Do the Bills now have the worst defense in NFL?

[MDH]

Why in your opinion can't the Bills replace last season's production through the draft? Is the level of talent that this year's draft has, or is it the fact that rookies can't match what players with experience can put forth?

 

Rookies CBs just about always struggle. Even if they don't, I don't think there is a player that I've ever seen who can come in, as a rookie, and produced at the level Clements did last season. It's just not going to happen.

 

As for the MLB position, that's probably the toughest position on D to come in and play well immediately. He's the QB of the D, he makes the calls and is expected to not only be in the right spot on every play, but to make sure everybody else on D is too. That's a lot to ask of a rook coming in who is just trying to get used to the speed of the game. You can expect a rookie MLB to make loads of mistakes that cost the D, even one who ends up being very good. I can see a rook coming in and producing as well as Fletch did vs. the run but he's going to get killed vs. the pass.

 

As I said above, sure the Bills could be better in the long run but it's highly unlikely they can match last year's production next year either by the draft or through this year's crop of FAs.

[Acantha]

When was the last time the Bills drafted two players who played as well as Fletcher and Clements did last year in their rookie year? I can't give you examples because it has NEVER happened in Bills history. Never.

The question I'm asking though is do you think they could draft players that will begin to have an impact...I don't know, at the very end of the season, next season, and/or beyond?

[Acantha]

Rookies CBs just about always struggle. Even if they don't, I don't think there is a player that I've ever seen who can come in, as a rookie, and produced at the level Clements did last season. It's just not going to happen.

 

As for the MLB position, that's probably the toughest position on D to come in and play well immediately. He's the QB of the D, he makes the calls and is expected to not only be in the right spot on every play, but to make sure everybody else on D is too. That's a lot to ask of a rook coming in who is just trying to get used to the speed of the game. You can expect a rookie MLB to make loads of mistakes that cost the D, even one who ends up being very good. I can see a rook coming in and producing as well as Fletch did vs. the run but he's going to get killed vs. the pass.

 

As I said above, sure the Bills could be better in the long run but it's highly unlikely they can match last year's production next year either by the draft or through this year's crop of FAs.

 

Okay, and I agree with everything you said. Before I make my main point, I would also like to add that I think Crowell and Spikes are capable of making those calls. It doesn't have to be the sole responsibility of the MLB. That said, I agree that any rookie MLB is going to have a serious learning curve.

 

The important factor I'm trying to draw attention to isn't based on a rookie CB and rookie MLB coming in and matching NC and LF performance. It's bringing in a coupe rookies to add to the team to match or even surpass the productivity of last years team.

 

Last year, we had two rookies at DT, a rookie who had a quite a bit of playing time at LB, and two rookie safeties. Those rookies, making rookie mistakes and tryign to adjust to playing in the NFL, made serious mistakes that surely caused a lot of problems. Not only do those rookies now have a year under their belts, but the entire team has a year of experience playing in a new system for new coaches.

 

I do not think there are rookies out there than can replace NC and LF, but I think this team as a whole certainly has the potential to at least match last years productivity.

[BillsVet]

On a given draft, how many players become impact players their first season? For 2006, I don't think of the 32 selections, more than 5 actually contributed to their team winning football games. That may be too subjective for some, but this is why free agency gets out of hand-the guys on the free agent market may help you win now as opposed to later.

 

In Round 2 there were about 5-6 instant impact guys. That's not good odds for the current season, but hopefully bodes well for the future. The fact is, we let players go into FA without having an option once they departed. One might argue that Youboty was drafted to fill the inevitable hole Clements would create. But outside of perhaps Crowell, did we have a solution to F-B's departure? Not really. Moving OLB's into MLB spots is riskier due to the different demand on a MLB in the 4-3.

 

You might be able to once in awhile get away with a young CB with good instincts. Try getting away with an inexperienced LB core in the Cover-2. Not going to happen.

[BADOLBILZ]

I agree 100% with what you say about people who act like this. On the other hand, what I do not understand is why these people have any affect on the posters of this board. Why respond to someone like AD who is obviously doing nothing but trying to cause trouble? Why not just blow it off? The only reason I'm responding so much to this thread is because you, unlike the others you've called out, at least have a history of offering football discussion, but since Marv and Jauron were hired you have done nothing but bad mouth every single move. You have become what you say you hate. If you want to discuss football, discuss it. But from the title of this thread to the berating nature of you responses (and not just to the doomed crowd) is the exact definition if douchebag behavior.

 

So anyway, I've had more than my say. I'll respond with a more football related focus after this.

 

They do have an effect on posters on this board. Sadly, I've seen it and heard about it. Again, at the game. That's where we meet face to face. I told you why I responded, specifically because I almost never do. If you think me doing this in one thread equates to the countless douchebag offerings of AD or LA, then to each his own.

 

I haven't been overly negative about the Bills. In fact I've hardly posted at all. I was a vocal advocate of retaining Clements, which is only negative because the Bills did not sign him.

[BADOLBILZ]

The question I'm asking though is do you think they could draft players that will begin to have an impact...I don't know, at the very end of the season, next season, and/or beyond?

 

Next years team is what this whole thread was about. It's at least an average draft they should get plenty of long term help.

[Kelly the Dog]

On a given draft, how many players become impact players their first season? For 2006, I don't think of the 32 selections, more than 5 actually contributed to their team winning football games. That may be too subjective for some, but this is why free agency gets out of hand-the guys on the free agent market may help you win now as opposed to later.

 

In Round 2 there were about 5-6 instant impact guys. That's not good odds for the current season, but hopefully bodes well for the future. The fact is, we let players go into FA without having an option once they departed. One might argue that Youboty was drafted to fill the inevitable hole Clements would create. But outside of perhaps Crowell, did we have a solution to F-B's departure? Not really. Moving OLB's into MLB spots is riskier due to the different demand on a MLB in the 4-3.

 

You might be able to once in awhile get away with a young CB with good instincts. Try getting away with an inexperienced LB core in the Cover-2. Not going to happen.

True. But to me, losing Fletcher is simply not going to be that big of a deal compared to our play at the position the second half of last year, which is the thesis of the thread. We didn't have Crowell for 5 games. We didn't have Spikes for the entire year (we had half a Spikes). Ellison was a rookie. I think a healthier Spikes, Crowell in the middle and a second year from Ellison is probably as good as a slow Spikes, Fletcher and a rookie Ellison. If Spikes is released or simply not healthy enough we will have a problem, but the 5 mil he opens up can get us his replacement. Fletcher was pretty good in pass coverage but he really was making a lot of drag down tackles 6 yards from the LOS. IMO a lot more than in previous years.

[Acantha]

Next years team is what this whole thread was about. It's at least an average draft they should get plenty of long term help.

Then see my response to MDH. As long as last year was an average draft, I would expect the team as a whole to step up.

[BillsVet]

True. But to me, losing Fletcher is simply not going to be that big of a deal compared to our play at the position the second half of last year, which is the thesis of the thread. We didn't have Crowell for 5 games. We didn't have Spikes for the entire year (we had half a Spikes). Ellison was a rookie. I think a healthier Spikes, Crowell in the middle and a second year from Ellison is probably as good as a slow Spikes, Fletcher and a rookie Ellison. If Spikes is released or simply not healthy enough we will have a problem, but the 5 mil he opens up can get us his replacement. Fletcher was pretty good in pass coverage but he really was making a lot of drag down tackles 6 yards from the LOS. IMO a lot more than in previous years.

 

Sure, we experienced injuries. And they will happen at some point this season. We needed to turn the corner with F-B because he was no longer what we wanted and Marv let that be known in the PC. Now, one might argue that some of the lack of play at LB was made up with Clements in the secondary. I believe that's what is being advocated in this thread, but Clements' play at CB did, at times, made the defense look better.

 

With the loss of F-B, do we have a suitable player for the MLB position? We don't know because at this point Crowell is the only option. Spikes is not a MLB, no matter how you break it down and free agency is not going to provide us an upgrade over F-B either. So, we look to the draft. I just don't think we find that player who is smart enough to handle the Cover-2 and attack the LOS this year. F-B was the constant over the course of the 2006 season. We do not know how big or small of a loss he is at this point. We did lose OLB's, but never the MLB. We temporarily replaced the injured OLB's, but I don't believe we lost Spikes and Crowell at the same time. We never needed to get another MLB out there. Oh, and who's second behind F-B on the depth chart. Yep, you got it, UDFA DiGiorgio.

[Pyrite Gal]

True. But to me, losing Fletcher is simply not going to be that big of a deal compared to our play at the position the second half of last year, which is the thesis of the thread. We didn't have Crowell for 5 games. We didn't have Spikes for the entire year (we had half a Spikes). Ellison was a rookie. I think a healthier Spikes, Crowell in the middle and a second year from Ellison is probably as good as a slow Spikes, Fletcher and a rookie Ellison. If Spikes is released or simply not healthy enough we will have a problem, but the 5 mil he opens up can get us his replacement. Fletcher was pretty good in pass coverage but he really was making a lot of drag down tackles 6 yards from the LOS. IMO a lot more than in previous years.

 

Losing Fletcher is a much tougher hole to fill for the Bills than losing Clements. Folks are often confused on this point because Clements is obviously a much better player all things being equal than F-B is. The issue though is that the hybrid Cover 2 we run demands so much more of the MLB (who must both tackle like a DT on running plays and play the pass like a safety) meanwhile in the Cover 2 the way we run it tbe CB does not have to run with the WR but release him to the safeties or MLB after 12-15 yards.

 

Part of the reason why Marv correctly was willing to guarantee to Clements he would not tag him this off-season was that there was simply no way we would rationally commit so much of our cap room to a CB

[BillsVet]

Losing Fletcher is a much tougher hole to fill for the Bills than losing Clements. Folks are often confused on this point because Clements is obviously a much better player all things being equal than F-B is. The issue though is that the hybrid Cover 2 we run demands so much more of the MLB (who must both tackle like a DT on running plays and play the pass like a safety) meanwhile in the Cover 2 the way we run it tbe CB does not have to run with the WR but release him to the safeties or MLB after 12-15 yards.

 

Part of the reason why Marv correctly was willing to guarantee to Clements he would not tag him this off-season was that there was simply no way we would rationally commit so much of our cap room to a CB

 

 

While I think everyone knew without the F-Tag this year that NC would cash in, how would Marv have known he'd have to devote so much of the cap to one CB? Free Agency changes every year. You started to see that last season when guards got into the higb forty millions for contracts. It continued this year, and 3 guys got it. Fact is, free agency is something you cannot predict. Marv did not know what would happen in March 07 back in July 06. Don't give him that much credit.

[Kelly the Dog]

Losing Fletcher is a much tougher hole to fill for the Bills than losing Clements. Folks are often confused on this point because Clements is obviously a much better player all things being equal than F-B is. The issue though is that the hybrid Cover 2 we run demands so much more of the MLB (who must both tackle like a DT on running plays and play the pass like a safety) meanwhile in the Cover 2 the way we run it tbe CB does not have to run with the WR but release him to the safeties or MLB after 12-15 yards.

 

Part of the reason why Marv correctly was willing to guarantee to Clements he would not tag him this off-season was that there was simply no way we would rationally commit so much of our cap room to a CB

Crowell will play the middle and can cover. He's good at it. He's probably faster than Fletch.

 

We paid Nate 7+ mil last year on the cap and he basically makes less than that on the cap the first few years of his contract.

[Alaska Darin]

That is how you roll. Except LA usually parrots YOU. Your act is old and tired, padre. Or is it skippy? Do you guys work off of an outline?

I prefer going without a net. As far as the "act", it's anything but. 'Tis who I am, much like the crochetty angry bastard you come off as probably is. That's cool with me.

You old timer's should realize that THIS board is for the discrussion of football and I don't think I've seen you discuss personnel or coaching or anything football related in a long, long time. If ever. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've discussed it plenty in the past. I don't care if you remember. The fact that you need to ask when there's a search button is somewhat telling. The reason I don't waste the time now, is because it's just that.

All you have is some smart-ass remarks to feed your self-righteous online persona. Because God-forbid you actually discussed something football related, and it turned out that your facts were wrong. You've spent so much time carving up people on this forum for the past few years, you could hardly stand the humiliation.

It's not an online "persona". It's who I am. There are plenty of people here who've met me, they'd likely tell you without any prompting. I don't see any reason to change because you're not in my livingroom. But I'd be humiliated if a bunch of people I don't know/care about didn't like me or could prove me wrong about something. Or not.

 

I guess I could continue with "Ralph is cheap", "Marv is old", "We should have kept Polian/Wade", etc. I just don't see the point in regurgitating the same crap over and over again. Much the way I don't see the point of annointing our defense the worst in the NFL when there SIX FUGGIN' MONTHS before the first snap in anger.

[Bill from NYC]

When was the last time the Bills drafted two players who played as well as Fletcher and Clements did last year in their rookie year? I can't give you examples because it has NEVER happened in Bills history. Never.

 

Obviously this is true. However, Sam Cowart did well for the Bills in his rookie season (although it did take him another year or so to hit full stride). Ryans did well last year. Linebackers seem to make a faster impact these days.

 

As for corners, expecting to draft one even almost as good as Nate (as a rookie) seems highly unreasonable.

 

I am not saying you are wrong about the impact this has on our defense Bro. I do however think that:

a) We have some defensive players who are likely to improve.

b) We should be able to expect SOME defensive help in the draft.

c) Good blocking will change the overall mindset of the football team, and make us stronger.

d) Assuming that for whatever weird reason a choice had to be made, I will take good blocking (as opposed to the worst in football) over a great cornerback.

 

Jmo.

[MDH]

I've discussed it plenty in the past. I don't care if you remember. The fact that you need to ask when there's a search button is somewhat telling. The reason I don't waste the time now, is because it's just that.

 

When I called you out a year ago about this very thing I believe the link you provided me to illustrate how you "discussed it plenty in the past" was about a year old. That means it's been, roughly, two years since you've "discussed it plenty in the past." Why bother posting on the football portion of the board if that's the case? Why attempt to derail threads that are trying to discuss football with your snide remarks?

[dave mcbride]

It's debatable, but the offense was already stifled well before Moulds got hurt. Things fell apart in Miami, where the Fish figured out that Moulds was the only dangerous option in the passing game and that Bledsoe no longer had an outlet receiving option of any worth. Miami with it's man corners were particularly vulnerable to the Bills deep passing attack in recent meetings. Reed's downward spiral actually began in the opener at Jacksonville when he dropped that easy 80 yard TD.

 

Badol, I'm not going there with you, although I agree that it's debatable. Miami had an *excellent* defense that season, and moreover, the game before, the bills faced jax (with henderson and stroud) and henry had something like 27 carries for 28 yards. They decided to favor the pass against Miami on the road on Sunday night, and they were so full of themselves going into the game that it bordered on the comical (remember those asinine "pumped up" ads featuring spikes and fletcher made specifically for that game?). Of course, Miami had a good front seven and a solid secondary, and that was all she wrote.

[BADOLBILZ]

I prefer going without a net. As far as the "act", it's anything but. 'Tis who I am, much like the crochetty angry bastard you come off as probably is. That's cool with me.

 

I've discussed it plenty in the past. I don't care if you remember. The fact that you need to ask when there's a search button is somewhat telling. The reason I don't waste the time now, is because it's just that.

 

It's not an online "persona". It's who I am. There are plenty of people here who've met me, they'd likely tell you without any prompting. I don't see any reason to change because you're not in my livingroom. But I'd be humiliated if a bunch of people I don't know/care about didn't like me or could prove me wrong about something. Or not.

 

I guess I could continue with "Ralph is cheap", "Marv is old", "We should have kept Polian/Wade", etc. I just don't see the point in regurgitating the same crap over and over again. Much the way I don't see the point of annointing our defense the worst in the NFL when there SIX FUGGIN' MONTHS before the first snap in anger.

 

So you're a parasitic troll in real life too?

[BADOLBILZ]

Obviously this is true. However, Sam Cowart did well for the Bills in his rookie season (although it did take him another year or so to hit full stride). Ryans did well last year. Linebackers seem to make a faster impact these days.

 

As for corners, expecting to draft one even almost as good as Nate (as a rookie) seems highly unreasonable.

 

I am not saying you are wrong about the impact this has on our defense Bro. I do however think that:

a) We have some defensive players who are likely to improve.

b) We should be able to expect SOME defensive help in the draft.

c) Good blocking will change the overall mindset of the football team, and make us stronger.

d) Assuming that for whatever weird reason a choice had to be made, I will take good blocking (as opposed to the worst in football) over a great cornerback.

 

Jmo.

 

If I'm starting a team from scratch, I start with the OL. We both believe that. But IMO, the Bills are hitting a reset button on this defense when they actually had a formula that was capable of winning now with an improved offense. Instead of improving a little on both sides of the ball, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul yet again and marrying themselves to a true cover 2 which they don't have the personnel to run.

[BADOLBILZ]

When I called you out a year ago about this very thing I believe the link you provided me to illustrate how you "discussed it plenty in the past" was about a year old. That means it's been, roughly, two years since you've "discussed it plenty in the past." Why bother posting on the football portion of the board if that's the case? Why attempt to derail threads that are trying to discuss football with your snide remarks?

 

Some people can ignore posts threads deem pointless, Darin has to troll. Or moderate, or whatever he's doing with his other hand.

[Koufax]

Wow...this discussion is bouncing all over the place.

 

I think right now we are a worse defense than last year because we have nobody filled in for Nate and London. So I'm going to ignore the "now" questions and focus on the "on track to be for the start of the season".

 

Nate is a very good player. We will be a better team without him than if we had paid 8/$80mil. So I'm sad he isn't in a Bills jersey, but not signing him was the right move to our defense. But with improvement elsewhere we can make up for the downgrade from Nate to Youboty and be a better defense overall.

 

London was a great guy and a good player. He's getting old and I don't think is quite the player he used to be, and that is why he (sometimes unfairly) gets all the "7 yards downfield tackles" comments. I think we will do our best to get a better player than London, a better fit for the D, and that is the reason we did not sign London (who would have signed an earlier extension and we definitely had the money since Walker was not essential). The thinking is we are a better team with the alternative. I don't know that we will get a guy who in 2007 be better than London all by himself (not sure how London vs. Willis vs. June will play out, but there doesn't appear to be a guaranteed 1/2/3 order, so it remains to be seen). But there is a chance we will have a 1 to 1 improvement at MLB over London, but more likely our improvement will be overall on the linebackers (healthy Spikes or cut for money for someone else, Crowell improved and maybe moving to MLB, Ellison competing for a spot but probably the #4 guy).

 

So I come back to thinking that we are on track to be a better D because:

 

1) Kyle, McCargo, Dante, Ko, Spikes, Ellison, Crowell, McGee, Youboty, Hargrove would each be expected to contribute MORE individually this year.

 

2) Denney, Schobel, Kelsey, Tripplet should be expected to perform at a similar level.

 

3) We lose Nate and London (and maybe KT), but we also will be adding people in draft and free agents and especially in the draft likely somebody able to make an impact and contribute from the start.

 

4) The young D enters year 2 with relatively little turnover, and would be expected to learn and play better as a unit.

 

I think those pieces add up to a better D than last year, and if things go right with the additions we make could be a good D instead of a bottom of the pack D. Am I wrong on some of my four points? Or is my math of adding them up wrong? Sure looks to me like we are getting better on D.