BillsVet Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm tired of hearing this argument about re-signing a player because the system doesn't demand a star at the position. Just which positions do we need above-average players in the Cover 2? Are there any? Can we have a bunch of below average or average players make this thing work? When Clements and F-B leave are we going to make up for the loss in the defense with capable players or cast-offs because a given position doesn't require great players? I think we're already starting to see many fans rationalize letting NC walk because "his position doesn't demand a big time playmaker" in our defensive scheme. If Nate leaves because his demands are ridiculous (see wanting close to Champ money or more) well OK. But I expect the front office to then spend on 1 or 2 above average players to compensate for his loss. If the market allows us to retain NC for a reasonable price and I'm not sure on what that is, we have to. We already know the front 7 has to apply pressure for this Cover 2 to work. Containing the run starts with capable DT's and a MLB who makes tackles. If we don't have that, and we don't as of right now, where does that leave the secondary without above average CB's? Hung out to dry is what I think. Ask Terrence McGee about Detroit's Roy Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 But I expect the front office to then spend on 1 or 2 above average players to compensate for his loss. If the market allows us to retain NC for a reasonable price and I'm not sure on what that is, we have to. I expect the front office to spend the money on at least 2 above average players to compensate for the loss of NC & LF. The thing to keep in perspective is that when a player actually hits the FA market & is not tagged(or restricted in any way), that player is a FREE AGENT. He no longer has ties to his old team.....& his old team has no ties to him. There is no reason why we would chose to go after NC over Steinbach if management deems we have more need at OG than DB. This is not 15+ years ago.......STAR players move teams every off-season. It's the wrong mentality for the modern era to say....."He was our star so we should keep him." Perhaps more appropriate is to say......"We've just being paying for a star who is now a FA, which FA stars would be best for us to spend big on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm tired of hearing this argument about re-signing a player because the system doesn't demand a star at the position. Just which positions do we need above-average players in the Cover 2? Are there any? Can we have a bunch of below average or average players make this thing work? When Clements and F-B leave are we going to make up for the loss in the defense with capable players or cast-offs because a given position doesn't require great players? I think we're already starting to see many fans rationalize letting NC walk because "his position doesn't demand a big time playmaker" in our defensive scheme. If Nate leaves because his demands are ridiculous (see wanting close to Champ money or more) well OK. But I expect the front office to then spend on 1 or 2 above average players to compensate for his loss. If the market allows us to retain NC for a reasonable price and I'm not sure on what that is, we have to. We already know the front 7 has to apply pressure for this Cover 2 to work. Containing the run starts with capable DT's and a MLB who makes tackles. If we don't have that, and we don't as of right now, where does that leave the secondary without above average CB's? Hung out to dry is what I think. Ask Terrence McGee about Detroit's Roy Williams. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Okay, I personally do not want a first round CB, because I don't think that will be the the best value or player available at #12, and I think Youboty and McGee can be fine, and KT or a lower pick or another free agent can be in the mix. I don't think Marv will reach on a first round CB because we "have to", so I don't see us picking a CB first unless he really thinks he is the best player available. We also are not going to let Nate walk because CB isn't important or we don't need a star. We are going to let him walk because the money he will cost will be more valuable to us if spent on other positions. Alex Rodriguez was the best shortstop in baseball and any team would be better off with him, but when the Rangers spent $252 million they ensured they would be a worse team because of it and are still paying the price for it. It is part of the business, and sometimes you are forced to lose very good players to replace them with less good players in the quest to be a better team by improving in other places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 How do we jump from the article saying we're considering addressing cornerback in the draft, to addressing cornerback in the 1st round? As far as I'm concerned, with our cover 2 scheme, we could bring in a 4th or 5th rounder and have him compete with Youboty and Kiwaukee. Nowhere in the article do they specify a 1st round pick. Yep - I thought about that later on. The only thing I would say to you, and to the others, is that please remember I put a #%$@!!! in the title of my topic. I'm not happy about the prospect of drafting a corner at #1 or #2 for that matter. This situation sucks. The point I am trying to make is that this may happen to us - and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. In other words, Marv could easily use this rationale, IMO it's a schit sandwich, but we would all have to take a big bite because it does make sense. Here's to finding a way to keep Thomas or getting lucky with the Bills finding quality CBs in the later rounds. I want Okoye or Willis in the first round - we have to stop the run. But I would even be happy with a OL pick, well, not really. As I have said before OL take 2-3 years to develop. I would much rather see us address that with a UFA cap casualty or something like that. To me it's too risky to take OL in the first round(I guess I am ok with the second) - and not just because of Mike Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Here is the breakdown of the first round, by position, over the last 5 years: DB-35 WR-26 DE-24 DT-19 RB-18 QB-18 OT-15 TE-10 OG-5 C-3 Be careful here. The reason why not more DLs and OLs are taken may be because the "stud" ones worthy of a 1st round pick are at a premium. Thats MY theory. If the Bills take a CB in the 1st round, my head may explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I realize which positions are at a premium here in the Cover 2. You've got to have those 2 DT's who can take on blockers and stop the run while getting interior pressure. The DE's have to combine with them to place pressure on the opposing QB. Your MLB has to be a great tackler and drop into coverage on pass plays, hence the interceptions F-B and Urlacher made last season. That I completely understand. Corner may not be the most valuable position in this scheme, but letting a guy go purely because he's not demanded to do great things is not the right logic to use. He is indeed one of our own free agents, and losing him tells me that the front office isn't keen on OUR free agents unless they come at the right price. That I believe is under 5M per. I don't see how this defense can afford to lose Clements, F-B, and to a much lesser degree, Kelsay, without adding an established NFL vet who has played at a high level and still expects to stop opponents. Let's all remember that WITH these guys our defense was atrocious against the run and teams didn't throw the ball as much against us because we were so bad on run defense. My question remains: who are we going to replace these guys with to make our defense more stout? If we're going to get better for this season, because the fans are impatient after 7 losing ones, drafting and low quality free agent signings like last year aren't going to do it. Maybe in 2 years or so, but I don't think anyone wants to hear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Be careful here. The reason why not more DLs and OLs are taken may be because the "stud" ones worthy of a 1st round pick are at a premium. Thats MY theory. If the Bills take a CB in the 1st round, my head may explode. Agreed on both points. Looking at the earliest draft picks, the only #1 WR I can remember is Keyshawn Johnson. I do not think a corner was ever selected 1st. Otoh, QBs DEs and LTs (no, not fat RTs) go in the top 5 year after year. At the #12 slot, many thought to be stars are thought to be gone at these positions and teams frequently go elsewhere. Here are the last 10 #12 selections: 06) H. Ngata - DT 05) S. Merriman - LB 04) J. Vilma - LB 03) J. Kennedy - DT 02) W. Bryant - DT 01) D. Lewis - DT 00) S. Ellis - DE 99) C. McNown - QB 98) K. Brooking - LB 97) W. Dunn - RB I do not deny that in some of these drafts, corners were selected before #12. The following is a list of the number of corners going in the top 12 in recent drafts: 06) 0 05) 3 04) 2 03) 2 02) 1 01) 0 00) 0 99) 2 98) 2 97) 2 The problem remains that we have a long history of drafting 1st round DBs and losing them as soon as they are UFAs. It's an OK idea on paper, but we have been losing while doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 .......He is indeed one of our own free agents........... What difference does this make???? He is as much one of our FAs as any other FA who is not tagged or restricted. We have as much chance as any other team to sign him.....or any FA in the same situation......regardless which team they were with before they became FAs. He is a FREE AGENT.......he is not ours. We have no reason apart from emotion to consider signing him above any other FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I don't see how this defense can afford to lose Clements, F-B, and to a much lesser degree, Kelsay, without adding an established NFL vet who has played at a high level and still expects to stop opponents. Let's all remember that WITH these guys our defense was atrocious against the run and teams didn't throw the ball as much against us because we were so bad on run defense. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts