Are the Bills really better or worse at this point?

[Rubes]

There has been a lot of talk going on about this, here and in the media. Sal at the D&C thinks we're worse off, Mortensen at ESPN (sorry I brought him up) thinks we're an embarrassment. Then there are a lot of homers thinking we're just shedding dead weight and we should be thinking playoffs at this point.

 

I don't think we're playoff bound this year (to me, 2008 is looking like the year we start kicking tail), but I thought I'd try to look as objectively as possible at the important moves so far this offseason and the overall effect on the team.

 

So, better or worse than last year, personnel-wise?

 

Additions

 

Dockery -- nice upgrade over Gandy. Veteran presence. (++)

 

Whittle -- hard to say how much he will see the field, but a good backup at the very least. (0)

 

L. Walker -- still not sure how good he is, but at the very least he should be as good as a rookie Pennington from last year. (0/+)

 

D. Walker -- pushes Anderson out of the rotation, adds veteran presence with playoff experience. (+)

 

 

Subtractions

 

Clements -- no way we would pay that much, but fact remains he was our best corner. Yobouty is a question mark. (--)

 

Fletcher -- leader, warrior, solid player who should have made the Pro Bowl. Crowell should be able to replace him admirably if he plays the middle; if it's a rookie, it will take some time. (-)

 

Spikes -- was a big question mark entering this season. It could be argued that we got the same production from Ellison as a rookie as a recovering Spikes. Leadership will be missed. Could be a big loss if he comes back to old form, but at this point it's impossible to know. (0/-)

 

McGahee -- This one is tough. Are we better with him or without him? With the upgrades to the offensive line, you could argue that he would have had the chance to really show something this coming year. However, we're comparing next year's team with last year's, and his production last year was pedestrian. Really should not be difficult to match or improve on that with A-Train/Shaud/3rd runner (rookie or vet FA). (0)

 

Holcomb -- Please. (0)

 

Shelton -- A good blocker at times, but his performance last year was not inspiring and should be replaceable. (0)

 

Bowen, Reyes, Villarial -- nothing much lost there. (0)

 

 

So with my highly objective and unbiased analysis, I get about the same in terms of + and -. It's obviously hard to quantify the intangibles -- things like the loss of leadership (or leadership gained, for that matter) or the improvement we might expect to see from players being more comfortable in the system or coming into their second year (like Whitner, Simpson, and Williams), but right now, the way I see it, I think we've done a fairly good job shedding some expensive players and potentially improving our lines while not really losing as much as some might make it seem.

 

But then again, I'm a homer.

[Kelly the Dog]

There are a lot of ways to look at it, and all of it is conjecture until this coming season is virtually over.

 

On the surface, as of now...

 

1] We've dramatically upgraded the offensive line. That's a huge plus. And will help the offense and defense.

2] We've upgraded the defensive line, that is also a big plus.

3] There is an addition by subtraction of the "me" players, like Willis, and to an extent even Clements and Spikes. The loss of their leadership I think is probably outweighed by the loss of the bad eggs and the ascension of the Marv character guys. I think that's a plus overall.

 

On the downside...

1] We have dramatically decreased the RB situation, at least until the draft, or FA or trade. I am talking right now. No matter how much you hate Willis, A Train is half the player Willis is. We have no starting running back and barely have a third of a committee. A Train, playing against worse teams, had less per carry than the guy most here thinks stinks, never tried, couldn't find a hole, and didn't know the plays.

2] We have drastically reduced the LB corp. Each individual move, not resigning Fletch and trading Spikes may have been a decent if not good singular decision, but that's not the point or the result. The result is we stink at linebacker right now compared to last year.

3] We have drastically reduced the secondary. Again, yes, we shouldn't have signed Clements to that contract but the fact is he is gone and we don't have a replacement. Yes, Youboty may fill in and fill in admirably, but the thread is about are we better off, and if we still had Clements, Youboty would be here, too, and help out tremendously is he is a good NFL player. So anyway you look at it, even if guys step up, we have way less at CB.

 

Help is on the way in the draft. We will probably be able to fix two of the three most needed areas that have been drastically reduced. And yes, the year in the system and the fact we don't have new coaches will help a ton, and the young guys (hopefully) should mature, but that would have happened whether we lost those other players or not, so you can't say that is a plus in a discussion of are we actually better from the moves.

 

That said, the biggest plus, the line, IMO is far bigger than any of the biggest losses, and probably equal to two of them or more. The character element may play a much bigger part in this and overshadow some of the talent loss.

 

Another thing is, and this was brought up by another poster who doesn't frequent here much anymore, but I thought was a great point, and also brought up by a NF reporter, is that these changes have clearly made it Losman's team. And to me, that's a good thing. He's young and he's got a great attitude. Gone are the veterans who weren't always on board with the youth movement. The young guys could rally around the new leadership of the team which includes Evans, Dockery, Schobel and Crowell and benefits by having Marv and Jauron as its wise-old sages.

[dave mcbride]

There are a lot of ways to look at it, and all of it is conjecture until this coming season is virtually over.

 

On the surface, as of now...

 

1] We're dramatically upgraded the offensive line. That's a huge plus. And will help the offense and defense.

2] We're upgraded the defensive line, that is also a big plus.

3] There is an addition by subtraction of the "me" players, like Willis, and to an extent even Clements and Spikes. The loss of their leadership I think is probably outweighed by the loss of the bad eggs and the ascension of the Marv character guys. I think that's a plus overall.

 

On the downside...

1] We have dramatically decreased the RB situation, at least until the draft, or FA or trade. I am talking right now. No matter how much you hate Willis, A Train is half the player Willis is. We have no starting running back and barely have a third of a committee. A Train, playing against worse teams, had less per carry than the guy most here thinks stinks, never tried, couldn't find a hole, and didn't know the plays.

2] We have drastically reduced the LB corp. Each individual move, not resigning Fletch and trading Spikes may have been a decent if not good singular decision, but that's not the point or the result. The result is we stink at linebacker right now compared to last year.

3] We have drastically reduced the secondary. Again, yes, we shouldn't have signed Clements to that contract but the fact is he is gone and we don't have a replacement. Yes, Youboty may fill in and fill in admirably, but the thread is about are we better off, and if we still had Clements, Youboty would be here, too, and help out tremendously is he is a good NFL player. So anyway you look at it, even if guys step up, we have way less at CB.

 

Help is on the way in the draft. We will probably be able to fix two of the three most needed areas that have been drastically reduced. And yes, the year in the system and the fact we don't have new coaches will help a ton, and the young guys (hopefully) should mature, but that would have happened whether we lost those other players or not, so you can't say that is a plus in a discussion of are we actually better from the moves.

 

That said, the biggest plus, the line, IMO is far bigger than any of the biggest losses, and probably equal to two of them or more. The character element may play a much bigger part in this and overshadow some of the talent loss.

 

Another thing is, and this was brought up by another poster who doesn't frequent here much anymore, but I thought was a great point, and also brought up by a NF reporter, is that these changes have clearly made it Losman's team. And to me, that's a good thing. He's young and he's got a great attitude. Gone are the veterans who weren't always on board with the youth movement. The young guys could rally around the new leadership of the team which includes Evans, Dockery, Schobel and Crowell and benefits by having Marv and Jauron as its wise-old sages.

I'd add that if if Losman is a better player in 07 than in 06 - which seems likely - that means we'll have a huge upgrade at the game's most important position. Marked improvement of the guys already on your team count as additions, don't you think?

 

Re running back, that is one position I am *not* worried about. Whether we end up with Michael Turner, Peterson, Lynch or one of the projected second rounders, we'll likely be better off than with McGahee.

 

By the way, reading the tea leaves in Jauron's comments (and I must humbly say I've been decent at reading tea leaves of late), I am now expecting them to draft offense early. With regard to questions about the defense the other day, his response was in part "we need to get better on offense."

[The Cincinnati Kid]

We wont know till camp/preseason/opening day. I think that on paper we still have some holes to fill, but we have made some great moves. Getting Walker at DT is a plus becuase ends the thoughts of taking a 19 year old kid(too young to be in the NFL even if he did graduate from college) and Branch who by many accounts is in it for the pay check. Also, losing Willis to Balt. hurts the run game but helps the Locker Room...losing Fletcher hurts both. Adding the "American Beef" in front of JP was a good move. Dockery and Walker will start and be an upgrade espcially with McNally getting all they are worth out of them. I think that we will take either P. Willis of P. Pusluzny in Rd. 1 and either trade for Turner from SD or draft a RB in rd. 2 (just as long as its not that theif Pittman). I think we can address the 3rd qb role on day two as well as the desire for a better no. 2 WR(although I like peerless and why not Aiken?) I think that in the long run we are better off and I think that Marv and DJ have done some great things to move this team in the right direction after taking over a sinking ship that was abandoned by TD and MM/GW. I think we make the playoffs as a 5 or 6 seed and surprise some people doing it...like that prick Jay Bilas (GO XAVIER MUSKETEERS...how dare he diss my Muskies like that?)

[Rubes]

The point here is not to ask "will the Bills be better next year over last year", but rather, "are the Bills better or worse at this point than last year?" Certainly, what happens in the draft and in the rest of FA will have an impact on the team's performance next year. But the point is, with a number of people seeming to think that the Bills are really taking huge steps backwards so far, I want to ask the question, "Is that really the case?"

 

You can certainly argue that our LB group is worse off than last year's group. But look at it this way: Last year's outside LBs were Crowell and Spikes. This year, we have Crowell and Ellison. Is Ellison a step back from Spikes? Based on last year's performance, I think the answer is 0/-. We lose leadership, but Spikes' on-field performance and production should not be hard to replace with Ellison, really -- especially with what he may learn in his second year. That means the big difference, to me, is the loss of Fletcher. I think we can expect to replace a fraction of that production next year, so I don't look at this as a huge drop off -- just a step back (-).

 

As far as running back is concerned, I really don't think we have lost as much as people think. Right now, the way things are: do you think that the combination of A-Train, Shaud, and Jackson would have a tough time running for 900-some yards and a handful of TDs? Personally, I don't think so. When you add another runner into that mix (draft or FA), it's crazy to think they can't.

 

The big losses, to me, are Fletcher and Clements. Spikes and McGahee are washes if you ask me. Add Dockery and the two Walkers to the equation, and I'd say it's fairly even.

[The Big Cat]

I'd add that if if Losman is a better player in 07 than in 06 - which seems likely - that means we'll have a huge upgrade at the game's most important position. Marked improvement of the guys already on your team count as additions, don't you think?

 

Re running back, that is one position I am *not* worried about. Whether we end up with Michael Turner, Peterson, Lynch or one of the projected second rounders, we'll likely be better off than with McGahee.

 

By the way, reading the tea leaves in Jauron's comments (and I must humbly say I've been decent at reading tea leaves of late), I am now expecting them to draft offense early. With regard to questions about the defense the other day, his response was in part "we need to get better on offense."

 

 

I also am *not* (Borat reference?) worried about RB. In staying with the arcane evaluation method used to initiate this thread:

 

running game (x) = OL (y) + RB (z)

 

2006 equation (scale of 1-10): x = 6, y = 2, z = 4 (y and z on scales to 5 and yes I was that generous to fack face)

2007 equation: x = 8 because y = 4 AND z = 4 (I am confident that by week 1 we will have an amalgamation of runners which give us a "4" RB corp)

[OCinBuffalo]

These are great posts guys.

 

We will have to wait and see :lol: on this but, overall, Marv's job is less about wins/losses, that's Jauron, than about our position as a team with respect to FA, the draft, post-draft FA, training camp cuts. So, my grades as of now on the team's position:

 

Prior to FA: C (might be A if Marv was playing the media)

As soon as it became clear that Nate, LF would be gone, we were in a bad position with regard to bringing in new defensive FAs. Everybody knew we had holes therefore we were in a one down position. Marv's press conference was a nightmare(unless, again, he was being coy). However, in hindsight we are now seeing the overall plan unfold, so, this is not as bad as originally thought. But cash to the cap was/is making everybody crazy.

 

FA: B

The only reason this is not an A is that I would have liked to see at least one solid defensive FA. To me it's just too risky to use the draft only as a way to replace the guys we lost. However, it appears that Marv has a plan and is sticking to that plan. It is decisive, not muddled, and as tough as it is to deal with now, I am starting to see the value of it. (Kelly - Clements had to go, IMO. I didn't see what you saw in him. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.) We are now in decent position, with the extra cap room, to pick up a D FA at any point along the way here. The offensive lineman signings were also decisive, and even if one of them doesn't work out, it makes it clear to everyone that this team is willing to move if the right opportunity is there, small market excuses aside.

 

Draft: A

I know it's too early to judge the results of the draft, especially since it hasn't happened yet! But this post is about the team's position going into the draft. IMO, we couldn't be in a stronger spot. We have a high draft choice, we have extra picks, and we have addressed some of the holes to the point that they won't be huge distractions/allow us to set our priorities and stick with them.

 

Post Draft FA/Training Camp Cuts: so far B

We have to expect a decent draft based on last year, which will put us in a relatively strong position to sign guys still out there. I.E. "hey player's agent: we just drafted a LB/CB/RB so tell us why we need to pay your guy again?" Also, because our holes have relatively narrowed in focus now, we can afford to take extra chances on guys at those positions. More guys should = better competition = best guy for the job.

 

So I overall I like the moves with regard to the team's position entering each phase of the off-season. Thoughts?

[Beerball]

too many words in this thread for me to read, but at this very specific time we are worse

[MarkyMannn]

Not sure we're better or worse, roster holes filled and new holes open. But you have to admit the Bills sure were active so far this off-season.

 

The one thing that concerns me after this season, aren't both JP and Evans free agents? I would have like to have considered extending these 2 now and make sure they are still here in 2008. If someone threw $80 mil at Nate, no doubt someone will do that to Evans. Then we will loose him, a true quality rising star

[IDBillzFan]

Right now, the way things are: do you think that the combination of A-Train, Shaud, and Jackson would have a tough time running for 900-some yards and a handful of TDs? Personally, I don't think so.

They don't need to run for 900 yards, the need to run for 1550 yards, which was the team total.

 

I understand the sentiment. Finding a back to do what McGahee did should be easy. But people need to remember that had McGahee been healthy, he would have very likely had a good portion of Thomas' 380 yards. Suddenly you don't need to replace a 990-yard back, but a 1300+ yard back. Different animal.

 

We need another running back on this squad because if we go into the new season with Thomas, Williams and Jackson, I'll crap purple twinkies.

[drnykterstein]

Losing McGahee (++)

 

[KOKBILLS]

We need another running back on this squad because if we go into the new season with Thomas, Williams and Jackson, I'll crap purple twinkies.

 

Ouch!

[Sketch Soland]

I also agree, several nice posts above, but I will once again make the arguement that to structure the debate around are we better or worse at this point is a flawed approach, imo. Going by this logic, which attempts to establish some objective scale for measuring "better" or "worse", we have to be worse off because we have lost several established players without clearcut established players to replace them. But this is a shallow analysis and does not take into account the myriad of factors that will only play out when we play the games next season, many of which have already been mentioned in above posts already.

 

This is what got BADOLBILZ into trouble with his thread, imho. There is no objective criteria (i.e. field performance) to make such a conclusive judgment in March about a season several months away. I guess I'm trying to be a little more civil now about expressing this opinion but my opinion does stay the same

 

So, by the approach set in this thread, yes, we are worse off because there is really no other logical position to hold, imo. But I don't think that means much at this point with so much to be played out even before the season starts.

[billybob]

Dockery is a good pickup - D Walker is an improvement over what we had at DT- the losses of Clements, Fletcher, MaGahee, and Spikes will hurt in the short run (2007) but will help in the long run- If and it's a big if, the Bills draft well and extend key players wisely-overall the Bills are less talented now than at the end of 2006 but that's ok sometimes you have to take a step back so you can go on the right path- the way to build a team is to get a good young core of players together through the draft and very selective use of FA until you got a 10-6 team then you can go out and get a few high priced vets to try to get you over the hump and into the superbowl- one thing Tommy D did wrong in my opinion was trying to get flashy players when the core wasn't built.

[Beerball]

we have to be worse off because we have lost several established players without clearcut established players to replace them.

I hate it when you make sense.

[Koufax]

I also find a little flaw with the phrasing of the question.

 

I think we are worse at this point because everybody is out of practice and Dockery doesn't know the playbook yet .

 

I think what matters is we are very much on course to be better. If we can fill the big hole at LB (which would have Wire starting at the moment...) and add a decent RB to share time with the A-Train I think we are likely going to end up much better. But right now A-Train is 25 carries and Wire is starting.

 

If you add Willis and Irons or Turner to this team I think we are vastly improved. I think the natural growth and experience of winning some close games for our young players will make a huge difference.

 

We saw against Texas what Price can do and against Jax what Roscoe can do, and we all know what Lee can do, so with all three with an extra year of doubt free chemistry with JP and playing behind a stable and vastly improved line our offense will be better even before we add a RB.

 

On D our Line is much better (McCargo and Walker plus a year experience for everybody else playing together in this scheme), or LBs are worse until we add someone, and our secondary will be better.

 

Yep, I said it, a better secondary without Nate. I think Youboty will surprise people, but not be as good as Nate. McGee will play better or lose his spot to KT, Greer, or a 3rd round draft pick, and both safeties will be benefit tremendously from not being rookies. So we improve at three of the four positions in the secondary, and the downgrade at the other one isn't as big as people think, and the sum of those parts will be a better secondary.

 

So who knows if we are better or worse at this point like the question asks, because our current RB and LB situations are significant. But I think we are on track "at this point" to address both of those and be a much better team for the season opener.

[dave mcbride]

I hate it when you make sense.

 

Unless you theorize (plausibly, I might add) that the players lost are about to either plateau or decline and that their replacements are going to improve or simply be better. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but when discussing the future and factoring the relatively short shelf lives of NFL players, one needs to account for relative decline/improvement of the relevant parties.

[Kelly the Dog]

Another thing is, fans of all teams think that promising second and third year players are automatically going to improve on their rookie seasons but the fact is, they don't. Or almost as many of them don't as do. There are of course injuries. There are a LOT of sophomore slumps. There are a lot of guys who got away with things early because no one had seen them before and now don't work so well. A lot of guys that had a few TDs or INTs early on simply don't repeat it. A lot of guys just reach a plateau and their physical limitations have a ceiling on their play. That said, I too expect guys like Ellison, Williams, McCargo, Simpson and Whitner et al to improve a lot, but the chances of them all doing it are slim.

[Beerball]

Unless you theorize (plausibly, I might add) that the players lost are about to either plateau or decline and that their replacements are going to improve or simply be better. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but when discussing the future and factoring the relatively short shelf lives of NFL players, one needs to account for relative decline/improvement of the relevant parties.

the answer is 3.5 isn't it?

[ChasBB]

The big plus is at O-line and that's the biggest plus that matters. For that alone, I say we are better off this year than last -- it all starts with the O-line -- that's where you start to build your team and Marv took a giant step with that. The other pieces will come together in time -- hopefully sooner rather than later.

[Buftex]

Did Mortenson really say the Bills were an "embarassment"? If so, I have lost what little respect I had for him. I would think some of these guys, like Mort, who have been around, and have made their name as NFL jock sniffers, would realize that the Bills have a plan, they are not just willy-nilly letting everybody go.

 

Being objective, of all the guys the Bills lost, the only one that I really question, is Clements. That was purely a money move. The team lost a very good player, going into his prime who could have been a huge contributer. I am one of those who doesn't have a ton of sympathy for Ralph Wilson's monetary excuses.

 

While I wasn't delighted to see Fletcher and Spikes go, the pragmatic aspect of those moves are hard to ignore. McGahee, taking all of his comments and emotion out of the mix, just was not worth the money he wanted, and there was no gurantee his production/motivation would have been any better next year than this past. He wasn't happy where he was, and doesn't appear to be mature enough to see the "bigger picture". I really don't know how the Bills can be faulted on that move.

 

As for Spikes, as much as I hated to see him go, the critics seem to be ignoring the fact that we actually got a starting calliber player, at a need position, in return for a guy with serious injury concerns.

 

That being said, I do think the Bills, at this momnt, 6pm eastern time, 3/28/07 are worse off than they were at the end of this past season. However, I don't think they are that much worse off, and they could end up being much better.

 

Only the most optimisitic of fans would have seen this team as a playoff team in 2007, but, Marv and company are building a team (we/they hope) that will have a period of about 6 or 7 years of sustained success in the not too distant future. I think (and I think even the most marginally knowledgable Bills fans) would agree, the trade off, of, possibly a "one and done" playoff team that would have fallen apart anyways through age and free-agency after next season, for an up and coming, young, exciting team, is well worth it.

[Astrobot]

Purple Twinkies aside, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best,

 

OL = 9 (were a 4 last year, add Dockery-Peters as a wall of blindside protection, 2 more linemen via FA, more experience)

QB = 8 (was a 6, but hurried throws and no 2-man WR threat, no TE in pass patterns brought him down )

TE's =6 (6), but will profit from the O-Line by being able to go out in pass patterns more

RB's =5 (7), but will profit from the O-Line and a Day 1 draft pick (sooner than later)

WR's =6 (6), and will benefit from JP's getting extra time to throw, more targets (TE), and a bona fide #2 WR in draft

Totals: 34 (up from 29)

 

DL = 8 (were a 5 last year); McCargo and Darwin Walker make this so

LB = 5 (8); Lose lots of experience with LFB and Spikes but pick up speed, and a Day 1 pick (at least one)

CB = 5 (8); Lose a shutdown corner but add a year of experience and pick up a Day 1 draft pick (at least one)

FS/SS = 9 (8) Gain a year of experience each

Totals: 27 (down from 29)

 

I think it's a wash at this point, but we start up in better shape than we'd think.

[LynchMob23]

For those talking about whether or not we've regressed, do the following sway your opinion?

 

McCargo - Checked in weighing 307, up from 295 last year

Williams - Checked in weighing 306, up from 295 last year

and my "favorite" DT, Timmah Anderson - 328, up from 305-306 last year

[dave mcbride]

For those talking about whether or not we've regressed, do the following sway your opinion?

 

McCargo - Checked in weighing 307, up from 295 last year

Williams - Checked in weighing 306, up from 295 last year

and my "favorite" DT, Timmah Anderson - 328, up from 305-306 last year

 

 

Depends on what kind of weight it is. That said, fat has never really hurt a defensive tackle.

[BillsFanM.D.]

we have to be worse off because we have lost several established players without clearcut established players to replace them.

As a curveball of sorts, however, you also have to factor in which positions are a premium. We have upgraded our offensive and defensive lines which to me is more important than anything. I firmly believe we can get a decent running back in the draft to go with AT. We don't need man coverage corners though he clearly is a talented guy. LFB is on the wrong side of his career. Spikes is a real question mark. I'd rather spend the cash on the line and have solid skill players as opposed to spending premium funds on wr and corners with no "beef" up front. Having said all that...I concur that it is impossible to "measure" at this point.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Better. We are much younger which means that we are faster.

[The Dean]

Dunno, OBJECTIVELY

 

Subjectively, they have the POTENTIAL to be much better. Better lines (which most of us agree is the most important part of the team), more draft choices and more $ to make future moves to improve the positions they lost to FA moves, to date.

 

If you think this management is capable to make good decisions and use the choices and the $ they now have, they are in BETTER shape now.

[BillsVet]

On paper we're not better. Then again, the Sabres were picked dead-last for the 2005-06 so that doesn't mean much to me.

 

Youthful teams are an enigma. They can either play good football or make terrible mistakes. That's quite a dichotomy, but they'll be better in the long term. When that is I don't know. They've purged so much this season, but I can understand the moves. I only wish they'd have added some more talented and experienced players at CB and perhaps LB. I say that knowing Free Agency didn't offer much. Guys like Nick Harper and Cato June were available, but with cap issues (to fit into cash to the cap) we aren't going nor were we planning to spend more than we did.

[Pete]

Dunno, OBJECTIVELY

 

Subjectively, they have the POTENTIAL to be much better. Better lines (which most of us agree is the most important part of the team), more draft choices and more $ to make future moves to improve the positions they lost to FA moves, to date.

 

If you think this management is capable to make good decisions and use the choices and the $ they now have, they are in BETTER shape now.

what he said. It all comes down to the draft and staying healthy

[Dan]

I also agree, several nice posts above, but I will once again make the arguement that to structure the debate around are we better or worse at this point is a flawed approach, imo. Going by this logic, which attempts to establish some objective scale for measuring "better" or "worse", we have to be worse off because we have lost several established players without clearcut established players to replace them. But this is a shallow analysis and does not take into account the myriad of factors that will only play out when we play the games next season, many of which have already been mentioned in above posts already.

 

This is what got BADOLBILZ into trouble with his thread, imho. There is no objective criteria (i.e. field performance) to make such a conclusive judgment in March about a season several months away. I guess I'm trying to be a little more civil now about expressing this opinion but my opinion does stay the same

 

So, by the approach set in this thread, yes, we are worse off because there is really no other logical position to hold, imo. But I don't think that means much at this point with so much to be played out even before the season starts.

Well said and completely accurate. I think the idea of pondering are we better or worse ...at this point.. is a little like turning a game off because someone ran the opening kickoff back for a touchdown. Sure, the one team is at a disadvantage and you could only conclude that they now ...at that point... have a decreased chance of winning the game. However, we all know there's a lot of game left so we watch the rest.

 

Certainly, at this point we're worse off because even if all these guys we picked up are great; they don't know the playbook yet. So, put them in a game and we'd look miserable. But its a long offseason. We still have players to acquire and release. The existing players have a chance to improve. In short, there's still plenty of time left for the Bills to become a better team in 2007. Patience is not a four letter word.

[The Dean]

On paper we're not better. Then again, the Sabres were picked dead-last for the 2005-06 so that doesn't mean much to me.

 

Youthful teams are an enigma.

 

 

Ann enigma, wrapped in a riddle...covered with a tangy habanero sauce.

 

YUMMY!

[BillsVet]

Ann enigma, wrapped in a riddle...covered with a tangy habanero sauce.

 

YUMMY!

 

Is that you Jimmy? You're restaurants aren't really that good. And those meals you feed the military people aren't good either. If you have some habanero, I suggest putting it on that excuse for sausage you make.

[The Dean]

Is that you Jimmy? You're restaurants aren't really that good. And those meals you feed the military people aren't good either. If you have some habanero, I suggest putting it on that excuse for sausage you make.

 

 

Clearly you've never tasted my sausage, BV (and I don't mean that in a gay way)

[BillsVet]

Obviously you've been feeding Tim Anderson this off-season if he weighed in at 328. Good initiative, bad judgement. Now his pizza places will suffer. Why didn't you give some to Keith Ellison, everyone's favorite undersized OLB.

[Captain Hindsight]

JP will be better next year +

We will have a runner who will play hard reguardless of whos on defense +

Holcomb is gone +

D Line is upgraded +

O line is much better +++ (about time)

Lee is a top 10 reciever +

 

Spkies who IMO didn't really fit our system, he came froma blitzing system in Cinci and the Jerry gray years, hes not a pure cover linebacker IMO +

Fletcher although i loved his attitude and leadership needed to go, he was on the wrong side of 30 and we needed an attacking linebacker for this defense, he couldn't shed a block +

 

4 picks in first 3 rounds +

marv got great value out of late picks last year (simpson,ellison, pennington) i imagine similar things this year +

 

my only negative is clements. i think the bills defense will be fine without him but he was still the best corner on this team last year and his playmaking ability will be missed --

 

12+ 2 - = +10 overall

 

I'd say were better

[Fan in San Diego]

Another thing is, fans of all teams think that promising second and third year players are automatically going to improve on their rookie seasons but the fact is, they don't. Or almost as many of them don't as do. There are of course injuries. There are a LOT of sophomore slumps. There are a lot of guys who got away with things early because no one had seen them before and now don't work so well. A lot of guys that had a few TDs or INTs early on simply don't repeat it. A lot of guys just reach a plateau and their physical limitations have a ceiling on their play. That said, I too expect guys like Ellison, Williams, McCargo, Simpson and Whitner et al to improve a lot, but the chances of them all doing it are slim.

 

On the flip side, old guys like TKO, Fletch only get older and slower. Who's to say if Fletch and TKO repeat their performance, they may slow down and production be lower.

[Sketch Soland]

we have to be worse off because we have lost several established players without clearcut established players to replace them.

I hate it when you make sense.

 

you no good rotten dirty scoundrel!