Buffalos#1Fan Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 You spelt a few players names wrong, and this isn't a depth chart. A depth chart shows depth (the second and third string players). Other than that, great work on the graphics. It looks very cool! We are definitely doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBUffalo Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I would call LG and WR severe needs. I think Bradham should get a shot at starting for a full season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Why is Bruce Smith listed as a high need, and why is he on offense?! Seriously though : Why is Mark Anderson listed as a high need for a replacement? What have you done for me lately ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigK14094 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I like the set up, but that roster's only going to win us 3-4 games. It's sad how our OL now looks. And here I thought losing Kelsay and Fitz would prevent us from dismantling it. Also, I like him, but McKelvin is a high need. He is not a starter. In fact, I would have put Brooks there. I was hopeful on Brooks, but he was a fourth rounder for a reason. Although he has ball skills, he is slow for a CB. That young receiver at Indy left him in the dust, Brooks can't run with the burners. thats why he was not a starter at LSU. McKelvin however, did not get burned in the four games he played as a starter last year prior to getting hurt. McKelvin will still do fine, but we need another CB, and I am not a believer in Brooks there. Actually, he might be a safety candidate as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billstolast Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I like it this is a 1-15 roster...we will win the jadaveon clowney sweepstakes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Nails Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) Maybe it's my eternal kool-aid drinking self talking here, but I don't think we're as bad off as people think. We're clearly going to make a move or two at QB (draft/trade/both) and add a WR in the first two rounds as well. Guard is replaceable. Levitre was a loss, but our line will be fine. Searcy is a player and we'll probably bring in another serviceable vet at safety. The D we have isn't that bad, they just played horrible under Wanny. Although we haven't made any earth shattering moves thus far, I'm not ready to jump off a cliff right now. We cleaned house of all of the old guys who lead us to 6-10 records. Isn't that what everyone wanted? We have young guys that are ready to take on a more prominent role. Coaching is a huge part of football and I think we have the guys in place that will make a world of difference with the talent and potential talent that we have on the team. I reserve judgement until Mr. irrelevant is announced. Edited March 13, 2013 by Jamie Nails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) meh.. I don't think it's as bad as your color coded graphics make it look. Petitine will make a difference. Still potentnial for all the young players to click and get it.. Still options in FA, still have money to spemd. Still have the draft. Lets revisit this in Early May Edited March 14, 2013 by ddaryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 i think the color code for severe should be more of a burnt umber I was thinking more of a sort of deep cordovan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Maybe it's a Bills thing. Maybe in time Urbrik will announce the correct spelling. Umber's a color, Dulux color wheel just got bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Am I the only one who thinks Colin Brown and David Snow will be fine for the Bills? The Colin Brown pickup was nearly indentical to the Urbik and Rinehart pickups: guys signed from other teams' PS's who were drafted in the middle rounds and have pedigrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 obviously alot of energy put into this. while I dont totally agree with your assesments you did a great job. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Sweet chart!!! I don't think Searcy is bad, and I also think Scott starts over him. I'm more worried about TE and WR than Bradham. Chandler prob won't start the season, so I'd plug Dickerson in there now. TJ I think is a good WR, but he is useless until we get another WR. But we need another Scott Chandler type. Perhaps in the draft. I was hoping to land Cook in FA, but that won't happen now. T. Jax I would move to "moderate," unless the head coach forgets to give him a playbook and/or activate him on game day Will be cool to see what this looks like on opening day!!! Edited March 14, 2013 by RyanC883 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 Sweet chart!!! I don't think Searcy is bad, and I also think Scott starts over him. I'm more worried about TE and WR than Bradham. Chandler prob won't start the season, so I'd plug Dickerson in there now. TJ I think is a good WR, but he is useless until we get another WR. But we need another Scott Chandler type. Perhaps in the draft. I was hoping to land Cook in FA, but that won't happen now. T. Jax I would move to "moderate," unless the head coach forgets to give him a playbook and/or activate him on game day Will be cool to see what this looks like on opening day!!! Thanks, I have the project file saved--I intend to keep it updates as we move through the offseason. Thanks for the props, everyone. Honestly, this took like 20 mins, but I love me some visual aids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Thanks, I have the project file saved--I intend to keep it updates as we move through the offseason. Thanks for the props, everyone. Honestly, this took like 20 mins, but I love me some visual aids! Very nice job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDD Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) I pretty much agree with this assessment with the exception that Graham should be a red dot...and there's not enough green dots dammit! Edited March 14, 2013 by Mr. Wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) I bumped Lawson up to starter over Scott. Thoughts? ...... Great work. Does your "Needs" section relate to the overall assessment of the talent at each position.....or does it relate to the needs we might have when looking at FA? It is a subtle difference between the two but I think an important one. For example, one can argue that Darius holds a "moderate need" as his talent has potential to improve.....but he has not shown himself to be a long term keeper yet. In regards to FA needs however, there is little to no chance that we are looking to replace him at this point.....therefore he would have a "minimal need". The same thing could be done with several players. In terms of FA need.....I would have Urbik & Darius at "minimal".....Bradham at "moderate" (as I believe that all things considered, his starting job is relatively safe).....and in regards to Searcy, I would have also listed Scott & Williams, making that area "minimal". Also, Anderson would fall under "moderate" as his contract alone means that his position is one that we won't be overly looking at replacing this FA period. Edited March 14, 2013 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Great work. Does your "Needs" section relate to the overall assessment of the talent at each position.....or does it relate to the needs we might have when looking at FA? It is a subtle difference between the two but I think an important one. For example, one can argue that Darius holds a "moderate need" as his talent has potential to improve.....but he has not shown himself to be a long term keeper yet. In regards to FA needs however, there is little to no chance that we are looking to replace him at this point.....therefore he would have a "minimal need". The same thing could be done with several players. In terms of FA need.....I would have Urbik & Darius at "minimal".....Bradham at "moderate" (as I believe that all things considered, his starting job is relatively safe).....and in regards to Searcy, I would have also listed Scott & Williams, making that area "minimal". Also, Anderson would fall under "moderate" as his contract alone means that his position is one that we won't be overly looking at replacing this FA period. That all makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think this would address the positions you mention: I qualified "need" based on where I thought we could stand to do better, and where our resources would be most responsibly allocated. Edited March 14, 2013 by taC giB ehT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Cool chart. Good work! Thoughts? With our schedule......2-14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago_Mike Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Nice work on this. Couldn't agree w/ your evaluation any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts