game preparation and play calling--the coaching. With Dorsey, it was easier to find the culprit, as the offense had not undergone those kinds of changes. And then we all saw it get worse and worse under him in his first year, not better and better. Before the next season started I said Dorsey was the biggest concern for the Bills that year. Then, early and often we saw the offense look unprepared, confused even, as if they did not know what they were doing and why things were not working. The players looked dazed and dumbfounded, even our fearless leader. Like Dan O said, about our previously special offense, loaded with talent: it was the easiest offense to defend in the entire league. Thankfully McD did not do the conservative thing, and wait to the end of the season, but cut bait before the season was lost. The defense looks sort of ike that now--both unprepared and poor play calling, a lethal combination. Players seem lost and confused, and the defense doesn't seem to improve on the weaknesses in a consistent manner. And even supposedly high level players, including our linebackers and lineman, are getting wiped out. We have 3 number one picks starting on the defensive line now. I am not completely there yet, but do people think as I am thinking, leaning in the direction that the fundamental problem with the defense is it is poorly coached? The secondary has significant question marks and weaknesses, so it is still hard to evaluate the defense, but are there signs to you that it is more about Babbich than anything else now? To me, we should get considerably more answers to this question today and in the next few weeks. Hope the defense progresses today and going forward, but if so many things continue to look poor on defense Babbich may be in over his head.

Bills 35, Jets 30 and Babbich's seat starts to get pretty hot Defense needs to start looking like it is prepared, disciplined and that the right plays are being called at the right times

Wow, one of the all time most ridiculous, ignorant, sour grapes comments in the 25+ years I have been on this forum--see bold above!!! Anyone that thinks that, well, there are no words that define how off that is--shockingly so.. I had to re-read it several times to see if I was reading it incorrectly. Nope--that's what it says! If by eat his lunch, he means Coleman would definitely have 100++, maybe 200+yards, and 2-3 TDs, then I would agree with that statement completely. Yikes. Scary stuff, like they have not watched football in years and years.. Can only imagine how this poster must have bashed Coleman to now say something like that. Someone with more time than I have now needs to do a deep dive and post the results! If I was a betting man, which I am, I would bet substantial resources they have been destroying Coleman, and likely since the moment he arrived. And instead of admitting how completely wrong they were, they are just digging in their heels--to quicksand.