krazykat

Hardy? I would. If he's a slot WR we're in trouble. We have a fine slot guy, two in fact in Reed and Parrish. You're not going to get the kind of improvements that we are all hoping for if Hardy only lines up in the slot. We need a spread #2 opposite Evans, not more slot guys. Ditto above. That's the problem, neither of those two guys have been able to step up into that role. If Reed or Parrish could have, adequately, then the other could have easily played slot.

Facts! Low blow. John just likes to be happy. Best not to disturb him with something as mundane as factual information. After all, at TSW emotions trump facts on a daily basis.

Why does everyone PMS when someone insists that we are not #1 at something. You in particular. Last year I would have taken Chicago's STs over ours. They had better punting, statistically, argue as you may. They had better return numbers, again, statistically. So unless you're looking at how the punter waves his leg after the release of the ball, something that wouldn't surprise me, the Bears were better in just about every facet of STs. Were we good, yes, very much so. Just not worthy of #1 overall. Sorry to burst your little Bills rule over all world bubble.

Once again, where are you getting your facts from? Hester is three times the threat that McGee is. Have you seen him play at all? Also, Chicago had better coverage units than we did too on average although both were excellent. Lechler (Oakland) is the only one whose punting has consistently been close to if not better than Moorman's. We didn't rank high last year on either punt yards or net. Chicago ranked better.

No, I didn't. Completely missed it in fact. Does that change things? Probably comes from the same group of scout(s) that do this for a living either way. Does that dismiss one or the other? Meanwhile, what are your thoughts on what VOR has said here openly and on record, the real point? VOR insists that his football viewing of the many Indiana games that he watched apparently hoping that we would draft Hardy, that Hardy separates well and avoids the jam. I see here that those that rate these players for a living say the opposite. Whom, of the two parties, do you believe? Do you even believe that VOR actually sat thru Indiana games and watched Hardy as often as he says he did? As to the reprint, you would be surprised how much of NFL scouting data comes from so few sources at the most prominent sites. There are only so many scouts and no scout can rank each of the hundreds of players that are eligible for the draft each year. Each scout has his methods and teams, etc. They watch these guys often for years as they develop. They put out their info almost like media outlets put out news on the wire, some for public consumption, some for team/private consumption at a greater price and with further detail, analysis, and often personalized consultation. Unbeknownst to the average fan, most of what you read on any particular player any year in the draft rankings comes from a very limited number of sources. Some places do their own independent of anything that the NFL or major media that cover the NFL uses, (ESPN, SI, PFW, CBSSL, etc.) but they "borrow" what they don't have people to do. Why do you think that everyone pretty much projects players all going within a half-round or round of everyone else? I mean how come no one ever says about a guy that everyone has going in the top of round 2, "I just don't see it, this guy is overrated and if he goes high on day 2 I will be surprised?" It's because they are all right or go down as a group together. Few want to step out like that and risk looking the fool whereas if all look like fools, then they can all say, well, we all thought that

I don't rely solely on stats Bill. You just say that I do. I rely on stats as a part of my conclusions. I also rely on what I see. In argument, far too many people here dismiss stats, and I'm not just talking about total yards and points scored either, but stats that are indicative of other aspects of the team such as can we really move the ball etc. I mean how does one rationalize that we were a very average team by record, 7-9, when we were dead last, that's DFL, in the NFL in ball movement and very close to it in terms of stopping other teams from moving the ball? The majority of people here can offer no explanation whatsoever to reconcile those two things. Otherwise any rational person absolutely has to look at that and come to the obvious conclusion that we probably won more games than we should have given that, which is the truth. We certainly weren't going to win anymore playing like that. Hell, if we can't beat the Cowboys on 6 TOs and get our A$$e$ handed to us in all other facets of the game, then WTF. Why are we even discussing whether or not we're good. What, if we had only had one more Interception-TD that game we would have won? Yeah, and two FGs instead of just one pathetic FG would have won it too along with any score by the offense. Everyone sees Edwards as a QB that had poise. But so what? What does that mean in practical terms? Yeah, I agree, he remained composed, remarkably so. But then why were so many of his passes inaccurate? Why did he miss so many open receivers when different passes would have yielded much more? OK, so he was a rookie, but he did the same thing as a senior in college. So far here's what Edwards has done, he lit up San Jose St. with one of the worst defenses in collegiate ball every season in his senior year and did nothing else otherwise with 2 TDs and 5 INTs otherwise and well below 200 yards per game otherwise. In the NFL he lit up Miami, the 1-15 Dolphins, and did nothing else otherwise with 3 TDs and 8 INTs and also well below 200 yards per game otherwise. Meanwhile, TC Ostrander, his replacement, with pretty much the same team or a very comparable one, played much better than Edwards did just one year earlier. So why wasn't Ostrander talked about more in the draft this year? That's not statistical, is it. You can compare the two profiles as draftees all you want, but for every strength or weakness of one you can counter it with another by the other. Either way, Ostrander performed significantly better than Edwards did with very similar talent around him. So why wasn't Ostrander drafted this year? I know what it says, but given the facts, it makes little sense to me. I must conclude that Edwards, and for many other reasons too, was overrated. I wonder how much of Bill Walsh's comments played into Edwards being overrated last year. Either way, a pattern is present here. Edwards has proven that he can light up the worst teams but has not proven that he can play well against good or even average teams. This is the year that he will need to do it. No one's asking him to put 35 points on the board vs. the Pats or Jags, but he will have to at least lead the offense to some points against many of the utterly weak defensive teams we face this season. Last year's production, even twice that, ain't gonna cut it if he wants to finish the season as the starter.

Yeah, and we all know how NFL performance mirrors collegiate performance perfectly. And since you're like a dog on someone's pant leg that has been dipped in meat juice, I will simply defer to what you would consider "the experts" on the subject; From http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/draft/516911; "Not the type that will separate after the catch, but can elude to get extra yardage" "His lanky frame poses problems, as he struggles vs. the more physical cornerbacks to get off the line due to marginal upper-body strength in attempts to get a push off the jam" From http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingr...jameshardy.html "May have trouble separating from pro corners" And OH, the coup de grace, from the NFL.com itself, "Will struggle to defeat the press, but if he gets a clean release, he builds his acceleration steadily...Not the type that will separate after the catch, but can elude to get extra yardage" "His lanky frame poses problems, as he struggles vs. the more physical cornerbacks to get off the line due to marginal upper-body strength in attempts to get a push off the jam" "but he is going to have to dedicate a few hours to the weight room, as his lack of ideal strength could become an issue, especially trying to beat the jam." So you're right VOR, what do I know about Hardy then, eh. After all, we should all bow to your message board opining over the people that rate these guys and do it as a profession all year long. Thanks for helping us to understand that. A$$ salve aisle 6!

That's exactly correct SB. Nevertheless, one cannot argue with production which we got back then. I don't think that it's a long shot argument to suggest that Ostroski, even at C, while not great, was in fact average or average plus, and definitely better than Hicks, Spriggs, and Nails, and at least comparable to Fina. The only linemen that we had in '99 or '00 that stood out was Ruben Brown. Still, you don't get that kind of production from a lline with only one decent lineman. Granted, from a scoring perspective it wasn't great, but it was still better than it is now and in the realm of average. We aren't even that now. In yardage however it was leaps and bounds better. Anyway, it's ignorant and naive for anyone to suggest that Ruben Brown paved the way for all that and it's equally absurd for anyone to argue that even at 29 and 30 that Ostroski was equal to or worse than Hicks, Nails, Spriggs, or even Zeigler.

See, the first and major problem with your post, and something that once again you ran from and ignored, was that offensive rankings have absolutely nothing to do with how the defnse plays. They are attained by yards gained on offense. Imagine that. Huh, SHA-zam, eh. So those 9th and 11th rankings, well, let's just say that unless Bruce, Ted Washington, or Paup, or whomever actually lined up in a backfield, and took a snap as the O backfield was flooded with defenders, donned their Green Hornet costume, and in super hero fashion just took to the stripes an posted several long runs for TD skewing the stats, something that I quite honestly do not recall occurring back then while I was at most games, then the offense took it upon themselves to post those stats. Again, which were above average. In '99 our offense ranked 19th passing and 6th rushing. In '00 it was just above average in both. So I see your point, it was our line anchored by Hicks, Spriggs and Nails and their 0 Pro Bowl seasons that really paved the way for their illustrious future hall of fame careers and our above average offensive performance while Ostroski at C had nothing to do with it. Got it! I must bow to your astute and shrewd analyses. Oh but wait, I forgot about Linton, Smith, Bryson, and Sammy Morris lit it up before leaving and producing hall of fame careers. Again, my bad. Apologies. It's no wonder you're hoping for more than this team's going to deliver this year.

LOL Yeah, if you use Dockery as the example. Otherwise "good" Gs make much less than that. And the entire known football loving world knows we overpaid for Dockery. Otherwise very good and great Gs get $7M/season in contract, although lots of that never gets paid if you understand how contracts really work. And Dockery is not very good to great.

Does the truth and reality bother you? It seems to me the ones throwing up are those that have had their noses up Jauron and Levy's sphincters and who are just starting to come back out for a breath of air realizing, "HEY, it really stinks in there," and then yakking about how much better it's going to be with a few more window dressing type "fixes" and corrections like we've made for about 7 or 8 years now. But hey, whatever, perceptions are up to each individual. Some people enjoy thriving in the world of make believe while others merely call it as they see it. Your definition of throwing up is no doubt not saying anything critical about the team at all then, huh. We have some positives, it's just that the most important areas are not positive and that the negative ones outweight the positive ones. That's the default for this team. It's not as if we've made the playoffs in recent history. Yeah, really, go take a look, you may educate yourself.

Here was a very fair assessment of him coming out of Stanford: Strengths: Edwards possess the arm strength and has the size to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He was a top prospect out of high school and has the intangibles to be a solid player. He has outstanding mechanics and a quick release. Weaknesses: It is difficult to accurately project Edwards, because he played with such an inferior supporting cast at Stanford. He was often injured playing behind a poor offensive line and did not have the playmakers around him to succeed. He does not throw the deep ball exceptionally well at this point. He must work on improving his reads as he did not get to play as much as you would like at Stanford. Overall: Edwards is more of a project then an immediate starter in the NFL. His workouts will go a long way in determining his draft status and he must prove to NFL scouts that he can stay healthy and make good decisions. The raw physical tools and intangibles are there to be molded into a starting quarterback, given time and the right coaching. Here is another: Positives: Trent Edwards possesses prototypical NFL size at 6-4, 230+ pounds, and has the ability to stand tall in the pocket to make every throw. Not afraid of taking a hit, he gives his receivers the extra split second they need to make their breaks. He has more-than-adequate scrambling ability and can bootleg or escape the pocket to make a play. Teammates praise his leadership skills and competitiveness. Edwards finishes his Stanford career in the top 10 of every major passing statistic. Negatives: Edwards has had trouble keeping himself upright, partly due to a sub-par offensive line, but also because he holds on to the ball way too long in hopes of making a big play. He was getting sacked at a rate of almost four per game through the first half of the 2006 season, compiling an 0-6 record during that stretch. Taking all those hits has lead to several injury problems during his career, including issues with his throwing shoulder during his sophomore season and missing the final five games of the 2006 season with a broken right foot. Decision making was also, clearly, a problem as his career passing percentage is around 54% with just three more touchdowns than interceptions in his 31 starts. Edwards has compiled a career record of only 11-20, appearing in 35 games. Overview: Coming into the 2006 season, Edwards was a popular choice as this year's Jay Culter. But a slow start coming out of the blocks, both in wins and loses as well as statistically, was causing his stock to fall long before the broken foot put him on the shelf for the remainder of the year. Edwards will be completely healthy, though, in time for the NFL Combine and could see a turn around in his fortune, if he can display the physical traits that impressed in the first place. Edwards never did play in a bowl game or beat a team ranked in the top 25, so it's hard to say if he can shine on a big stage. He could be a capable back up in the NFL, though the high hopes at the beginning of the year that Edwards could be a first day pick should be put to rest. The bottom line is that Edwards was a risky pick. He didn't have a track record of success at Stanford for which the best that can be done with that is dismiss it under the guises that he didn't have a great supporting cast. But that alone doesn't spell success at the NFL level obviously. To make matters worse, he doesn' t have the best cast here either pending further review. Our OL isn't great to be sure. Our WRs are probably better than average or at least around average at worst with Evans in there. Lynch is average to above average so he has that. Still, thus far JP has done more with less than Edwards has. So we'll see what happens with Edwards not a rookie anymore. I agree with the reviews that he was and is more of a project and risk than a sure starter. He is composed in the pocket, but you have to question his reads and decision making in light of that particularly when you coupled that composure/poise with the fact that so little production accompanied it by pretty much any measure other than the lack of sacks.

Pretty decent post PG! I guess my question regarding the line continues to be the same. I don't disagree to strongly with your statements although I'd say you overrated Dockerly slightly and Butler as well. Fowler to me is a better depth player too. Otherwise, you paint the picture of a line that played OK but not great to be certain. What then was the cause for our offense being the least productive in the NFL last year and particularly under Edwards where it got even less productive on a per-game average basis? I mean we hear that the line was OK, Edwards played very well for a rookie, Lynch obviously had a good season. While the WRs were disappointing Evans is still easily a top 20 WR if not more. So why then did our O stink to the point of being the worst in the league then?

When? Now, or after the season.

No. I don't think that they ever lost more than two games in a row. I know that they lost a bunch scattered later in the season. "Anything" can't happen. This isn't just a game of luck where if the dice pop up your number you get a win like so many of you seem to imply. Name for me the last team that was dead last in offensive scoring with the 30th ranked defense that made the playoffs then? I mean if anything can happen, then surely it has over the course of what now, 50 years of modern NFL football. Teams that play solid fundamental football make the playoffs and when a team that can't slips in for some reason, AHEM, Jauron's '01 Bears, they get crushed in the first rounds, AHEM, just like Jauron's Bears did by the worst team in them that year. It's no wonder some of you think we have a playoff team.

Just about every team was better than us. We weren't really that much better than the Jets and Fins. Better perhaps, but only marginally. Hell, they nearly beat us. We almost lost to the Ravens and Skins too. We were the hairs on a gnats a$$ away from being like 3-13 ourselves. Look, we couldn't move the ball or stop anyone from moving it on us. Isn't that the entire F-ing point of football?

LOL

Who was Kevin Harrison on the field ahead of? How about all those guys I named. Honestly, are you this ignorant really, or is this just an act? Simpson and Poz were the only two players that were on IR for more than a couple of games that we had that started ahead of anyone originally. What that means is that you don't know WTF you're talking about. You can count Webster, but that guy's A, been injured more than healthy and we should have known that before picking him up, and B, not even starter quality. Kelsay, McCargo, Williams, Schobel, Crowell, Ellison, Whitner, and McGee. Not one of those guys missed significant playing time. Our entire starting OL didn't miss any significant time either, nether did Royal our starting TE or any of our top three WRs. Losman was replaced and Edwards was completely healthy too. So keep whistlin' out of your sphincter pal.

There was a 0-percent chance that playing such that you can't score and allow the largest negative point differential over any other team but the Dolphins means you aren't in contention either. Wilson is saying that based entirely on our 6-6 record, apart from the fact that our offense couldn't score, our defense couldn't stop anyone, our coaching was not good, and that generally speaking we just sucked by pretty much any measure you want to use besides that very fortunate 6-6 mark, that we were in playoff contention. It's dumb.

That's another issue that was tremendously overplayed. You talk as if our starters did a fine job but that since we had no depth we just fell apart in the 4th Q constantly when the reality is that even our starters sucked and we hardly had any injuries to them at all besides Poz an Simpson. Lynch got hurt but played 13 games and frankly we got good production when he was out except in the Jax and NE games when he wouldn't have done much anyway and certainly not to make a win. If the injured reserve players were so critical, then why are so few still on the team? Many were preseason injuries anyway and most were the caliber of players that can be picked up off the waiver wire. You overrate the extent of our injuries. If our starters had played well early in games then it would have made a difference. STs played just fine. So instead of just citing the lengthy list of nobodies on our IR last year, how about for once explaining in detail how not having guys like Aaron Merz, Peerless Price, Kiwaukee Thomas, Al Wallace, Copeland Bryan, Kevin Harrison and Matt Murphy really hurt us at all. I mean do you even know who Kevin Harrison is?

I'm saying that we weren't any closer to making the NFL playoffs last season that the local Pop Warner team was of making the NFL playoffs. For people to cite our mathematical standing and to use it as an "almost," which is exactly what Wilson and others here have done in the past, is bogus. But people seem to draw meaning from it as if there is actually any. Otherwise, I just threw it up as a discussion topic, not necessarily something for all the Bills fan ball washers to get their panties in a wad over.

LOL We were 6-6, had given up nearly a hundred more points than we had gotten ourselves (a greater deficit than any other team in the AFC by then except the 0-12 Fins), had barely averaged 15 ppg, were ranked poorly across the board, and hadn't beaten one winning team. Wilson was using it as a reason to suggest that we may be close this year which is as silly as can be.

After week 15 with two games left 9 of 16 teams in the AFC were still in they playoff hunt including the Texans. Over in the NFC 12 of 16 teams were still in it after 15 weeks.

In Allen Wilson's preview which came out today or yesterday, he says the following: During Jauron’s first two seasons, the Bills had many growing pains, from being forced to play inexperienced people to enduring a ridiculous amount of injuries. Yet both of those squads were in playoff contention until the last month of the season. Nothing unusual there and many commentators make those kinds of comments. But what does it really mean? Week 13 (12 game played, 4 remaining) took us through November last year with the next week's games in December. So what Wilson is saying here is that the Bills were still in the playoff hunt then. OK, I just looked at the standings at the week 13 mark and if the playoffs had begun that week the Pats, Steelers, Browns or Titans, Colts, Jags, and Chargers would have made them. The weakest of the teams from a records standpoint was the Browns or Titans at 7-5 slugging it out for the sixth seed as it ended up. So in essence, since there's four weeks left, it is possible that a team within four games of the Browns/Titans, or any team with a record of 3-9 or better was technically still in the playoff hunt pending the various configurations of which team played which one along with tiebreakers. Theoretically the Browns and Titans could lose all four of their next games and the 3-9 team win them all and with some help, make the playoffs. We all know that's not realistic, but most people are far enough from realistic here to warrant this post. Regardless, what that means is that every team in the AFC with a record of 3-9 following week 13's games was still "in playoff contention" as Wilson puts it. OK, that means that of the 16 teams in the conference, all but one, the 0-12 Dolphins were in playoff contention. OK, so we'll slide that one week. Weak link is now still the Browns at 8-5 following another win. So then any team with a record of 5-8 is technically still "in playoff contention" reducing the field from 15 teams to 11 of 16. So I ask, why is this even cited as if it means that a team was close to making the playoffs? In this case we're talking about the Bills, but we could just as easily have been talking about the Bengals, Texans, or Broncos too as four of five teams out from those 11 including the Bills. Either way, four games out means that any team four games from the sixth seed at that time is still in contention. Considering that that sixth seed doesn't have a great record to begin with, why is that impressive. IMO it's a stupid thing to cite and a notch above entirely meaningless. Hell, if you're not mathematically in the playoff hunt after week 12, then it can only mean that you really really suck. Would it have been impressive if Allen had stated that the only team that wasn't in the playoff hunt was the 0-12 Dolphins and that as Bills fans we should all be jacked that we came "that close" to making them? Just checking because some of you seem to think so.

Doesn't Ellis play RDE? I'll go for Ellis as well. We really need line play on both sides. As usual we did nothing for the OL, so on the DL it's gotta be Ellis. It would be refreshing if Ellis came on to be like Patrick Kerney although on the right side. Schobel had a down year but he's getting up there. It would probably just be a wash over the long haul, but think what happens without Schobel-like production. Offensively it would be nice to see Hardy or Johnson emerge, or both. That's a lot to expect from rookies with Edwards hurling the pigskin.