Aaron Maybin only weighs 228lbs

[Bufcomments]

I agree Marv was an absolutely terrible hire. As a GM, he made TD look shiny and wonderful by comparison.

 

However . . . I don't remember very many people on this board complaining about the hiring of Marv at the time. It's hard to place too much blame on Ralph for having failed to avoid an error that many here would also have made. (Even though it proved to be a very serious error!)

 

I also agree that had Nix traded back into the first round, it would far more likely have been for Mangold than for McCargo.

Hiring Marv was a PR move not a Football move and if I was on this board back then I would have been one to disagree to that move. Blame Ralph for that totally.

 

That what has been wrong with this organization from the Music city Miracle until Buddy got hired.

 

PR moves instead of Solid football actions.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Hiring Marv was a PR move not a Football move and if I was on this board back then I would have been one to disagree to that move. Blame Ralph for that totally.

 

That what has been wrong with this organization from the Music city Miracle until Buddy got hired.

 

PR moves instead of Solid football actions.

 

 

That hiring Marv was a PR move is certainly true, though one has to remember the context. By the end of the 2005 season, TD had completely destroyed the relationship of the team leadership to the fan base, appearing excessively thin-skinned and paranoid. Many of you remember his edicts on signs in the stadium late that year, for example. He had reached the end of the line, and Ralph, showing (believe it or not) concern about patching up ties between the team and the fans, decided to serve up a helping of Levy hash as comfort food. Alas, Marv then made a hash of the team.

[Lurker]

That hiring Marv was a PR move is certainly true, though one has to remember the context. By the end of the 2005 season, TD had completely destroyed the relationship of the team leadership to the fan base, appearing excessively thin-skinned and paranoid. Many of you remember his edicts on signs in the stadium late that year, for example. He had reached the end of the line, and Ralph, showing (believe it or not) concern about patching up ties between the team and the fans, decided to serve up a helping of Levy hash as comfort food. Alas, Marv then made a hash of the team.

Agreed.

 

The shambles TD left prompted Ralph to reach out to his comfort zone (i.e., Marv) for help. The problem came when Marv decided he was the best man for the GM job. That hubris set the team back another four years.

[hondo in seattle]

Unfortunately, not even close. There's always Walt Patulski, and there are actually a few more that were worse; I'd nominate Terry Miller and CERTAINLY Mike Williams for that dubious award, too. (At least Tom Cousineau turned into the best QB we've seen in Buffalo, but that was a crappy pick, too.)

 

Miller ran for 1,000 yards his rookie season as the starting RB. No way that he was worse than Maybin who doesn't even suit up a lot of Sundays. Miller would have been a good pick if he hadn't developed some weird medical condition that took away his peripheral vision.

 

And Patulski, while not great, did at least crack the starting lineup. Maybin hardly gets on the field as a reserve.

[JohnC]

I agree with the first bolded sentence, and partially disagree with the second.

 

Clearly the organization had little ability to evaluate potential draft picks, other teams' free agents, or even the players already on the roster. These were the people who kept Fred Jackson on the bench while the A-Train got all the carries, they thought Losman had a legitimate chance to be a successful QB, etc.

 

The reason I disagree with the second sentence is because even if Whitner had been an impact safety, the Ngata option would still have been better. (Though not as much better as has actually proved to be the case.) I'd argue that an impact DL is worth more than an impact safety.

 

But even if one were to argue that an impact DL and an impact safety are of roughly the same value, surely an impact QB is worth more than either! Maybe that goes back to your point about player evaluation, or lack thereof. Had the Bills evaluated Whitner, Cutler, and Losman correctly, the decision to take Cutler over Whitner would have been a no-brainer. The "no-brainer" comment assumes that the Bills had their priorities in order, and had realized that an impact QB is more important than filling holes at SS and DT. I realize this assumption is shaky.

 

For the most part we agree. Where I have a nuanced difference with you is in valuing positions. What good teams do, such as Green Bay and Baltimore, is rank players. Whether the DT position is more important than the safety position is not where the central focus should be. It should be on the ranking of players and not positions. If you are consistent with that approach of taking the best players instead of reaching for positions of need you will make less draft mistakes with your picks.

 

Probably every team had Ngata ranked higher than Whitner as players, regardless of position. When the Packers drafted qb Rodgers they didn't have an immediate need for a qb because they had Favre. They stayed true to their philosophy of picking the best players on their board and ultimately it worked out for them.

 

When the Ravens drafted Flacco they didn't take him with their high first round pick because they didn't have him rated that high as a player. They maneuvered back into the lower first round to take Flacco, a qb need for them, in the vicinity where they had him ranked.

 

In the long run if you consistently take that drafting approach you will make less mistakes and your roster will have more draftees who will stick rather than fall by the wayside. I get the impression that Buddy Nix is following that approach. That was reflected with his selection of CB Aaron Williams from Texas in the second, who was ranked as a lower first round pick.

 

I'm not suggesting that you have to completely follow the player ranking system without considering need. However, if an organization evaluates well and sticks to their ranking system it will work out over time. Again, the key to being successful is competently evaluating talent and value whether it is college prospects or free agent prospects.

Edited August 5, 2011 by JohnC

[Erik Flowers]

So how about that maybin guy - he looks really skinny.

[5 Wide]

I think maybin covets the cut beach body physique vs. Productive NFL body. No way someone with 2 years of world class trainers, nutritionists, and training facilities cant add weight regardless of metabolism.

[Never NEVER Give-up]

228 lbs !!!

 

I wish I weighed only 228 lbs !!!

[Orton's Arm]

For the most part we agree. Where I have a nuanced difference with you is in valuing positions. What good teams do, such as Green Bay and Baltimore, is rank players. Whether the DT position is more important than the safety position is not where the central focus should be. It should be on the ranking of players and not positions. If you are consistent with that approach of taking the best players instead of reaching for positions of need you will make less draft mistakes with your picks.

 

Probably every team had Ngata ranked higher than Whitner as players, regardless of position. When the Packers drafted qb Rodgers they didn't have an immediate need for a qb because they had Favre. They stayed true to their philosophy of picking the best players on their board and ultimately it worked out for them.

 

When the Ravens drafted Flacco they didn't take him with their high first round pick because they didn't have him rated that high as a player. They maneuvered back into the lower first round to take Flacco, a qb need for them, in the vicinity where they had him ranked.

 

In the long run if you consistently take that drafting approach you will make less mistakes and your roster will have more draftees who will stick rather than fall by the wayside. I get the impression that Buddy Nix is following that approach. That was reflected with his selection of CB Aaron Williams from Texas in the second, who was ranked as a lower first round pick.

 

I'm not suggesting that you have to completely follow the player ranking system without considering need. However, if an organization evaluates well and sticks to their ranking system it will work out over time. Again, the key to being successful is competently evaluating talent and value whether it is college prospects or free agent prospects.

I either partially or fully agree with this, depending on how this system would work when the rubber meets the road. (A point which you may be able to clarify.)

 

For example, suppose a team has the first overall pick. Option 1) is to use the pick on a franchise QB. This team needs a QB because the guy they have is close to retiring. Option 2) is to use the pick on a Hall of Fame OG. While the QB from option 1) will merely be top-7 or so, this OG will definitely be the best OG in the league.

 

Obviously the team should choose option 1) over option 2). But what does the system say the GM should do? If the system selects option 2), it's a flawed system. I'll grant that in this particular case a GM can intuitively sense a flawed decision and override it. But if the system produces flawed results in obvious cases like this, it might also produce flawed results in cases where flaws are harder to detect.

[RuntheDamnBall]

That's half of Mike Williams.

Sadly, Big Mike couldn't eat a guy like Maybin for breakfast.

 

anyone even know what team reps Maybin is getting? 3rd? 2nd?

Pee-Wee? JUGS maintenance squad? Ball cleaning?

 

For the most part we agree. Where I have a nuanced difference with you is in valuing positions. What good teams do, such as Green Bay and Baltimore, is rank players. Whether the DT position is more important than the safety position is not where the central focus should be. It should be on the ranking of players and not positions.

...

I'm not suggesting that you have to completely follow the player ranking system without considering need. However, if an organization evaluates well and sticks to their ranking system it will work out over time. Again, the key to being successful is competently evaluating talent and value whether it is college prospects or free agent prospects.

Disagree here. In sports there are more and less valuable positions. That's why when you find the guy who is a can't-miss at a premium position, he's worth more. In baseball a top-of-the-rotation starter is worth way more than a premium closer, because everyone knows the margin between closer A and closer B is pretty narrow, and the year-to-year inconsistency means that you're probably going to find somebody who can do the job from year-to-year. The front-line starter is the guy you develop and hold onto, or spend big bucks on in FA if you think it's the final piece.

 

The all-things-being-equal mentality could suggest that the best kicker on the board is more valuable than the fifth-best DT, which we of course know is ludicrous. The draft shakes out the way it does, with a few outliers, for a reason. Even without the benefit of hindsight, many observers thought Ngata was worth more than any safety on the board in that draft, by virtue of a combination of talent and position.

[CA OC Bills Fan]

I agree with the first bolded sentence, and partially disagree with the second.

 

Clearly the organization had little ability to evaluate potential draft picks, other teams' free agents, or even the players already on the roster. These were the people who kept Fred Jackson on the bench while the A-Train got all the carries, they thought Losman had a legitimate chance to be a successful QB, etc.

 

The reason I disagree with the second sentence is because even if Whitner had been an impact safety, the Ngata option would still have been better. (Though not as much better as has actually proved to be the case.) I'd argue that an impact DL is worth more than an impact safety.

 

But even if one were to argue that an impact DL and an impact safety are of roughly the same value, surely an impact QB is worth more than either! Maybe that goes back to your point about player evaluation, or lack thereof. Had the Bills evaluated Whitner, Cutler, and Losman correctly, the decision to take Cutler over Whitner would have been a no-brainer. The "no-brainer" comment assumes that the Bills had their priorities in order, and had realized that an impact QB is more important than filling holes at SS and DT. I realize this assumption is shaky.

 

Overall I agree. However, I remember watching that draft at the time and everyone on TV was thinking we should take Leinert. I don't think that most people had Cutler as rated higher than Leinert coming out of college. So, although of course you are correct in that had the front office had evaluated Whitner, Cutler, Losman, and Leinert correctly they would have taken Cutler. But, there's also a good chance that they would have agreed that a quarterback's value is much higher than a safety yet gone with Leinert.

[JohnC]

I either partially or fully agree with this, depending on how this system would work when the rubber meets the road. (A point which you may be able to clarify.)

 

For example, suppose a team has the first overall pick. Option 1) is to use the pick on a franchise QB. This team needs a QB because the guy they have is close to retiring. Option 2) is to use the pick on a Hall of Fame OG. While the QB from option 1) will merely be top-7 or so, this OG will definitely be the best OG in the league.

 

Obviously the team should choose option 1) over option 2). But what does the system say the GM should do? If the system selects option 2), it's a flawed system. I'll grant that in this particular case a GM can intuitively sense a flawed decision and override it. But if the system produces flawed results in obvious cases like this, it might also produce flawed results in cases where flaws are harder to detect.

 

No system or philosophy is absolute or pure. If you believe that the qb is an upper tier franchise qb type then you go with the qb selection because it is so central to the success of a franchise. But let me caution you here that it isn't as simple as ranking the qb for that particular year. There are years when a qb ranked seventh overall might not be as good a prospect as his ranking from a franchise qb standpoint. There are year's when the third ranked qb in a particular draft might be better than the prior year's top rated qb.

 

The year that Jim Kelly got drafted there were a number of qbs who turned out to be HOF players. Then there are years where the top rated qb for that particular draft is considered a mediocre prospect.

 

Our staff in this year's draft made it fairly clear that if they had the opportunity to draft Newton they would have taken him with their first pick. As it turned out he was taken by Carolina with the first pick in the draft. The Bills rated Blaine Gabbert very high but they rated Dareus and Von Miller even higher. Miller was taken by Denver so the Bills stayed with their board and took Dareus. To be candid I wanted the Bills to take Blaine Gabbert and then be done with their interminable franchise qb search. They took a player they rated more highly----thus I have no problem with their pick.

 

After reading my comments you might think that I am evading your question. I'm not. The bottom line is whether you take one player over another doesn't mean that the player you didn't select won't turn out to be a good player. The organizations that evaluate and rank players well in the long run will eventually build up a base of talent that will allow them to be a competitive team for a sustainable period.

[Orton's Arm]

No system or philosophy is absolute or pure. If you believe that the qb is an upper tier franchise qb type then you go with the qb selection because it is so central to the success of a franchise. But let me caution you here that it isn't as simple as ranking the qb for that particular year. There are years when a qb ranked seventh overall might not be as good a prospect as his ranking from a franchise qb standpoint. There are year's when the third ranked qb in a particular draft might be better than the prior year's top rated qb.

 

The year that Jim Kelly got drafted there were a number of qbs who turned out to be HOF players. Then there are years where the top rated qb for that particular draft is considered a mediocre prospect.

 

Our staff in this year's draft made it fairly clear that if they had the opportunity to draft Newton they would have taken him with their first pick. As it turned out he was taken by Carolina with the first pick in the draft. The Bills rated Blaine Gabbert very high but they rated Dareus and Von Miller even higher. Miller was taken by Denver so the Bills stayed with their board and took Dareus. To be candid I wanted the Bills to take Blaine Gabbert and then be done with their interminable franchise qb search. They took a player they rated more highly----thus I have no problem with their pick.

 

After reading my comments you might think that I am evading your question. I'm not. The bottom line is whether you take one player over another doesn't mean that the player you didn't select won't turn out to be a good player. The organizations that evaluate and rank players well in the long run will eventually build up a base of talent that will allow them to be a competitive team for a sustainable period.

Just to clarify my earlier post: when I stated that the QB would be top-7, I meant that once he adjusted to the NFL, he'd become one of the seven best QBs in the league.

 

I agree that some drafts are strong WRT a given position, while others are weak. As you hinted, that means teams should be flexible about which positions they pursue. But I also think the value of the position needs to be taken into account. For example, a player's overall value could be determined as follows:

 

Quality of player x value of position = player value

 

The above formula would stop you from taking an OG first overall, especially if a franchise QB was also available to you.

 

While teams shouldn't make drafting decisions on the basis of this formula alone, at least it's a starting point. For example, if the top five guys (according to the formula) scored a 550, 520, 510, 440, and 300, then you'd obviously weed out the bottom one or two. And then you'd decide among the top three or four based on whichever position you most want to fill.

[JohnC]

Just to clarify my earlier post: when I stated that the QB would be top-7, I meant that once he adjusted to the NFL, he'd become one of the seven best QBs in the league.

 

I agree that some drafts are strong WRT a given position, while others are weak. As you hinted, that means teams should be flexible about which positions they pursue. But I also think the value of the position needs to be taken into account. For example, a player's overall value could be determined as follows:

 

Quality of player x value of position = player value

 

The above formula would stop you from taking an OG first overall, especially if a franchise QB was also available to you.

 

While teams shouldn't make drafting decisions on the basis of this formula alone, at least it's a starting point. For example, if the top five guys (according to the formula) scored a 550, 520, 510, 440, and 300, then you'd obviously weed out the bottom one or two. And then you'd decide among the top three or four based on whichever position you most want to fill.

 

Not wanting to belabor a point (while I am doing so) let me use the Steelers as an example for the right way to approach the draft. A couple of years ago the Steelers drafted Pouncey, a center/guard from Florida. In his rookie year he played at an all-pro level. Despite the low ranking of importance in his position (as you would put it) he was still a marvelous pick. He is going to be a stalwart on the line for a decade or more. There is no doubt that the tackle positions, especially LT, are considered more important than the guard/center position. But Pouncey was such a supreme talent that he was an excellent pick.

 

The bottom line is that if a team drafts well in general and make their picks count, no matter what position they draft for, in the long run they will build a very strong roster and have sustainable success.

[JohnC]

Even without the benefit of hindsight, many observers thought Ngata was worth more than any safety on the board in that draft, by virtue of a combination of talent and position.

 

You are making my point. Regardless of the position Whitner or Ngata played almost all talent evaluators (with the exception of the inept Bills) had Ngata ranked higher as a player. The problem with the Bills has little to do with the positions they draft for; their problem relates to their incompetent evaluating abilities.

 

Although you might devalue certain positions such as the safety position if a player such as Ed Reed or Troy Palamalu were on the board they would be top shelf picks on the top of any teams' board. It is rare that a guard be taken in the top half of a first round. The Steelers taking Pouncey was an exceptional pick from where they took him or if a another team drafting sooner would have taken him it still would have been an excellent pick.

[Orton's Arm]

Not wanting to belabor a point (while I am doing so) let me use the Steelers as an example for the right way to approach the draft. A couple of years ago the Steelers drafted Pouncey, a center/guard from Florida. In his rookie year he played at an all-pro level. Despite the low ranking of importance in his position (as you would put it) he was still a marvelous pick. He is going to be a stalwart on the line for a decade or more. There is no doubt that the tackle positions, especially LT, are considered more important than the guard/center position. But Pouncey was such a supreme talent that he was an excellent pick.

 

The bottom line is that if a team drafts well in general and make their picks count, no matter what position they draft for, in the long run they will build a very strong roster and have sustainable success.

Pouncey was taken 18th overall. By that point in the draft, the highest-rated QBs, LTs, RDEs and CBs are generally off the board. If that's the case, an interior lineman can be the correct pick, especially if he works out as well as Pouncey has.

 

But suppose the Seahawks had chosen Pouncey sixth overall, instead of taking Okung. For the Seahawks, Pouncey would not have been the correct selection, because LT is a much more valuable and harder-to-fill position than C.

 

I'd divide positions into six tiers of importance:

 

Tier 1: QB

Tier 2: LT, RDE, CB

Tier 3: pass rushing OLB, NT

Tier 4: C, RT, WR

Tier 5: OG, S, TE, RB, ILB, non-pass rushing OLB

Tier 6: K, P, kick returner

 

Obviously others' opinions about the relative importance of these positions will differ, depending on philosophy and the style of offense and defense being run.

 

If a team chooses a lower tier position at a fairly early point in the draft, it's normally considered a safe pick. The idea is that no one would take an interior OL (for example) in the first round, unless that interior OL was very, very good.

 

Suppose that over the years, a team were to use its best draft picks on lower tier positions. Probably most of those picks would work out. But there's problem: higher tier positions will get neglected.

 

The Bills are a good example of this sort of failure. Originally, Jim Kelly's successor was supposed to have been Todd Collins--a second round pick. If the Bills couldn't find an heir apparent to Kelly in the first round, what made them think they could do so in the second round?

 

Then they traded a third round pick for Billy Joe Hobart, exactly as though that had a chance of producing Kelly's successor. Later, they would use the second of their two first round picks on Losman. Later they would try to replace Losman with a third round pick.

 

The Bills could have and should have used their best draft picks to try to obtain Kelly's replacement. (At least in those drafts when good QBs were available for the Bills to pick.) Obviously the Bills did not do so. That caused two problems: 1) The Bills have yet to find Kelly's replacement. The ceiling on this team is a lot lower than on a team with a franchise QB. 2) The lack of a franchise QB has created a vacuum which has sucked in a great many good draft picks over the years. The Colts haven't used a first round pick on a QB since 1998 (when they took Peyton Manning). Since 1998, the Bills have used three first round picks on QBs (Johnson, Bledsoe, Losman), none of whom provided more than three years of starts to the Bills.

 

Opportunities to obtain good, long-term answers at premium positions are very rare. That's why, if you have the chance to obtain a good long-term answer, it's foolish to obtain a player at a non-premium position instead.

 

Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick of the draft on a DB 10 times, on a RB ten times, on an OT twice, and on a QB never. This neglect of premium positions, and excessive focus on non-premium positions, is a big reason why this franchise has generally obtained disappointing results.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[JohnC]

Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick of the draft on a DB 10 times, on a RB ten times, on an OT twice, and on a QB never. This neglect of premium positions, and excessive focus on non-premium positions, is a big reason why this franchise has generally obtained disappointing results.

 

I will again stubbornly go back to the primary reason why the Bills have historically a losing record. This organization, under the stewardship of a befuddled owner, has been mediocre in evaluating talent in general, regardless of positions. When you have an owner firmly defending the decade long work of the head of its college scouting (Modrak) when the evidence is blatantly clear that its drafting during that extended period was dismal then what more can you say?

 

The only way the Bills can turn things around is to string together at least three consecutive quality drafts. Making their picks count should be the organizational mantra. Eventually, you are going to accumulate a critical mass of good players that will allow you to be competitive. The next step is to develop your talent and then retain it. The Jason Peters's saga is the embodiment of why this is a failed organization.

 

You and I for the most part are in accord. Teams that consistently draft well succeed. Teams that don't consistently draft well remain mediocore. Ralph Wilson fired Bill Polian. The clueless owner brought in a well intentioned but ill-equipped Marv Levy to turn a troubled franchise around. The outcomes are very predictable.

[spartacus]

Agreed.

 

The shambles TD left prompted Ralph to reach out to his comfort zone (i.e., Marv) for help. The problem came when Marv decided he was the best man for the GM job. That hubris set the team back another four years.

 

The only reason Marv took the GM job was that he felt he could parlay it into a herad coaching gig.

 

 

Marv desparately wanted to coach again.

 

too bad Mularkey ruined his plan be quitting before Marv could fire him mid-season and take over.

 

Marv could never evaluate talent

 

 

[vincec]

The only reason Marv took the GM job was that he felt he could parlay it into a herad coaching gig.

 

 

Marv desparately wanted to coach again.

 

too bad Mularkey ruined his plan be quitting before Marv could fire him mid-season and take over.

 

Marv could never evaluate talent

This was and is my take as well. Strangely enough, Wilson though Marv was too old to coach again. Frankly, based on what happened with Jauron, Wilson would've been better off hiring Marv as the coach.

[Orton's Arm]

I will again stubbornly go back to the primary reason why the Bills have historically a losing record. This organization, under the stewardship of a befuddled owner, has been mediocre in evaluating talent in general, regardless of positions. When you have an owner firmly defending the decade long work of the head of its college scouting (Modrak) when the evidence is blatantly clear that its drafting during that extended period was dismal then what more can you say?

 

The only way the Bills can turn things around is to string together at least three consecutive quality drafts. Making their picks count should be the organizational mantra. Eventually, you are going to accumulate a critical mass of good players that will allow you to be competitive. The next step is to develop your talent and then retain it. The Jason Peters's saga is the embodiment of why this is a failed organization.

 

You and I for the most part are in accord. Teams that consistently draft well succeed. Teams that don't consistently draft well remain mediocore. Ralph Wilson fired Bill Polian. The clueless owner brought in a well intentioned but ill-equipped Marv Levy to turn a troubled franchise around. The outcomes are very predictable.

I agree that the Bills have been mediocre in evaluating talent, and that that may be stronger than any other single factor in explaining the team's usual lack of success. But it would be going too far to say that is the sole reason the Bills haven't succeeded.

 

Take the situation at RB for example. In 1997 the Bills used a first round pick on Antowain Smith. In 2001 they used a second round pick on Henry, in an effort to upgrade the position. In 2003 they used a first round pick on McGahee in an effort to upgrade Henry. In 2006 they used the 12th overall pick on Lynch in an effort to find an upgrade for McGahee. In 2010 they used the 9th overall pick on Spiller to try to find an upgrade for Lynch.

 

Suppose those draft picks had been used on non-RBs instead. Imagine the 1997 first round pick being used on a player who was as good at C as Smith was at RB. The 2001 2nd round pick could have been used on a player who was as good at TE as Henry was at RB. And so forth. The long run result of diverting all the Bills' first and second round picks away from RBs would have been a significantly stronger and better team.

 

Put another way, the problem with all those RB picks wasn't just that none of them lived up to their draft positions. (Though that was certainly part of it.) It was also that the Bills' blinkered, obsessive, and completely unnecessary effort to upgrade the RB position starved other areas of the team of badly needed early draft picks.

 

Think of this another way. Suppose Team A and Team B have exactly equal ability to evaluate players. Each of the two teams' draft picks always work out about as well as you'd expect for their draft positions. There are no first or second round busts, and there are no late round gems.

 

Team A biases its early picks towards premium positions; whereas Team B does not.

 

Over the course of a seven year period, Team A is likely to end up with the better QB, the better LT, the better RDE, and probably the better pass rushing OLB and NT. Team B is likely to end up with the better OGs, the better C, the better ILBs, the better RB, and so forth. However, Team A will be decent in those areas as well. Team A typically uses its first round picks on premium positions, leaving it with its second and third round picks to obtain decent or reasonably good players at positions of lesser importance.

 

Team A is likely to dominate any contest between itself and Team B. Team B's advantages in areas like interior OL, RB, TE and so forth cannot offset Team A's commanding advantages in QB play, LT, and pass rushers.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Edwards' Arm