Is Angelo Crowell a reasonable prospect at MLB?

[Pyrite Gal]

Sure.

 

I simply see no reason looking objectively at his stats and history, and feel there is no rational reason looking subjectively about how I feel about his game why anyone can reasonably doubt that there is reasonably a possibility (and IMHO actually a good possibility) that he can play MLB the way we want it played.

 

A look at his stats and his history provides no guarantee that he can get the job done (there is really never a guarantee because we cannot know the future). However, there is objective evidence that indicates this may be a good bet.

 

1. First, the big wildcard to me is the question of injury (the major reason why the future is so uncertain in the NFL). However, the tea-leaves look very good on this front as Crowell and the Bills have already declared him at 100%. Typically coming off an injury that put a player on IR, in the off-season one can generally feel good about reports of a player "expected' to be at 100% when the pre-season starts, but already their are positive pronouncements being given about his recovery and unless the Bills and he are blowing smoke to fool the opponents(no indications of that) I think we can assume the injury issue is merely at the risk level a player always has. Given that in his relatively short career Crowell has played 15 and then all 16 games in his third year there are not any ongoing repetitive signs of injury issues and demographically he is hitting the peak of his career and a full recovery should be hoped for and expected.

 

2. The major issue for the MLB in our hybrid Cover 2 is that the player is required to tackle like a DT (he specifically fills the gap up the middle as our DTs are required to commit to penetration and pass rushing in our scheme) on running plays but also to cover like a safety on passing plays as he divides the deep cover responsibility into thirds with the safeties.

 

Play reads are critical for this player as if he reads pass and either simply holds his ground or leans backward at the snap, if in fact the opposing OC has called a draw or delayed draw so the RB zips by the rushing DTs, then an MLB heading backward may well be knocked back or even danced around by an RB with full forward momentum.

 

Even worse, our LBs are going to be asked to be even more aggressive at the LOS and if the MLB reads run and in fact it is a pass, the MLB may be left flat-footed as a speedi WR zips by him running a post pattern up the middle. Just as on the play against MN which almost cost us the game, when McGee failed to read that he should have stayed with WR Koren Robinson when he ran a fly pattern up the sideline and Whitner was in no position to get over in time unless McGee at least slowed down the WR with a good chuck, we only survived because Brad Johnson overthrew Robinson. So too unless the MLB makes a good read we are going to be left hoping for a miscue on the pass.

 

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to hope and assume Crowell can do the job:

 

3. He has seen NFL plays called and develop for four years and has done this as the back-up MLB for two years behind London Fletcher. While it is true that nothing replaces playing as a teacher, this does not also mean that watching the game from the sidelines is worthless. Particularly if the task is learning play calling and adjustments, while sitting on the sideline is not the same things as playing the game physically, this role likely provided Crowell with a meaningful and useful mental exercise as it allowed him to watch each play develop for a couple of years and ask himself the question in realtime what would he call in terms of adjustments to various formations.

 

He not only had these judgments tested in realtime as the plays developed, but he then could sit down post game and review the videotapes with D team captain and consistently quick thinker, London F-B (folks complained he was physically light in the pants but no one questioned he has a great football mind as he routinely seemed to be the one quickly dickering with the refs over some dispute and he was the MLB on some very successful Ds when LeBeau and Gray had the D cooking with gas).

 

The complaint stated on TSW that Crowell just like the rookie Willis has never played MLB in a Cover 2 is simply a spurious argument. Even if true it argues how problematic non-play as an MLB in a Cover 2 is for Willis and Crowell, but this view simply ignore the fact that Crowell is a vet with a year of play in the Cover 2 while Willis is not. Add to this difference that Crowell, though not an MLB in a Cover 2 obviously has seen hundreds of NFL plays both on the field and on the sideline and there is little reasonable comparison of what a rookie brings to the table for this part of the game and what a vet brings.

 

4. Crowell has demonstrated that as a player (and likely fortified by his pro MLB duties) that he has translated that knowledge into understanding of the Bills D and the game into being the best back-up LB we had. When TKO went down last year, Haggan was next on the depth chart at WLB, yet we went to Crowell to fill-in for him as he had demonstrated he was the best back-up LB we had and also that even though he had not been at that position specifically on the depth chart he was obviously the best choice.

 

This proved to be the case in terms of on-field production as Crowell did struggle in his first game or so to the awesome task of replacing a back-to-back Pro Bowler like TKO, but his play improved to the point that though overall the Bills run D sucked, the wails of pain from the fans and the whines of folks like Jerry Sullivan did not focus on the loss of TKO to Crowell being highlighted as a big drop-off (in fact poor DT play by Anderson and Sam Adams taking some plays off and F-B being seen as making initial hits too deep in the D were the target of criticism for the most part rather than picking on Crowell's play which was not up to TKO levels but simply was pretty good and the stats indicate that with him being credited with 125 tackles in less than a full season and him registering INTs and some sacks as well.

 

He was good enough that when the 06 season started that it was TKO who made the switch to SLB and Crowell remained at WLB. The new braintrust of Jauron/Fewell voted with the reality of the depth chart that they were comfortable that F-B, TKO and Crowell were the best three LBs on the roster. This point was further underlined when TKO went down to injury (again) and Crowell's flexibility and understanding of all the LB positions (and actually the whole new D as the reserve signal caller behind F-B) allowed Crowell the first choice to flip again out of position and he made the start at SLB.

 

Crowell, like it or not, has answered the call at all three LB positions.

 

5. Even better, his stat line in a season cut short by injury indicates a diversity of play which is exactly what we want from an MLB in our hybrid Cover 2.

 

A. He was credited with 2 INTs (not shabby at all considering F-B led all LB in the NFL with 4 and Crowell got his two while only starting 12 games. In particular his INT against Culpepper which stopped a Fish drive when they seemed to get untracked to end the first half was a key to that game.

B. Despite the shortened season he ended up 3rd on the D in total tackles he was credited with. His ratio of unassisted tackles to assisted tackles ran over 2:1 and does not show signs he usually needed help in bringing down a runner. Complaints about him taking bad angles on tackles or such may make the poster sound like they know what they are doing or watching closely, but these observations are rendered down to be mere observations or even whines without some objective showing that he had a tackling problem (such as the stats showing an inordinate amount to assisted tackles rather solo work or specific plays referenced with specific games and times within the games where Crowell either was beaten by a runner he was trying to tackle for a big gain (such as the "shifty" Chad Pennington faking Robinson out of his jock strap with a mere stutter step, or Crowell being dragged down the field for extra yards because this alleged bad angle caused him to try to arm tackle an opponent, or even him barely shoe-stringing a tackle(. These observations are simply left unsupported. The facts simply are that while this team was demonstrably bad, that even with injury Crowell posted numbers which indicate he is one of the better tacklers on the team.

C. In his truncated season he equaled F-B for the team lead among LBs in sacks. To me this is an indicator that our scheme did not aggressively attack the QB. The fact that Crowell equaled F-B's small total may well be too small a sample for drawing a reasonable conclusion, but the fact he equalled him playing 4 less games to me is an indicator that he can be aggressive as we want and need.

 

In total, I think Crowell definitely has shown performance for the Bills over his brief career which indicates notable play in a number of different roles. This is a strong indication that he has mastered the D and the play calling duties and the numbers though not a strong indication that he will be a success in these diverse roles provide a good indication that he is the best the Bills got and from some nice highlight moments (like the INT against the Fish) that it is not outrageous at all to at least hope he can do the job well.

 

On the other hand, regarding Willis, it is simply quite unlikely that a rookie who is thought by his most ardent supporters to be worth trading into the bottom of the top 10 to take and for those most unimpressed he conceivably is worth a late 1st or even early 2nd round pick. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and he likely is worth a pick in teens.

 

Given the Bills multiple needs, the idea of trading down into the teens and picking Willis if he is there (certainly a reasonable possibility even though SF may be so hot for him they pick him at 11) but even if he is not the Bills really can use multiple picks and their are a couple of other probable 1st round worth OLBs in the draft if one trades down.

 

I define an elite player in this draft as someone who merits a choice in the top 10 (as in the real world there is a strong bias to players who actually can start immediately being top 10 choices). By this definition it is quite doubtful that Willis is an elite player and I think the Bills can produce more in 07 by trading down and getting additional second and third rounders.

[dollars 2 donuts]

Sure.

 

I simply see no reason looking objectively at his stats and history, and feel there is no rational reason looking subjectively about how I feel about his game why anyone can reasonably doubt that there is reasonably a possibility (and IMHO actually a good possibility) that he can play MLB the way we want it played.

 

A look at his stats and his history provides no guarantee that he can get the job done (there is really never a guarantee because we cannot know the future). However, there is objective evidence that indicates this may be a good bet.

 

1. First, the big wildcard to me is the question of injury (the major reason why the future is so uncertain in the NFL). However, the tea-leaves look very good on this front as Crowell and the Bills have already declared him at 100%. Typically coming off an injury that put a player on IR, in the off-season one can generally feel good about reports of a player "expected' to be at 100% when the pre-season starts, but already their are positive pronouncements being given about his recovery and unless the Bills and he are blowing smoke to fool the opponents(no indications of that) I think we can assume the injury issue is merely at the risk level a player always has. Given that in his relatively short career Crowell has played 15 and then all 16 games in his third year there are not any ongoing repetitive signs of injury issues and demographically he is hitting the peak of his career and a full recovery should be hoped for and expected.

 

2. The major issue for the MLB in our hybrid Cover 2 is that the player is required to tackle like a DT (he specifically fills the gap up the middle as our DTs are required to commit to penetration and pass rushing in our scheme) on running plays but also to cover like a safety on passing plays as he divides the deep cover responsibility into thirds with the safeties.

 

Play reads are critical for this player as if he reads pass and either simply holds his ground or leans backward at the snap, if in fact the opposing OC has called a draw or delayed draw so the RB zips by the rushing DTs, then an MLB heading backward may well be knocked back or even danced around by an RB with full forward momentum.

 

Even worse, our LBs are going to be asked to be even more aggressive at the LOS and if the MLB reads run and in fact it is a pass, the MLB may be left flat-footed as a speedi WR zips by him running a post pattern up the middle. Just as on the play against MN which almost cost us the game, when McGee failed to read that he should have stayed with WR Koren Robinson when he ran a fly pattern up the sideline and Whitner was in no position to get over in time unless McGee at least slowed down the WR with a good chuck, we only survived because Brad Johnson overthrew Robinson. So too unless the MLB makes a good read we are going to be left hoping for a miscue on the pass.

 

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to hope and assume Crowell can do the job:

 

3. He has seen NFL plays called and develop for four years and has done this as the back-up MLB for two years behind London Fletcher. While it is true that nothing replaces playing as a teacher, this does not also mean that watching the game from the sidelines is worthless. Particularly if the task is learning play calling and adjustments, while sitting on the sideline is not the same things as playing the game physically, this role likely provided Crowell with a meaningful and useful mental exercise as it allowed him to watch each play develop for a couple of years and ask himself the question in realtime what would he call in terms of adjustments to various formations.

 

He not only had these judgments tested in realtime as the plays developed, but he then could sit down post game and review the videotapes with D team captain and consistently quick thinker, London F-B (folks complained he was physically light in the pants but no one questioned he has a great football mind as he routinely seemed to be the one quickly dickering with the refs over some dispute and he was the MLB on some very successful Ds when LeBeau and Gray had the D cooking with gas).

 

The complaint stated on TSW that Crowell just like the rookie Willis has never played MLB in a Cover 2 is simply a spurious argument. Even if true it argues how problematic non-play as an MLB in a Cover 2 is for Willis and Crowell, but this view simply ignore the fact that Crowell is a vet with a year of play in the Cover 2 while Willis is not. Add to this difference that Crowell, though not an MLB in a Cover 2 obviously has seen hundreds of NFL plays both on the field and on the sideline and there is little reasonable comparison of what a rookie brings to the table for this part of the game and what a vet brings.

 

4. Crowell has demonstrated that as a player (and likely fortified by his pro MLB duties) that he has translated that knowledge into understanding of the Bills D and the game into being the best back-up LB we had. When TKO went down last year, Haggan was next on the depth chart at WLB, yet we went to Crowell to fill-in for him as he had demonstrated he was the best back-up LB we had and also that even though he had not been at that position specifically on the depth chart he was obviously the best choice.

 

This proved to be the case in terms of on-field production as Crowell did struggle in his first game or so to the awesome task of replacing a back-to-back Pro Bowler like TKO, but his play improved to the point that though overall the Bills run D sucked, the wails of pain from the fans and the whines of folks like Jerry Sullivan did not focus on the loss of TKO to Crowell being highlighted as a big drop-off (in fact poor DT play by Anderson and Sam Adams taking some plays off and F-B being seen as making initial hits too deep in the D were the target of criticism for the most part rather than picking on Crowell's play which was not up to TKO levels but simply was pretty good and the stats indicate that with him being credited with 125 tackles in less than a full season and him registering INTs and some sacks as well.

 

He was good enough that when the 06 season started that it was TKO who made the switch to SLB and Crowell remained at WLB. The new braintrust of Jauron/Fewell voted with the reality of the depth chart that they were comfortable that F-B, TKO and Crowell were the best three LBs on the roster. This point was further underlined when TKO went down to injury (again) and Crowell's flexibility and understanding of all the LB positions (and actually the whole new D as the reserve signal caller behind F-B) allowed Crowell the first choice to flip again out of position and he made the start at SLB.

 

Crowell, like it or not, has answered the call at all three LB positions.

 

5. Even better, his stat line in a season cut short by injury indicates a diversity of play which is exactly what we want from an MLB in our hybrid Cover 2.

 

A. He was credited with 2 INTs (not shabby at all considering F-B led all LB in the NFL with 4 and Crowell got his two while only starting 12 games. In particular his INT against Culpepper which stopped a Fish drive when they seemed to get untracked to end the first half was a key to that game.

B. Despite the shortened season he ended up 3rd on the D in total tackles he was credited with. His ratio of unassisted tackles to assisted tackles ran over 2:1 and does not show signs he usually needed help in bringing down a runner. Complaints about him taking bad angles on tackles or such may make the poster sound like they know what they are doing or watching closely, but these observations are rendered down to be mere observations or even whines without some objective showing that he had a tackling problem (such as the stats showing an inordinate amount to assisted tackles rather solo work or specific plays referenced with specific games and times within the games where Crowell either was beaten by a runner he was trying to tackle for a big gain (such as the "shifty" Chad Pennington faking Robinson out of his jock strap with a mere stutter step, or Crowell being dragged down the field for extra yards because this alleged bad angle caused him to try to arm tackle an opponent, or even him barely shoe-stringing a tackle(. These observations are simply left unsupported. The facts simply are that while this team was demonstrably bad, that even with injury Crowell posted numbers which indicate he is one of the better tacklers on the team.

C. In his truncated season he equaled F-B for the team lead among LBs in sacks. To me this is an indicator that our scheme did not aggressively attack the QB. The fact that Crowell equaled F-B's small total may well be too small a sample for drawing a reasonable conclusion, but the fact he equalled him playing 4 less games to me is an indicator that he can be aggressive as we want and need.

 

In total, I think Crowell definitely has shown performance for the Bills over his brief career which indicates notable play in a number of different roles. This is a strong indication that he has mastered the D and the play calling duties and the numbers though not a strong indication that he will be a success in these diverse roles provide a good indication that he is the best the Bills got and from some nice highlight moments (like the INT against the Fish) that it is not outrageous at all to at least hope he can do the job well.

 

On the other hand, regarding Willis, it is simply quite unlikely that a rookie who is thought by his most ardent supporters to be worth trading into the bottom of the top 10 to take and for those most unimpressed he conceivably is worth a late 1st or even early 2nd round pick. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and he likely is worth a pick in teens.

 

Given the Bills multiple needs, the idea of trading down into the teens and picking Willis if he is there (certainly a reasonable possibility even though SF may be so hot for him they pick him at 11) but even if he is not the Bills really can use multiple picks and their are a couple of other probable 1st round worth OLBs in the draft if one trades down.

 

I define an elite player in this draft as someone who merits a choice in the top 10 (as in the real world there is a strong bias to players who actually can start immediately being top 10 choices). By this definition it is quite doubtful that Willis is an elite player and I think the Bills can produce more in 07 by trading down and getting additional second and third rounders.

 

 

You had me at "Sure."

 

 

 

Even if he can, we're still going to go high with a LB, albeit it opens up our options.

[GG]

No. Which hints that Levy will draft Pittman.

[apuszczalowski]

No. Which hints that Levy will draft Pittman.

maybe not, i hear he's a "Nappy Headed Ho"

[tennesseeboy]

interesting post. Assuming Crowell goes for MLB I think we would have to take a long hard look at Timmons as OLB. He has the speed and range to be a real contributor. http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingr...ncetimmons.html

 

My gut feeling is that the best situation for us would be if Willis is available for MLB and take him and let Crowell play outside.

[obie_wan]

interesting post. Assuming Crowell goes for MLB I think we would have to take a long hard look at Timmons as OLB. He has the speed and range to be a real contributor. http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingr...ncetimmons.html

 

My gut feeling is that the best situation for us would be if Willis is available for MLB and take him and let Crowell play outside.

 

you are correct, sir.

 

even if he is a rookie and too dumb to know where to line up

[bizell]

I'm a FSU fan, and Timmons didn't do anything to impress me. If it came down to choosing between Timmons and Jon Beason, I'd take Beason.

[Beerball]

I simply see no reason looking objectively at his stats and history, and feel there is no rational reason looking subjectively about how I feel about his game why anyone can reasonably doubt that there is reasonably a possibility (and IMHO actually a good possibility) that he can play MLB the way we want it played.

 

I'm reasonably sure that you have your reasons for making this reasonable post in such a reasonable and well reasoned way, however I can't reason out the reason why.

[tennesseeboy]

I'm a FSU fan, and Timmons didn't do anything to impress me. If it came down to choosing between Timmons and Jon Beason, I'd take Beason.

Beason is no slouch..that's for sure. A little on the short side, but remarkable sideline to sideline coverage. I think there are four or five really good prospects in this draft and once you get by Willis (Maybe we won't get by Willis and we'll pick him...which would make me very happy) there are a bundle of very good linebackers to pick from. Beason, Timmons, Durant, DeOssie and others are very solid prospects. This is going to be a very good draft for us to improve on defense.

[Mike formerly from Florida]

I'm reasonably sure that you have your reasons for making this reasonable post in such a reasonable and well reasoned way, however I can't reason out the reason why.

 

 

LOL! Is it reasonable to think the reason I won't read PG's post is because they are so unreasonably long.

[Pyrite Gal]

you are correct, sir.

 

even if he is a rookie and too dumb to know where to line up

 

Willis appears to be a smart football player and a very high character guy. I think folks are also right he is a tackling machine.

 

That being said, we may well draft him but if we do and start him at MLB then it is quite likely that we simply are turning this season into an extended training camp for him to learn how to make the reads necessary to perform adequately as an MLB with the diverse responsibilities the slot requires in the hybrid Cover 2 we run.

 

I hope (and mostly pray as I suspect divine intervention will be a useful thing here) that it works for us but there are a few things I take as almost certainly true:

 

1. Rookies are not necessarily dumb but they are not vets either. Opposing OCs will look forward to facing a rookie playing MLB in our hybrid because there is a strong likelihood they can pull a few tricks and make his remain static on runs or step in as we want to be aggressive anyway on a pass play and we will be at high risk.

 

2. Willis is the best LB in this draft but few mistake him for being a player likely to be selected in or worth a top 10 pick. As I generally define players who are top 10 picks as "elite players", Willis is almost certainly not an elite player. He is good but not that good.

 

3. The Bills team has multiple needs at not only the LB slot where two of the players who started the first game last year are gone but also at RB where A-Train and Cieslak are the only two of the RBs one can reasonably say will almost certainly make this roster. Particularly due to our failure (so far to sign an FA to meet any of these 5 needs, developing Ellison to fill one LB slot and acquiring 3 or possibly 4 players at the starter level (assuming an RBBC or getting a few possibilities for someone to step up and be our #1 RB makes trading down if we can and getting more first day picks the smart thing for this team to do in order to win more games.

 

Overall, I just think Ralph and Marv are too old to see us invest in the future instead of winning right now. If we put a bunch of marbles in the Willis at MLB basket we are not only banking on him working out immediately (the statistics of last years draft already indicate the chances of him starting immediately are there but are very much against us. Marv is on record saying that the HC who works to get wins in the future is not likely to be your HC in the future.

 

Passing on Willis to trade down and get more resources seems clearly to me to be the best option and if we cannot find a partner and are forced to take him then starting him at SLB and going with the far from guaranteed but far more likely prospect of adequate performance of Crowell at MLB and having Willis learn the game at SLB simply seems to be a far better strategy.

 

i simply have not seen many compelling arguments from folks who argue for starting Willis at MLB. Basically, its been an argument that we sacrifice this year to build for the future, or with the admission it will be a learning year for Willis that it won't be that long (I find the observation of folks within the Bills that it takes a year of playing the Cover 2 before you can be adequate in it and actually a couple of years before you devour it and master it really well quite compelling).

 

Willis is good but is not mistaken by any objective observers as the next Lawrence Taylor and in fact he is not even a consensus top 10 pick as AJ Hawk was. If the Bills pass on Willis at #12 and do this not trading down too far they can possibly have their cake and eat it to both increasing their resources and still having a shot at Willis who may go to SF at 11 but could easily drop into the 20s if some of the pundits are right.

 

The good news for the Bills that we might be able to trade down a few slots and still get him or if we get unlucky and lose him the outcome is still quite doable for us as we pick up the best OLB we can between Pos or Timmons and use the extra resources to build a team rather than relying on one player to be some type of savior.

[Bill from NYC]

2. Willis is the best LB in this draft but few mistake him for being a player likely to be selected in or worth a top 10 pick. As I generally define players who are top 10 picks as "elite players", Willis is almost certainly not an elite player. He is good but not that good.

 

You are kidding with this right?

You have defended Levy time and again for selecting Whitner, a small safety with the #8. At the time of the draft, he was not regarded by almost anyone as an "elite player" or even a "top ten pick." I don't think that the Bills even brought him in for a visit.

 

Now, you are ready to declare Willis unworthy of being selected by the Bills despite the gaping hole that exists at LB? Why the double standard and total contradiction?

If Marv does select him, will you defend it as you did the Whitner pick and declare it to be a great move because Good Ol' Marv did it?

 

Where ARE you going with this?

[obie_wan]

You are kidding with this right?

You have defended Levy time and again for selecting Whitner, a small safety with the #8. At the time of the draft, he was not regarded by almost anyone as an "elite player" or even a "top ten pick." I don't think that the Bills even brought him in for a visit.

 

Now, you are ready to declare Willis unworthy of being selected by the Bills despite the gaping hole that exists at LB? Why the double standard and total contradiction?

If Marv does select him, will you defend it as you did the Whitner pick and declare it to be a great move because Good Ol' Marv did it?

 

Where ARE you going with this?

 

he has a man-crush on Crowell as MLB-even thogh he's never played the position

 

all others are not worthy- especially the "too dumb to play football" Willis

 

 

As you say- the Bills were willing to play, not 1, but 2 rookies at safety - but they wouldn;t start Willis at MLB???

[/dev/null]

My gut feeling is that the best situation for us would be if Willis is available for MLB and take him and let Crowell play outside.

 

Wow, that was scary for a second. But then I remembered this isn't PPP

 

Had this strange sense of wtf as I found myself actually agreeing with Tenny Boy

[bluv]

Where is VABills; is he on vacation or something? He normally would have posted at least 5 times in this thread trashing Crowell by now!

[GG]

Where is VABills; is he on vacation or something? He normally would have posted at least 5 times in this thread trashing Crowell by now!

 

 

He did.

[Pyrite Gal]

You are kidding with this right?

You have defended Levy time and again for selecting Whitner, a small safety with the #8. At the time of the draft, he was not regarded by almost anyone as an "elite player" or even a "top ten pick." I don't think that the Bills even brought him in for a visit.

 

Now, you are ready to declare Willis unworthy of being selected by the Bills despite the gaping hole that exists at LB? Why the double standard and total contradiction?

If Marv does select him, will you defend it as you did the Whitner pick and declare it to be a great move because Good Ol' Marv did it?

 

Where ARE you going with this?

 

I along with most of the Western World was virtually completely fooled by the Levy led pick of Whitner. I certainly would not have deemed Whitner an elite player before the draft and I certainly do not think from what I have heard or seen that Willis is an elite player. I only use the phrase because our good friend obie has used it, and the first time I used it was after he had referred to Willis as an "elite" player. I then asked him what did he define elite as and then offered up a definition I think is a good one that in this crapshoot known as the draft a top 10 selection can reasonably be called elite and asserted that few (pretty much Obie is the only one I have seen) call Willis a pick worthy of a top 10.

 

I'm not headed anywhere with this as my cries (inspired by our other good buddy the cinnamon bun coiffed Princess Leia of please help me obie wan have either fallen on deaf ears or I missed his response because I have yet to see what he means (he mostly keeps lashing out at people calling all rookies dumb which must not be referring to my posts as I have several times made clear that I think rookies are readily capable of starting at many positions and playing consistently well (as I think Whitner generally did with a few hiccups last season).

 

I have little idea of what he is specifically saying and hope he will have the time to enlighten us. Its become fairly common in this world of media yellers like the folks on CNN out in the open or a plethora of Fox Noise shows to take any idea you disagree with and then describe it in its most outrageous or an extreme form and then easily bat down the extreme argument and then use that to reject everything.

 

I try not to rise (or is it fall) to that bait but it is hard to ask what do you mean without falling into the same extreme arguments.

 

Thus again my assertion:

 

1. The question of whether we draft an "elite player" as I define them is actually fairly meaningless in reality as I do not see us as having an elite pick at #12. Thus it certainly is more than justifiable and may be a good strategy (it depends on what Marv's overall strategy is and right now who knows and I am quite happy for him to lie to me and fool me because fooling the opposing team in terms of the draft is far more important to me than keeping me accurately informed) for him to do the essential work of filling a large LB gap as 2 of 3 players who started last season are gone.

 

In the big picture, i think the key issue is that in addition to needing two players to start (one looks like internally developed Ellison at WLB with an outside shot of the much reviled at S Coy Wire at WLB, I think we need to pick at least two RBs who have at least a shot at being our #! and more likely can be part of a RBBC.

 

In addition, we need a reasonable back-up safety (Leonhard has both spots on the current depth chart), we can use a competent WR (particularly now that #5 or #6 Davis is gone), and also some more competition at CB is necessary (though I see all the above except for WR being a higher priority than a CB but some folks are so phased by losing a former Pro Bowler like Clements they want to see us pick a CB at #12 or at least on the first day though I think this is simply redundant and just guarantees that a first day CB choice this year or last sits on the bench.

 

I guess where I am with this is that since I do not view Willis as a top 10 pick (one factor which makes this LB class not the strongest we have seen) I think it is a reasonable risk to even trade down a few spots and get additional first day competition for all the above needs and one might still be able to choose Willis who for a significant part folks have him (like Whitner going in the early 20s). if we cannot make deal, I think it will be disappointing but fine to pick Willis at 2, but pretty much only if we are comfortable with him starting at SLB. I think there is some chance (though I sense small) that the Bills would start him at MLB and he will be adequate.

 

However, I simply think that the MLB position in the Hybrid Cover 2 we use requires vet level play reads as our MLB is called upon to tackle like a DT on run plays but also to read plays properly so that he can cover like a safety on passes. I think that the MLB position is far more difficult than the safety position in our cover 2 and that likely any rookie who plays there will not make vet level reads all the time and it likely will be quite painful to watch this player get undressed a few times.

 

If the Bills braintrust goes with Willis, I will route like heck (and virtually pray) that it works out. Looking at something near and dear to you, i agree that using the draft is the right way to build an OL. However, I do not think we have several years to do this as TGs attempt to actually try this by spending a #4 on MW and a first day pick on Jennings failed miserably and his attempts to get guys who might have been #1 but were not due to injuries failed horribly as he was so insecure about an HC hire, he hired a guy GW he knew he could beat if the Cowher thing happened to him here and then GW hired to OL incompetents Vinky then Ruel to train and develop his late round OL picks.

 

Because of the manner the Bills made decisions in the past, they are now forced to go with suboptimal methods now. I do not claim that Marv, MM, TD post 2002 or Ralph did the best thing for building an OL nor are they following the my preferred path for replacing lBs. However, I did defend Marv making the best of a bad situation by using the #1 to get Whitner to fill a gaping hole at safety and doing the best we could at OL.

 

Likewise, I think we need to make the best of a bad situation at LB this year, IMHO, trying to fill the Cover 2 gap at MLB with a rookie only makes the bad situation worse. I started this thread to pose an idea which attacks some fairly vacuous beyond fact-free opinions claim that Crowell has not real chance of doing what we need at MLB.

 

I agree that this attempt will be dicey, but he at least is a reasonable prospect for the numerous reasons cited in drudging detail in the original post. The poor thing IMHO is that if the strategy is to expect Willis to fill this gap, he may do this but it is such a longshot that this rookie will be a vet when it comes to making reads that as dicey as it is to plan on Crowell doing this it is even dicier to plan on Willis being adequate at this job.

 

This is pretty much what I am saying and asserting.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

He's good at OLB. I'm not sure how easily he'd handle MLB. That's why we will get Patrick Willis.

[Captain Hindsight]

i couldnt find the Article but it talked about how crowell has beefed up a little bit this off season. Crowell was big to begin with. I think hes moving to the middle purely bc of his expierence in our system last year. Puz (if peterson isnt there) will be the pick and he will start outside

 

Puz Crowell Ellison

 

Idk about you but im comfortable with that

[Pyrite Gal]

he has a man-crush on Crowell as MLB-even thogh he's never played the position

 

all others are not worthy- especially the "too dumb to play football" Willis

As you say- the Bills were willing to play, not 1, but 2 rookies at safety - but they wouldn;t start Willis at MLB???

 

Let's at least try to stay with reality here:

 

1. Crowell played MLB for the Bills in an actual game when he filled in for one of the brief periods F-B got hurt in a game in 05 against TB I think. Further, he was F-Bs, back-up at MLB his first two years for the Bills. You might be referring to Crowell never playing MLB in a Cover 2 just as Willis has never done. However, this comparison completely looks past the fact that Crowell did play LB in the Bills Cover 2 last year and even did some signal calling from the wing position.

 

The critical factor and difference between any rookie and Crowell is seen in Bills players describing the Cover 2 as a D where you need to play in it for a year before you are consistently adequate in it and actually a couple of years before you devour and master it.

 

Having played in it only a year Crowell may prove to be inadequate for our needs, but the only problem with the converse strategy of going with Willis in this role is that he quite likely will be much worse.

 

The only thing which would give Willis much more than a snowball's chance in a microwave of being adequate at this task would be if he were of sufficient quality that he was the next Lawrence Taylor (or even if he was a consensus top 10 pick which he is not at all). I am not asserting Crowell is a definite adequate MLB for us just simply that he is a reasonable prospect. If you disagree I would enjoy seeing the assertion supported by more than fact-free opinions why this is the case.

 

Overall, I think you can refer to my feelings for Crowell as man-like rather than man-love because I will happily turn on him quickly if he is not adequate to the MLB job.

 

2. I'm not sure who said Willis was too dumb to play football because if anyone did they are flat out wrong. I maintain that Willis is clearly the best LB in the draft but that no one really credibly has him as a top 10 pick what I asserted was a reasonable definition of an "elite player". My sense is not that it would be stupid for the Bills to draft Willis (Marv did quite well making a "reach" for Whitner last year.

 

Again I merely maintain that it would be better for the Bills in 07 and better for Willis's development in the long run if we feel he is capable of using the skills which deservedly made him the Butkus award winner at the hole we have at SLB (a position I have seen the assertion he can play). At SLB, Willis can still do what he does well as a tackling machine. Even better, he clearly struggled a bit in pass coverage at the Senior Bowl (getting a chance to show his tremendous closing speed a couple of times after he got badly toasted in pass coverage). At SLB Willis would still get the in game reps of seeing plays develop so this rookie can be on the road to developing vet skills and actually since the way we played out cover 2 last year involved the MLB having large pass coverage duties (to the tune of F-B leading all NFL LBs in INTs) there is an argument that when Marv referred to the Bills needing more attacking LBs that he actually was more referring to TKO who went a number of games not being able to play and then we he came back had a number of games with a low number of tackles rather than F-B who in many ways I think his players deeper in our backfield than people wanted not because he was not personally aggressive but because our D had him doing alot of pass coverage.

 

Willis at SLB may make a lot of sense for us playing better ball and also MAY help his development as he will learn to be a vet by performing well rather than struggling at MLB.

 

3. Safety is a far less complex position to me in the Cover 2 than the MLB position. You have far more time to act as you are further back and minimal run duty generally compared to pass duty. The hybrid we run which is similar to the Tampa 2 is even more to the advantage of lightening the load on the safety and dropping it on the MLB as what makes this D different is that the MLB actually has deep cover duty reducing the safety responsibility from 1/2 the field to the outside thirds.

 

In fact what may make the most sense if we in fact start Willis at MLB is to actually play a more traditional cover 2 and increase the responsibilities for our second year safeties from diving the field into thirds to dividing it in half with the other safety and relieving the MLB of all deep cover duty and asking him to focus more on attacking the LOS.