Is our offense REALLY that bad? A 3rd rd RB is adequate.

[Tipster19]

I would love for us to obtain Turner but only if the price is right. We don't need to respond to extortion.

 

Sorry to pop anyone's bubble but Peterson is not going to fall to us and I can't see trading up for him when we have other pressing needs. I'm also not a believer in drafting Lynch with our 1st pick either for the same reason.

 

We DO have playmakers on the offensive side of the ball. While Fred Jackson is a HUGE question mark I do think that A-Train is a RB that still can somewhat produce but a compliment RB is in order. This can be fulfilled in the 2nd or, better yet, 3rd rd. Don't confuse wanting and needing a monster RB. We can make do with what we got, we just need alittle more help in this area. Let JP, Evans and others on offense pick up some the slack.

 

We have good choice draft early in this draft. Use them extensively on defense and narrow the gap. I feel that we have a very good offense and with the right additions from the draft we'll have a good defense.

 

Unless someone feels like we can be a serious threat for the SuperBowl this year then let's draft smartly. Let's not panic and start drafting from hysteria. Man, it's only March/April, not September.

[H2o]

Chris Henry (RB) from Arizona is what I've been saying this whole time. And we would be able to get him with our 1st pick in the 3rd round. He's 5'-11", 230lbs, ran a 4.36 40-yard dash, and he's only 22 years old. He's got a Jamal Lewis body-type. He had a leg injury a couple of years ago, but has recoved completely. I think he'll be a steal for somebody, whether it's the Bills or whoever.

[Lothar]

Chris Henry (RB) from Arizona is what I've been saying this whole time. And we would be able to get him with our 1st pick in the 3rd round. He's 5'-11", 230lbs, ran a 4.36 40-yard dash, and he's only 22 years old. He's got a Jamal Lewis body-type. He had a leg injury a couple of years ago, but has recoved completely. I think he'll be a steal for somebody, whether it's the Bills or whoever.

I think this is a bad idea. Henry defines the classic workout warrior - he was basically an above-average track guy pretending to be a below-average RB at U of A. Perhaps more than most positions, grading a running back should be 75% productivity - true skills aren't hidden on the football field. Unless he had an awful offensive OL, I'd be very wary of straight line speed numbers:

In 35 games at Arizona, Henry started six times. He rushed 269 times for 892 yards (3.3 avg.) and nine touchdowns. He snatched 26 passes for 205 yards (7.9 avg.) and a score. He also returned four kickoffs for 25 yards (6.2 avg.) and recorded one solo tackle.

 

Compare those numbers to those of Kenneth Darby - who ran behind one one of the worst OLs in the country:

In 47 games at Alabama, Darby started 31 contests. He ranks third in school history with 3,324 yards on 702 carries (4.7 avg) and 11 touchdowns. He also made 70 catches for 340 yards (4.9 avg) and a pair of scores, adding four solo tackles with two fumble recoveries.

Compares To: DeAngelo Williams, Carolina Panthers (Memphis) -- Darby is bigger than Williams, but both rely on their exceptional burst, outstanding field vision and instincts with the ball to be slippery outside runners. Darby has a great feel for the crease and cutback lanes, but relies more on his elusiveness; he doesn't have the ideal strength to be a power runner.

 

I like this kid in the middle rounds if we don't get Lynch. He has good hands and unlike some of the big backs, he'd be a good complement to the A-train.

[Brandon]

Is our offense that bad? Here are some statistical rankings from a year ago for this Bills offense:

 

Total Offense per Game 266.9 29th

1st Downs per Game 14.6 32nd

3rd Down Conversions 31.1% 31st

Time of Possession 28:04 30th

Rushing Average 3.7 25th Tie

Rushing Yards per Game 97 27th

Rushing First Downs 82 29th Tie

Carries of 20+ Yards 4 29th Tie

Rushing Touchdowns 9 23rd Tie

Total Plays 898 32nd

Number of Punts 92 4th most in the NFL

Passing Yards Per Game 169.9 28th

Sacks 47 26th

 

I wouldn't call that bad. I would call it pretty damn terrible. The stats basically reflect what we all know is true: this offense can basically be summed up as 'throw the ball to Lee Evans'. But what about the other 800 plays per year? The OL additions will help, but still, adding one good OL and another that is questionable isn't going to suddenly turn the above mess around to any great degree. I still think that this is, at best, a bottom 3rd offense in most of the above categories.

[JAMIEBUF12]

I would love for us to obtain Turner but only if the price is right. We don't need to respond to extortion.

 

Sorry to pop anyone's bubble but Peterson is not going to fall to us and I can't see trading up for him when we have other pressing needs. I'm also not a believer in drafting Lynch with our 1st pick either for the same reason.

 

We DO have playmakers on the offensive side of the ball. While Fred Jackson is a HUGE question mark I do think that A-Train is a RB that still can somewhat produce but a compliment RB is in order. This can be fulfilled in the 2nd or, better yet, 3rd rd. Don't confuse wanting and needing a monster RB. We can make do with what we got, we just need alittle more help in this area. Let JP, Evans and others on offense pick up some the slack.

 

We have good choice draft early in this draft. Use them extensively on defense and narrow the gap. I feel that we have a very good offense and with the right additions from the draft we'll have a good defense.

 

Unless someone feels like we can be a serious threat for the SuperBowl this year then let's draft smartly. Let's not panic and start drafting from hysteria. Man, it's only March/April, not September.

your post sounds very reasonable.we do have the a-train and a rebuilt offensive line.i would like to see the bills draft adrian first,but i do not think we should trade up to get him.where i disagree though,is i think marshawn lynch could be a good runningback as well.i think marshawn even has the potential to be more of a thurman thomas/marshall faulk type back.if the bills choose not to go the marshawn lynch route then yes i could see the bills getting a complimentry back later in the draft.alot of people are hung up on michael turner.well turner was drafted in the 5th round by san diego.there is talent outside of the first round.go bills in"07

[The Dean]

Four posts in this thread so far and, though they are not in agreement, ALL of them make sense. Must be a TSW record.

 

Let's review:

 

Brandon is correct, our offense was not bad...it SUCKED! We need help desperately. I think we may already have that help with the new OL. If not, it won't matter how good the RB is, as we won't improve that much with any back and a bad OL.

 

We, most likely, will not get AP. Lynch may be there and could be a REAL good fit for us.

 

If we don't pick up Lynch, there are any number of interesting backs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to be had (two are mentioned Lothar and H20). We have AT, will probably pick up another vet and get a nice back in the draft.

 

If any of you lose sleep over what the Bills MIGHT do, it shouldn't be about what they might do at the RB slot.

[DanInSouthBuffalo]

I don't like picking a RB in the 1st. I'd rather go LB or REALLY shake things up and go TE or WR, maybe CB. Peterson could be GREAT but his size and running style scare me--I think he could get hurt a lot. Lynch has some borderline character issues, but the good thing is I think there is a market for him and Peterson so we could end up with some draft picks from a team trading up to get one of them.

 

 

I like the Turner idea, but A.J. Smith is starting to put on the hard-sell like a used car saleman. I see it as a buyers market with all of the available backs in the draft so the highest I would go is a 2nd round pick.

[Lurker]

I would love for us to obtain Turner.

 

A 5th round pick, BTW. Imagine what a 3rd round RB could do....

[Pyrite Gal]

Four posts in this thread so far and, though they are not in agreement, ALL of them make sense. Must be a TSW record.

 

Let's review:

 

Brandon is correct, our offense was not bad...it SUCKED! We need help desperately. I think we may already have that help with the new OL. If not, it won't matter how good the RB is, as we won't improve that much with any back and a bad OL.

 

We, most likely, will not get AP. Lynch may be there and could be a REAL good fit for us.

 

If we don't pick up Lynch, there are any number of interesting backs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to be had (two are mentioned Lothar and H20). We have AT, will probably pick up another vet and get a nice back in the draft.

 

If any of you lose sleep over what the Bills MIGHT do, it shouldn't be about what they might do at the RB slot.

 

The thread is an interesting one but I draw some different conclusions from the facts and perspectives offered.

 

A. Brandon is correct that the stats of the offense did suck, but mostly this shows me (a real stat hound who loves the numbers) that while stats can indicate a lot that they can show something which is either not relevant (or even flatout wrong in some cases) without a lot of twisting being done.

 

The O stats do have some relevance, but simply do not reflect the most important stat which is that this team improved from 5-11 to 7-9 while wracking up these horrible stats. Actually folks can take the some real hope from the fact that this team improved by two games in the W/L column at the same time the O was producing horrendous stats which Brandon offered and also the D was getting run on all over the place.

 

The key question is why the anomaly: and both offer some hope for the Bills:

 

1. There was a marked difference I believe between the way this team performed early and late with the team improving a lot as the season went on (this bodes well). I think there MAY a difference shown in the O stats in the first half of the season versus how well this unit produced in the second half of the season.

 

2. The HC had a good sense of the flow of games and generally was conservative when he knew were outgunned but seemed willing to have a shootout when he thought we could win it. The O performance versus Indy may have been poor, but he did run a conservative gameplan and even with bad O production we were in it. A margin of defeat or victory analysis may be the second most telling stat behind W/L.

 

B. Lynch may be a good fit as we essentially have left ourselves without a credible #1 RB. I think Thomas had a good year for us and for the first time in his career actually even appeared in all 16 games. However, this is key as he was able to pull off this achievement for the first time in his career. The fact simply is he was last able to produce even the McGaheessque result of about 1000 yards rushing as a starting RB in 2003. He was able to start only 13 games that year (his best season). Anthony Thomas would definitely need a player like ...well Anthony Thomas behind him and this is only if we are able to roll the clock back 4 years. He might be able to be a starter, but the key word is MIGHT and it looks pretty doubtful.

 

This being said, rolling the dice on Lynch as search for a starting RB is not unreasonable, but as it appears most pundits have him ranked at about #18 if we pick him I hope we trade down to do it.

 

C. I agree that we should not pick Lynch, but it definitely would fulfill a need. We have a great need (an essential need if this is gonna be a winning team) to get another LB (having lost 2 of three starters at LB and one should come from shifting Crowell to MLB and developing one from the current roster with the other being drafted).

 

I think we can most likely find the other LB in the first round (with if we pick well he will start immediately though statistically almost half of last year's #1s are not even slated as starters on the depth charts of a couple of weeks ago) and should be able to build at least an RBBC with Thomas and three acquisitions before the season begins (my guess is that we only have 2 of the 5 guys likely to be on the roster as HBs and RBs right now). I see two of these RB acquisitions coming from this draft, likely 1 on the first day and another on the second. The picks described by Lothar and H20 above look like a reasonable start.

[Astrobot]

I think this is a bad idea. Henry defines the classic workout warrior - he was basically an above-average track guy pretending to be a below-average RB at U of A. Perhaps more than most positions, grading a running back should be 75% productivity - true skills aren't hidden on the football field. Unless he had an awful offensive OL, I'd be very wary of straight line speed numbers:

In 35 games at Arizona, Henry started six times. He rushed 269 times for 892 yards (3.3 avg.) and nine touchdowns. He snatched 26 passes for 205 yards (7.9 avg.) and a score. He also returned four kickoffs for 25 yards (6.2 avg.) and recorded one solo tackle.

 

Compare those numbers to those of Kenneth Darby - who ran behind one one of the worst OLs in the country:

In 47 games at Alabama, Darby started 31 contests. He ranks third in school history with 3,324 yards on 702 carries (4.7 avg) and 11 touchdowns. He also made 70 catches for 340 yards (4.9 avg) and a pair of scores, adding four solo tackles with two fumble recoveries.

Compares To: DeAngelo Williams, Carolina Panthers (Memphis) -- Darby is bigger than Williams, but both rely on their exceptional burst, outstanding field vision and instincts with the ball to be slippery outside runners. Darby has a great feel for the crease and cutback lanes, but relies more on his elusiveness; he doesn't have the ideal strength to be a power runner.

 

I like this kid in the middle rounds if we don't get Lynch. He has good hands and unlike some of the big backs, he'd be a good complement to the A-train.

Darby could be there as late as Round 7, and would be a steal in Round 6.

There's one RB who might quiet the Lynch Mob!

[I 90]

Is our offense that bad? Here are some statistical rankings from a year ago for this Bills offense:

Total Plays 898 32nd

 

 

The thread is an interesting one but I draw some different conclusions from the facts and perspectives offered.

The O stats do have some relevance, but simply do not reflect the most important stat which is that this team improved from 5-11 to 7-9 while wracking up these horrible stats.

 

I am with Pyrite on this one. The offense was used not to score as much as it was to kill time. It tried to make WM a power back, took few risks, drove me crazy... and the team improved.

 

An exciting "stud" running back is not what these people want. They want a meat and potatoes non fumbler who will pick up the blitz. Third round sounds about right. Astrobot, who am I describing ?

[Astrobot]

I am with Pyrite on this one. The offense was used not to score as much as it was to kill time. It tried to make WM a power back, took few risks, drove me crazy... and the team improved.

 

An exciting "stud" running back is not what these people want. They want a meat and potatoes non fumbler who will pick up the blitz. Third round sounds about right. Astrobot, who am I describing ?

 

How about a player in Day 2 who never fumbled?

Dwayne Wright, Round 6

[The Dean]

1. There was a marked difference I believe between the way this team performed early and late with the team improving a lot as the season went on (this bodes well). I think there MAY a difference shown in the O stats in the first half of the season versus how well this unit produced in the second half of the season.

 

 

This is something I think has been under-appreciated. Also, It is one of the things I wanted (and expected) to see last year. While the team was only a couple of games better (in the win column) than the team the year before. I truly believe, by the end of the year, last year's team was FAR better than the 2005 version.

[I 90]

How about a player in Day 2 who never fumbled?

Dwayne Wright, Round 6

 

Thank you, very nice !

 

But could they sell a pick that late as a significant piece, I wonder. The natives might be a little less restless with a Pittman or Hunt. Or would they care ?

 

If you are correct about round 6, it shapes up as a pretty weak draft class. Wright is maybe the ninth or tenth running back off the board, yes ?

[Git'er Done]

I think drafting a back is ridiculous. The position has lost much of it's importance in the modern game. There isn't really THAT much difference between say a guy like Adrian Peterson and some of the UNDRAFTED running backs. Especially with this new "Run By Commitee" trend. This might sound radical, but I think that the Bills should approach the running game like a baseball pitcher, with each runner have a certain skill set for a few situations. Like one guy hits the hole real fast (the fast ball), another guy is kinda slower (like a change up), another guy cuts back real good (like a curve ball), and another guy can catch real well.

I think with this approach you wouldn't even have to draft guys just sign undrafted guys. they could be signed for an NFL minimum and allow us to draft:

1. TWO more CB's

2. Four more LB's

3. 1 more DT

 

This would work!

[Tipster19]

It is true that RB position has been deluted in the last few years. Teams can get away with less compared to years past. Solid, dependable veterans who don't usually cough up the ball can and will continue to make their living, the RBBC is here to stay. Does a big time WR to pair up with Evans seem to make more sense than one would expect?

[The Dean]

I think drafting a back is ridiculous. The position has lost much of it's importance in the modern game. There isn't really THAT much difference between say a guy like Adrian Peterson and some of the UNDRAFTED running backs. Especially with this new "Run By Commitee" trend. This might sound radical, but I think that the Bills should approach the running game like a baseball pitcher, with each runner have a certain skill set for a few situations. Like one guy hits the hole real fast (the fast ball), another guy is kinda slower (like a change up), another guy cuts back real good (like a curve ball), and another guy can catch real well.

I think with this approach you wouldn't even have to draft guys just sign undrafted guys. they could be signed for an NFL minimum and allow us to draft:

1. TWO more CB's

2. Four more LB's

3. 1 more DT

 

This would work!

 

 

I'm the guy who repeatedly posts "Good backs are a dime-a-dozen" and even I think your post is nonsense.

[Git'er Done]

It is true that RB position has been deluted in the last few years. Teams can get away with less compared to years past. Solid, dependable veterans who don't usually cough up the ball can and will continue to make their living, the RBBC is here to stay. Does a big time WR to pair up with Evans seem to make more sense than one would expect?

 

I think another under-publicized trend is the O-line ROTATION. I think the Bills will use more "situational blocking", much like the d-line rotation. Much like the running back, i think a late round guy would be fine for another wideout. Just draft defense! Defense wins championships!!

[The Dean]

I think another under-publicized trend is the O-line ROTATION. I think the Bills will use more "situational blocking", much like the d-line rotation. Much like the running back, i think a late round guy would be fine for another wideout. Just draft defense! Defense wins championships!!

 

 

Well, the Colts certainly proved that.

 

Pray tell, what else do you...umm...well...er..."think"?

[Git'er Done]

I'm the guy who repeatedly posts "Good backs are a dime-a-dozen" and even I think your post is nonsense.

 

I've seen your posts man, you definitely know nonsense, in fact YOU are my inspiration. Thanks for noticing me, it's a honor.