2020 Our Year For Sure

McGahee and a 3rd for Umeniyora? The Giants would still be left with 2 big-time defensive ends. I wish...

For us out-of-towners, what happened?

I've always thought trading your starting running back right before his contract year for a 5th round pick was a sound strategy.

It all lies in the pass rush. Get a real pass rushing DE on the left side, get John McCargo back, get Kyle Williams closer to his potential, get a real nosetackle to replace Tim Anderson in the rotation...and the Tampa 2 will work, making Nate Clements quite expendable. Its not that you can have "bad" corners...its just that guys like Nate Clements who can cover top tier recievers 1-on-1 are less valuable to us, for the reason that they're rarely asked to do so. You can get by with slightly bigger, slightly slower, smart, good-tackling cornerbacks. Youboty may be a fit.

Can't get anything by you...

I just dominated that paper football game.

Why do you say that? I think that with this team there isn't one position that we MUST go with in the 1st round, especially if London is back. While CB is a possibility, I see no reason why its a necessity. Just because we used to have a playmaking cornerback who is now gone...it doesn't mean we necessarily have to replace him with another high-profile corner. In our Tampa 2 we'd be fine with McGee, K. Thomas (or another similar free agent), Youboty and a 2nd day draft pick. We have a whole lot of positions that could use help, but don't really require a 1st round pick. We could go DE, DT, OT, OG, WR, HB, CB, TE, MLB, OLB...our team really can pick the best player available, instead of just saying that. I see cornerback as just another possibility among a host of other positions. It really makes this draft interesting for us.

...and thank god our management has enough sense that this is the case.

Can't we assume that? What are you saying?

Does anybody really think a rotation of Denney and Hargrove is good enough? Also, its very difficult to find a pass rusher on the 2nd day of the draft. A pass rusher is one of those things that, if you want it, you have to make it a priority and grab one pretty quickly. There's a few defensive ends that are projected in the area of the Bills' top pick, and its the position I'm most hoping we decide to address.

Right, but to get sorta petty and technical, he didn't say "biggest need," he said "biggest hole". In my mind those are two different things. Cornerback is a big need because, as you said, we pretty much HAVE TO acquire a CB at some point. But I wouldn't call it a huge hole, because its a need that I think we can fill with any one of many stop-gap free agent corners out there. I'd say our biggest hole would have to be either OG, a DT to replace Tim Anderson, or DE if/when Kelsay leaves. And bflodan, I don't know how much stock I'd put into that particular comment from Fewell. It feels look coach speak, IMO. Fletcher would be a far more "devastating" loss than Clements, because we'd have to start all over again with someone new in the most mentally challenging position on the defense. We'd also lose valuable leadership, something Clements certainly doesn't offer.

So if I'm understanding your thoughts correctly, you believe we could fill the cornerback position with a decent (yet not spectacular) free agent. There are plenty of veteran, mid-level free agent cornerbacks out there this year, even some with cover 2 experience. So what we have here is a spot we can fill with any one of a bunch of different options, most of which won't cost us much of our resources. With that in mind, how does CB rise to the number one spot on a list of our "biggest holes"? I would think its actually a relatively small hole. And then you add Ashton Youboty into the equation as well.

What makes you say that? Just curious.

I agree with you. We cannot lose London Fletcher-Baker and try to replace him with either a rookie or a low-profile free agent (although Crowell is still an interesting option). One thing I don't agree with is the way you group Clements and Fletcher together. It will be far easier to replace Clements than Fletcher, mostly because of what they're asked to do in this defense. I think the best way to go about this is to franchise tag Fletch and draft his replacement somewhere in the first 4 rounds.

If we draft a CB in the 1st round, I give up on this team. ...for at least 10 minutes.

Actually corner is the only position that doesn't require at least an above average player, and I guess also possibly the sam linebacker. Defensive ends are important because of the emphasis the cover 2 puts on generating a pass rush with only the front 4, which is why I think we should let go of the solid-but-unspectacular Chris Kelsay and replace him with an early draft pick. Defensive tackles are possibly the most important position in the scheme, and that's well-documented in this forum, so I don't feel that I need to elaborate other than to point out the following: the 2 highly successful cover 2 defenses in the past have had the DT position manned by Warren Sapp/Anthony MacFarland, and a rotation of Tommie Harris/Tank Johnson/Ian Scott. As for MLB, I don't know if you've read any of Pyrite Gal's many posts on the topic, but I think that poster does a good job in representing the importance of the mike linebacker. He needs to be able to "tackle like a DT but cover like a safety." This is particularly important in the tampa 2 version of the cover 2, where the mike is asked to drop back deep on passing plays to relieve the safeties of a portion of their downfield responsibilities, allowing them to better cover the typical 'soft zones' in a traditional cover 2. This means that its imperative that the MLB not only be adequate, but excel in the areas of speed, coverage skills, and play recognition. I would strongly disagree with anyone who may have said we can replace London Fletcher with a mediocre player, a viewpoint you mentioned you've seen advocated. Also, the weakside linebacker should be a playmaker, capable of covering alot of ground in a hurry and making the tackle on plays to his side. The cover 2 also puts an emphasis on the performance of the safeties (see: last year's draft). They're the last line of defense and are asked to cover quite a bit of territory down the field. They must be both smart and decisive, a fine line to walk. The importance of the safeties in the cover 2 is the reason why Donte Whitner isn't a reach at #8 if he proves to be a legit player. That leaves only cornerback, a position that is asked to cover WRs for 10-15 yards before releasing them to the safeties, and then turning their attention to short passes on their side of the field. I don't see why we need Nate Clements to do that. Sure, he'd be a nice luxury to have, but I think there are just more important things for the Bills to be using their resources on. Figure out what you're doing with the linebackers, improve your run defense, get a better pass rush...and I see no reason why the Bills can't have a strong defense without the presence of a standout cornerback.

Agreed. I saw someone in one thread or another in the last few days say we must re-sign Nate Clements because of the "gaping hole" he would leave behind in our secondary. Can a cover 2 team ever really have a "gaping hole" at the cornerback position? Even if we lost both Clements and Kiwaukee (still think we'll re-sign him), the void we'd have would be more like a small hole in the dam that we could fill with a piece of chewing gum. Or Ashton Youboty, of course.

How do we jump from the article saying we're considering addressing cornerback in the draft, to addressing cornerback in the 1st round? As far as I'm concerned, with our cover 2 scheme, we could bring in a 4th or 5th rounder and have him compete with Youboty and Kiwaukee. Nowhere in the article do they specify a 1st round pick.

Good post, and I find myself in agreement with much of it, other than Duke Preston being a viable starter at Guard. In my mind, he was the weak link, and I'd rather start Gandy than Preston. I especially agree with not re-signing Nate Clements, and instead pursuing a LB, OG or DT in free agency. You hit that right on the button, right down to what positions we should be looking at. The reason I'm replying is that I've got a question for you...you said if Patrick Willis came in as a rookie starter, he'd be overwhelmed and would naturally make rookie mistakes as he learns the system, which makes sense. I wonder, if we drafted a first-day MLB and designated London Fletcher-Baker as our franchise player, and then let Fletch walk next offseason...could we expect the draftee to come in and have a reasonable chance to limit his mistakes in the tampa 2, due to his experience as a rookie sitting behind Fletch on the depth chart and soaking it all in?

This post has some valid points that I originally thought may have completely nullified in one post many of my opinions on both our draft and our defensive scheme. One question that was raised in my mind: is there really a distinction between the nose tackle and under tackle in the cover 2, as I had previously thought was the case? Or am I applying a concept of the Gregg-O/Jerry Gray defense to a completely different scheme? It took me awhile to find the answer to this question...funny story, actually. It wasn't a question of our personnel, it was a question of the inner-workings of our tampa 2 scheme. So I set out to find out whether we have 2 seperate DT positions as I had thought, or if we simply had two interchangeable DTs performing identical functions. After typing some terms into Google, reading several articles about the cover 2, following external links from wikipedia, clicking around on various pro football sites, typing some more stuff into Google...my search of nearly an hour took me full circle. I don't know how I didn't realize that the best resource on the net is the Stadium Wall Archive right here on TSW. Eventually, Google connected me to a TSW thread from May '06, a good deal of time before I even joined the forum. Within the thread (started by stuckincincy, entitled 'What is "three technique?"') is a post from the user gonzo1105 that supplies the answer: So yes, there are two seperate DT positions. The 1-technique (nose tackle) should be somewhat bigger and stronger than the 3-technique tackle. But as you asked, Dibs, just how much bigger? We have to keep in mind that its important even for the nose tackle to maintain speed and quickness, moreso than in other schemes. I'd estimate that the nose tackle should be in the 300-315 pound range. I think Kyle Williams (295 lbs. currently) with a bit of added muscle would fit the bill. One reason to be cautious though is the question of how much muscle you're willing to add to his 6-1 frame at the risk of potentially losing quickness. Another good question Dibs raised is whether or not Alan Branch (6-6, 323) fits into the cover 2 mold. This prompted the reading of a few of his scouting reports, and for the most part they were repeating a couple of points I found interesting. As you said, one thing the scouts say is that he "lacks explosiveness". But other statements that showed up in multiple reports were along the lines of "very athletic for his size" and "can play end in a 3-4". Perhaps Branch doesn't fit the requirements for the cover 2 nose tackle position at the moment, but I wonder, if he dropped a few pounds...could he? I won't pretend to know either way, but I'll trust that Marv and Coach Jauron will will be prepared should he be on the board at #12. To answer your question Dibs, yes, I believe that anyone who believes the Bills should go after a mountain of a man similar to Pat Williams thinks such because they don't really grasp what type of players we need in this defensive scheme. However, because of his rare quickness for a player his size, I suspect Alan Branch could potentially be molded into a very successful 1-technique DT in the tampa 2. But I'd still stay away from Amobi Okoye or any other smaller defensive tackle unless we want to see John McCargo attempt to move to the nose tackle spot. I don't want to make that move at this point, so I'm still thinking DE at #12 ideally.

Keeping in mind our youth at the defensive tackle position and the fact that last season we were running arguably the league's most unique defensive system for the first time...and that we will be getting a stronger Takeo Spikes on the field than we had at any point last season (other than the first play from scrimmage)...and the fact that there are solid nose tackles that can be obtained in free agency to replace Tim Anderson in the rotation...why can't our run defense improve next year without addressing the DT position in the first 2 rounds of the draft?

In my mind, this is true of both Okoye and Pitcock. The exception is Alan Branch, because I think he has the size, strength and athleticism necessary to play on the nose in the cover 2. If he fell to us and we didn't grab him, I'd certainly feel justified in second-guessing that decision, even if they took a player at one of the positions I've been advocating. When I say I'm not thinking DT in the first round, I'm operating under the assumption that Branch is off the board when we go on the clock. On a side note, I agree with most of the post this selection was quoted from, including the part where you stress not 'targeting' WR, but keeping an open mind to the position should circumstance dictate that its the right pick. This is along the same lines as what I'm thinking.

I'll respond with a post of mine (admittedly somewhat lengthy) made earlier in this thread, begging that you keep in mind that while Dwayne Jarrett at #12 isn't my first option, I still see no reason why he should be considered a bad pick:

That question is stupider (is that a word?) when you turn it around this way because Willis McGahee is already on the Bills. Therefore, there must be a reason why you think Jones is better than him if you're going to make the trade. If you don't want to make the trade you don't need a reason why Willis is better, because if they're both the same then that is reason enough to not make the trade. If anyone can follow that...

I agree, there was a big difference in our play calling. I'd say we were pretty conservative up to and including week 10 @IND (week 9 was GB, for point of reference), and we opened it up starting week 11 @HOU. However, the numbers don't appear to support your case. Here are Price's stats split after week 10. first 9 games 27 catches, 3 catches/game 231 yards, 25.6 yards/game last 7 games 22 catches, 3.1 catches/game 171 yards, 24.4 yards/game stats are from here The idea that we should add to his numbers to make up for conservative early-season play calling doesn't make sense as there is no evidence it affected his stats. They remain the same throughout the season. And in my opinion, season averages of 3 catches for 25.1 yards don't reach what this offense needs from it's number 2 reciever, particularly when the TE and FB are both primarily blockers.