Dibs Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 ok since you brought them up, let's examine the cardinals and "edge" in more detail: - they scored more points than the bills 314 vs 300 - they had the higher ranked offense versus the bills 18 versus 30 - their #1 back Edge (widely regarded as a flop after leaving indy and hardly great by anyone) still outperformed our #1 mcgahee 1159 yards versus 990 yards (both had 6 TDs) and to think they did it with a combination of washed up QB and a rookie leinart, and according to you a "garbage OL." heck, if anything im even more convinced we need jarrett or someone like him after this analysis. I wasn't comparing them to the Bills!!!!!(....but.....how about 5 wins to 7 wins?) MY POINT was to rebut that having 2 top WRs will effect the running game much. 2 GREAT WRs. 1 GREAT RB. 30th in rushing!!!!!! 32nd in ypc!!!!!! If you can't run, you won't win many games. Take another look at ARIZONA. If we end up with a super passing game but can't control the clock....or convert 3rd & short, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 This is my fault in being too cavalier in my estimation of where the improvement in pass protection began to manifest. It took me going back and looking at the numbers to realize that mistake. It seems there were 2 weeks after the bye week (GB, @ IND) in which the pass protection was still inadequate. Maybe this is because the play-calling was still utlra-conservative (this would make sense because one could argue the pass protection and play-calling both changed the same week, beginning @ HOU), or maybe its because the line needed those 2 weeks to gel and adjust after the changes to the lineup the coaching staff made during the bye week. In any case, here are the adjusted numbers with the line being drawn after those 2 weeks: first 9 games 30 sacks....3.3/game 224 attempts.....1 sack every 7.5 attempts averages to 53 sacks in 16 games last 7 games 17 sacks....2.4/game 205 attempts.....1 sack every 12 attempts averages to 39 sacks in 16 games With my error eradicated, the point I'm trying to make comes through. In any case, statistics are a pretty rough way to measure something like pass protection, mostly because by using sacks alone you completely ignore how many passes were thrown under diress, whether the quarterback had a pocket to step into, coverage sacks, etc. In my opinion, the best way to see our line's improvement is the old fashioned eye ball test. Down the final stretch of the season, I remember again and again consciously noticing that JP was able to step back and get comfortable, and then step up and deliver a pass...on a pretty consistent basis. At least it was pretty close to as consistent as you can expect. I'm confident that if someone were to go back and watch those last 7 games looking for this, they would see my point clearer than I could ever show it with statistics. This is one reason why I'd like to see this team grab a big receiver at some point in the draft, but I'll save that for another post. We still finished the season with 5 straight games with 3 sacks in each. I'm happy to give the OL 4 games to gel(& defences 4 games to catch up with the changes) & we still ended with nasty sack numbers. Considering that Peters only let through 2 sacks, that is an awful lot for the rest of the line. Our line NEEDS improving inside......& hopefully Pennington will improve(as expected) as well. Re: your last line.....I agree that it would be good to grab a big WR at some point in the draft......I'm just astounded at the school of thought that has people targeting a WR with our #1 pick.....which basically implies it is a huge priority. OG/DT/LB/TE are all bigger priority for this team(IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 No we don't. Mccargo was a first rounder last year who is only going to get bigger , stronger and better with age and coaching. If we lose Nate and Fletch, we have three very equal priorties in a Big WR, a MLB, and a CB. While the big WR could be addressed through FA, the other two likely will not. We also have noone on this roster capable of stepping up into those positions and playing them at the level needed to win in the NFL. I agree, a big reliable receiver will improve our time of posession which was a big weakness last year. That will keep our run d off the field when we needed to run the clock out at the end of the game. We need a 3rd down back like the kid with the Jets too. A big MLB will shore up the run d with Takeo in better shape as well. The lineman are still 300 #s..that's enough..they need to learn better technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I wasn't comparing them to the Bills!!!!!(....but.....how about 5 wins to 7 wins?) MY POINT was to rebut that having 2 top WRs will effect the running game much. 2 GREAT WRs. 1 GREAT RB. 30th in rushing!!!!!! 32nd in ypc!!!!!! If you can't run, you won't win many games. Take another look at ARIZONA. If we end up with a super passing game but can't control the clock....or convert 3rd & short, who cares? how about wayne and harrison force bears to only rush 4, keep safeties way back and drop linebackers back in coverage? bears run and pass blitz 3x the entire game (only once after the Wayne TD), and a backup RB and rookie RB rush for nearly 200 combined yards? you don't think 5 on 4 mismatches helped the colts oline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I've thought about it. Picking Dwayne Jarrett is a great idea. It figures well into our seven year plan for getting to the superbowl. Think of how JP will develop next year learning how to avoid the pass rush and getting all that time to think about his play as we fail again to stop the run game, giving JP a lot of time to talk with coaches on the sideline. We will preserve Evans and Jarrett as they can develop their run routes with exactness as they turn around and watch JP develop toughness by getting sacked! Maybe in two or three years we can put together an offensive and defensive line and really start on our way to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 how about wayne and harrison force bears to only rush 4, keep safeties way back and drop linebackers back in coverage? bears run and pass blitz 3x the entire game (only once after the Wayne TD), and a backup RB and rookie RB rush for nearly 200 combined yards? you don't think 5 on 4 mismatches helped the colts oline? Firstly.....the Colts obtained a top QB, OL & RB before they obtained their top #2 WR. Secondly.....the Bears use the Cover 2 which predominantly covers the deep pass. They don't blitz much regardless. Thirdly....the Colts were #2 in passing in the league in 2006......#1 in passing in 2003 when Wayne only achieved 838 yards.....#4 in passing in 1999 when they did not have Wayne. Bob Sanders makes a much greater difference to the Colts than Wayne ever could. The OL makes a much greater difference to the Colts than Wayne ever could. Surely you can't argue that it is the #2 WR that improves the run game for the Colts by any noticable level? The Colts OL with Manning & Harrison have shown great running production with whomever is at RB. In 2001, when Edge was injured, an undrafted FA rookie(Rhodes) rushed for 1100yards......same year as Wayne was drafted(virtual non-factor in rookie year). Addai was a 1st round pick. How can you possibly be arguing that one of our greatest needs is a #2 WR????? Even if one was to say that Evans was in top 12 at his possition in the league(which I believe he certainly is).....that means that 20 teams do not have a WR his equal. Are we sooooo much better in all other areas that we can afford to use our best rescource(1st round pick) for another top WR? Sure, upgrade the #2 WR.......sure, grab a WR with the 1st round pick if he is clearly the best available player.....sure, grab a WR with later a pick or in FA.....but.....target the WR possition with our 1st round pick?????? With all the areas of concern on the team, OG/DT/LB/TE/CB(NC leaving)....that makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Yeah, and I'm sure Mike WIlliams was a big time receiver as well. If we're goofy enough to take a WR in teh first, I hope we go with that big kid from LSU. Big Mike was a big-time receiver in college...However, there were knocks on him about laziness, attitude, etc. He was supremely talented and was able to dominate college corners because of his size, even if he wasn't always 100% tuned in. Sitting out a year didn't help his laziness, and going to a disastrous situation like Detroit doesn't help anybody excel to be their best. Jarrett, on the other hand, had to fight through some issues. He didn't come in and dominate as a freshman. He was severely homesick and thought about transferrng back to the East coast. Williams' 1 year suspension forced Jarrett into a situation where he had to step up and be the guy, and he didn't run from it. I'm not saying he doesn't have a 'tude, I think most WR's probably do. I was just wondering where the other poster got his info from. I have never heard anything about Jarrett as a teammate that wasn't positive, while I did hear some grumblings about Mike Williams. I think Mike resented Palmer/Leinart/Bush getting all the pub, while Jarrett has basked in being the #1 wideout, even if he was not as well-known nationally as some of his teammates. His ability to put up numbers this year with a 1st-year QB and freshman tailback and opposing defenses knowing he was "the guy" speaks to his abilities. Jarrett has some question marks, like a lack of premium speed, but I've never heard the "selfish" stuff before. That's why I responded... Free agency will clear up the clouds a little bit, but at the moment, I'm with you...WR would be a strange pick, considering the other needs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Firstly.....the Colts obtained a top QB, OL & RB before they obtained their top #2 WR.Secondly.....the Bears use the Cover 2 which predominantly covers the deep pass. They don't blitz much regardless. Thirdly....the Colts were #2 in passing in the league in 2006......#1 in passing in 2003 when Wayne only achieved 838 yards.....#4 in passing in 1999 when they did not have Wayne. Surely you can't argue that it is the #2 WR that improves the run game for the Colts by any noticable level? The Colts OL with Manning & Harrison have shown great running production with whomever is at RB. In 2001, when Edge was injured, an undrafted FA rookie(Rhodes) rushed for 1100yards......same year as Wayne was drafted(virtual non-factor in rookie year). Addai was a 1st round pick. How can you possibly be arguing that one of our greatest needs is a #2 WR????? Even if one was to say that Evans was in top 12 at his possition in the league(which I believe he certainly is).....that means that 20 teams do not have a WR his equal. Are we sooooo much better in all other areas that we can afford to use our best rescource(1st round pick) for another top WR? Sure, upgrade the #2 WR.......sure, grab a WR with the 1st round pick if he is clearly the best available player.....sure, grab a WR with later a pick or in FA.....but.....target the WR possition with our 1st round pick?????? With all the areas of concern on the team, OG/DT/LB/TE/CB(NC leaving)....that makes no sense. during the period when colts have contended theyve always had a strong #2 WR whether it be wayne (only 838 yards? you like price at 400 instead?), or their TE which they use in the flats and deep slot as a WR. spreading out their WRs and making the defense respect and cover the entire field is the key to opening up running lanes for whomever it is they have in the backfield. their Oline is good but hardly dominant and theyve had their share of turnover at guard. and no one ever said WR was only priority, just a key one. jarrett appears to fit the bill for a "go to" target on blitzes, 3rd and short conversions, the red zone and taking some heat off evans. if he's there i say we get him, as there are no suitable WRs in free agency. use 2nd and 3rd round drafts and free agency to fill other needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 And then after the draft what Chris Mortenson says about our pick Chris Mortenson Mort has to deal with Pasta Belly and Pencil Neck Geek stealing his ice cream scooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 ......as there are no suitable WRs in free agency. use 2nd and 3rd round drafts and free agency to fill other needs. D.Bennett. K.Curtis. I still don't understand how a #2.....that is "number 2" WR can be a bigger need than most other areas of need when we have one of the best #1 WRs in the league. If we didn't have Evans, we'd be like most other teams.....we'd be looking at the 1st round to get a WR to be our #1. Again I ask......are we that good in all other areas that we can afford to target a complimentary possition with our best resource(1st round pick)? How about the 1st round pick be used for the biggest areas of need.....or the best player available......& we use the 2nd & 3rd rounds to fill other needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 D.Bennett.K.Curtis. I still don't understand how a #2.....that is "number 2" WR can be a bigger need than most other areas of need when we have one of the best #1 WRs in the league. If we didn't have Evans, we'd be like most other teams.....we'd be looking at the 1st round to get a WR to be our #1. Again I ask......are we that good in all other areas that we can afford to target a complimentary possition with our best resource(1st round pick)? How about the 1st round pick be used for the biggest areas of need.....or the best player available......& we use the 2nd & 3rd rounds to fill other needs? bennett could have potential but you're most likely looking at a bidding war with titans or someone else that makes him more expensive than the potentially better (in that hes bigger, younger and faster) jarrett. curtis you can forget about, even price is better than that guy. better question for you: does it make sense to keep using 1st rounders on defense given they did 2x last year or investing another 1st round pick (like mike williams) in an offensive line that by all accounts was vastly improved after being reshuffled last year, or get a legitimate #2 target for a pass offense ranked in the bottom quartile for an offense ranked in the bottom 3rd scoring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Chris Mortenson Mort has to deal with Pasta Belly and Pencil Neck Geek stealing his ice cream scooper. Brutal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 bennett could have potential but you're most likely looking at a bidding war with titans or someone else that makes him more expensive than the potentially better (in that hes bigger, younger and faster) jarrett. curtis you can forget about, even price is better than that guy. better question for you: does it make sense to keep using 1st rounders on defense given they did 2x last year or investing another 1st round pick (like mike williams) in an offensive line that by all accounts was vastly improved after being reshuffled last year, or get a legitimate #2 target for a pass offense ranked in the bottom quartile for an offense ranked in the bottom 3rd scoring? The Titans might not be in the bidding war as let's not forget they did sign David Givens last offseason, who was lost to injury early in the season. That said Bennett is arguably the best free agent WR available and no doubt be tough to sign as a team like the Chiefs or Vikings who need a #1 might be make a bigger play for him then we could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 ......better question for you: does it make sense to keep using 1st rounders on defense given they did 2x last year or investing another 1st round pick (like mike williams) in an offensive line that by all accounts was vastly improved after being reshuffled last year, or get a legitimate #2 target for a pass offense ranked in the bottom quartile for an offense ranked in the bottom 3rd scoring? Yes, that's right.....every 1st round WR becomes a legitimate starter and every 1st round OLman becomes a bust. What difference how many O or D picks have been used......we need what we need. (BTW....last 5 drafts.....2 D 1st rounders, 4 O 1st rounders) I'll repeat again........How about the 1st round pick be used for the biggest areas of need.....or the best player available......& we use the 2nd & 3rd rounds to fill other needs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jokeman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yes, that's right.....every 1st round WR becomes a legitimate starter and every 1st round OLman becomes a bust. What difference how many O or D picks have been used......we need what we need. (BTW....last 5 drafts.....2 D 1st rounders, 4 O 1st rounders) I'll repeat again........How about the 1st round pick be used for the biggest areas of need.....or the best player available......& we use the 2nd & 3rd rounds to fill other needs? Because the best player available might end up being S Reggie Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Yes, that's right.....every 1st round WR becomes a legitimate starter and every 1st round OLman becomes a bust. What difference how many O or D picks have been used......we need what we need. (BTW....last 5 drafts.....2 D 1st rounders, 4 O 1st rounders) I'll repeat again........How about the 1st round pick be used for the biggest areas of need.....or the best player available......& we use the 2nd & 3rd rounds to fill other needs? 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: I'm all for improvement in the trenches, but I'm not sure how we'd apply that to the 12th overall pick. We all know we're set with Jason Peters, and I think most agree that Terrance Pennington has earned a starting role for next season. I think the board is about 50-50 on Fowler, but even if you don't like him, are you going to draft a center 12th overall? Or even a guard, undoubtedly our weakest O-line postion? I don't think thats the best way to help the team. As for the defensive line, many look at the fact that our run defense was quite weak last year, and so want to draft a defensive tackle, and the leading candidate seems to be Okoye. I don't like this because Okoye would in all likelihood be replacing Tim Anderson in our DT rotation, leaving Kyle Williams as our only nose tackle on the roster! This is why I'd rather see us address DT through free agency with a solid nose tackle, namely Ian Scott of Chicago, who has experience playing for Dick Jauron in the cover 2. This would allow John McCargo to remain in the pass rushing DT position as he returns from injury. With he and Kyle Williams having a year of experience in both this league and this system under their belts, I'd expect to see noticeable improvement out of the two of them. Particularly with Williams bulking up a bit, giving him a better chance at holding the line of scrimmage consistently. Add cover 2 vets Larry Tripplett and Ian Scott into the rotation at the under tackle and nose tackle positions respectively and I think we'd see considerable improvement in the run defense. Therefore, the only line position left on either side of the ball to consider in round 1 is DE, and this is the spot I'm most hoping the Bills address with the 12th pick, mainly because of the emphasis the cover 2 puts on generating a pass rush from the front 4. I'd let Chris Kelsay walk, and draft Gaines Adams if he's on the board. If not, I'd take Jamaal Anderson, who should be there. But what if, for any number of reasons, they don't want to go DE with that 12th pick? Why not Dwayne Jarrett, or a linebacker? Picking Dwayne Jarrett in the 1st isn't showing a lack of commitment to the lines, its showing a recognition that the draft is more than one round and he might be the player on the board who can help our team the most. Because for our offense to take the next step forward, we must give Losman a 2nd consistent target in the passing game. I'd still rather have a DE, but I've got no problem with Dwayne Jarrett or a linebacker. I wouldn't rule out a trade-down and a guard picked near the end of the 1st round, but whenever you talk about trading down, you have to remember it takes two to tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Because the best player available might end up being S Reggie Nelson. Fair enough......I meant within reason. Trade down works as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 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: You've made a compelling argument(I'm not sure why I missed it the first time....) You argue more along the lines of "if the shoe fits"....if you get my meaning. I'm totally happy getting a WR with our 1st pick. My argument were more against the school of thought that even if the shoe doesn't fit, we go after a WR in the 1st. Basically, if a WR makes the most sense to take when it's our turn to pick......take him(or trade down). I'm against the phylosophy however that targeting (IMO the luxury) possition of #2 WR when there are many other areas of concern is a glamourous strategy......not usually a sound football strategy. BTW.....I'm trusting your thoughts(& others as well) on the whole DT/NT thing in that I don't know myself so I trust that the possible draftee DTs will tripple up with Tripplett/McCargo rather than replace Anderson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 good points all around. we need: a corner if we lose nate ( i hope we don't) at least one new starting LB at least 1 new DT/DE (i think we will get one of each, but perhaps can do a 2nd or 3rd rounder on one) at least 1 new starting interior O line at least 1 new BIG WR/TE. i think an other RB i think we should keep nate, get A thomas from balti (i think he will be a big impact guy, and having him and moving TKO inside gives us big strong fast LBs that will be VERY effective against short passing and the run) get a solid guard (i'm thinking steinbach, but really we could get any number of guys and improve, even a day 1 rook). the biggest thing for me is to get our run d improved (mcargo back, a guy like terdison in FA, and an upgrade in LB will be plenty) and not to have a massive hole in our secondary. everything else is gravy that will directly to improving our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 BTW.....I'm trusting your thoughts(& others as well) on the whole DT/NT thing in that I don't know myself so I trust that the possible draftee DTs will tripple up with Tripplett/McCargo rather than replace Anderson. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts