Why are we high on Ko Simpson?

[Adam]

The ability to get turnovers is huge. Last year was the first year that Wilson saw significant time at the safety position having been a WR before. He played great for a guy that has so little experience there. As I said he has huge upside and he could go to over half the teams and be the second string player right now. I can't imagine any team not being interested in him at all. He is a huge depth guy. He is only going to get better and better.

Yes, turnovers are nice, but getting a turnover seldom comes down to just the pass rush or just the coverage. Give me a good cover guy over somebody that takes unecessary gambles and gets burned just as often as they make a play. He is a good backup

[eball]

I'm surprised Simon hasn't hit this thread yet. Seriously -- he has voiced concerns about Simpson previously and I'm not sold on the kid yet either.

[Steely Dan]

Yes, turnovers are nice, but getting a turnover seldom comes down to just the pass rush or just the coverage. Give me a good cover guy over somebody that takes unecessary gambles and gets burned just as often as they make a play. He is a good backup

 

IMO, he's the perfect backup. A perfect backup, IMHO, is a guy who has a lot of upside but is still learning the position and he has enough showing on the field to be competent in emergencies. The playing experience he had last year was extremely valuable to him. I look for him to take a big step up. He's not ready to challenge for a starting job but in a couple of years he might.

 

I view Spencer this way too. The difference is that I think Spencer is ready to take the next step up now.

[Kelly the Dog]

Ko Simpson = Trent Edwards, at least as far as their play and and their following goes. They both played pretty well for mid-round rookies, especially because they were unexpectedly thrown under fire before they were expected to or were ready to. And they didn't completely embarrass themselves and looked rather comfortable to the naked eye or even stat sheet. But they were far from good. That doesn't mean they won't be good, but they are both pretty far from solid NFL starters.

 

As far as Ko goes, he didn't get killed very often if at all, outside of missing some angles and tackles poorly. Teams didn't abuse him or us deep when they could have and probably should have exploited us more. He didn't miss a lot of assignments from what I could tell but sometimes that is just because veterans or his safety partner were covering up for him. He didn't make as many plays as I would like or expect our FS to but that was expecting a lot considering he was pretty raw, everyone was in a new defense, and we didn't have a lot of talent overall. When a 4th round rookie is thrown in as a starter immeditely, you are looking for him to just survive, rather than to be a difference maker. And he surely survived. Now he needs to step it up a couple notches.

[Spiderweb]

DB's aren't judged on interceptions. Thomas Smith rarely got an interception. I wish we had a CB as good as he was.

 

 

In his day, he was a good CB, BUT there were oh so may times he had been granted hands our maker. Absolutely the worst hands I've ever seen. Had he had hands, he could have been a big time star for Buffalo.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

In 2006, the Bills' defense was 7th in both against the pass and giving up 20+ yards passes. This year, they finished 29th against the pass and 32th at giving up passing plays of 20+ yards. Perhaps, just maybe, losing our starting free safety from 2006 might have caused this huge dropoff.

 

Now, I already know your response. Nate Clements was the real difference in the dropoff. But not so fast my friend. The 49ers were 26th against the pass and 21st in 20+ yards plays in 2006. Thanks to the big money they spent on Clements and Michael Lewis, they improved to a whooping 22nd against the pass and 29th in 20+ yard pass plays in 2007. So perhaps, Nasty Nate might have been a tad overrated.

I would say the difference was neither Simpson nor Clements. It was the pass rush, in my opinion.

[BuffaloBilliever]

In game one he did an excellent job trying to cover for Jason Webster's terrible, weak ass.

 

Through this struggle, the man put so much wear and tear on his leg that it snapped... oi.

[stewy23]

Everyone is high on the Ko because he showed a lot of promise in his rookie year. He wasn't a superstar but he wasn't a dud either. Everyone expected him to take a big step forward last season but his injury ruined any chances of that happening. I hope that he can pick up where he left off at the end of his rookie year. He's got the physical tools to play the position. All he needs is to do is get better and learn more each and every game. I think that he'll be a good starter for years to come.

[MarkyMannn]

A truly honest question. I need to be reminded why 80% of the board is so high on this guy.

 

 

Don't forget the same 80% think Youboty is HOF material

 

 

Seriously though he has shown enough to develop into a decent player

[Bill from NYC]

Ko Simpson = Trent Edwards, at least as far as their play and and their following goes. They both played pretty well for mid-round rookies

 

Your point is taken, but the comparison is a total reach. How many qbs in the 07 draft played as well as Edwards (regardless when they were selected) and how many safeties in the 06 draft (regardless of when they were selected) played as well as Simpson?

[Kelly the Dog]

Your point is taken, but the comparison is a total reach. How many qbs in the 07 draft played as well as Edwards (regardless when they were selected) and how many safeties in the 06 draft (regardless of when they were selected) played as well as Simpson?

There were only three rookies who played more than 2-3 games. Edwards, Beck and Matt Moore. Edwards was the only rookie who played half a season and threw significantly more than 100 passes (Matt Moore threw 111, and John Beck 107). Beck was on the worst team in the league. Moore's stats and play was similar to Edwards but he didn't play half as much. There will always be more rookie players at every position than QB. If Edwards were a rookie in 2006 instead of 2007, he probably would have been considered the 4th or 5th best, behind Vince Young, Leinart (who stinks), Jay Cutler, and probably even Bruce Gradowski.

[dave mcbride]

He was a rookie who came out of college early. I may be crazy, but there is a chance that perhaps a 23 year old might, , improve. The Bills going after McCree means nothing. You always need quality depth on the secondary. By the same token, the Bills didn't sign McCree, so maybe that was an indictation of what they thought about Simpson.

 

In 2006, the Bills' defense was 7th in both against the pass and giving up 20+ yards passes. This year, they finished 29th against the pass and 32th at giving up passing plays of 20+ yards. Perhaps, just maybe, losing our starting free safety from 2006 might have caused this huge dropoff.

 

Now, I already know your response. Nate Clements was the real difference in the dropoff. But not so fast my friend. The 49ers were 26th against the pass and 21st in 20+ yards plays in 2006. Thanks to the big money they spent on Clements and Michael Lewis, they improved to a whooping 22nd against the pass and 29th in 20+ yard pass plays in 2007. So perhaps, Nasty Nate might have been a tad overrated.

 

Seriously, there is nothing more wrong than judging a player's rookie season too harshly. Simpson made some really big plays as a rookie and it is obviously that the pass defense was much worse off without him. Let's let the guy play more than one season before we give up on him.

 

I shouldn't speak for Badol, but I'll do it anyway: forget about the stats, which can be highly misleading, and focus on how he plays. He's a long strider who reacts slowly. He's basically a liability at this point, although he has the ability to improve. He'll never overcome his physical limitations, but he can be a decent (at best) starting safety if he improves on his recognition skills.

 

Re: Clements, again, forget about the team stats and watch the games. He was, along with Patrick Willis, a real bright spot this year for the Niners--excellent man skills, and was one of the only guys on the team who could make turnovers that weren't handed to him as gifts.

[Captain Hindsight]

There were only three rookies who played more than 2-3 games. Edwards, Beck and Matt Moore. Edwards was the only rookie who played half a season and threw significantly more than 100 passes (Matt Moore threw 111, and John Beck 107). Beck was on the worst team in the league. Moore's stats and play was similar to Edwards but he didn't play half as much. There will always be more rookie players at every position than QB. If Edwards were a rookie in 2006 instead of 2007, he probably would have been considered the 4th or 5th best, behind Vince Young, Leinart (who stinks), Jay Cutler, and probably even Bruce Gradowski.

If you saw in another thread we can;t use past years. it ruins his logic

[ecgetty]

i don't remember ko missing many "saving" tackles. However, I remember several he made in the open field to end a big play.

[Pyrite Gal]

Simpson and Keith Ellison were equally overhyped as rookie "starters". Contrary to all the glowing remarks I've read here, Ko Simpson was the weak point in the secondary as a rookie and was just plain bad on a defense that couldn't stop anyone in the preseason this past year. IMO, the Bills said what they thought of Simpson when they tried to replace him in free agency by making a run at Marlon McCree. He's not very fast or quick or physical and as a rookie was late getting to the ball. The last part is key, he needs to be prepared and anticipate exceptionally to make up for that lack of great physical skill.

I think that the posts from folks who are frothing at the mouth at how good Simpson is do appear to be simply caught up in the hype of subjective opinion without looking at reality (for example the claim the Bills did not get best deep much or at all in Simpson's one full season is simply incorrect, if one wants the specific games then simply take the time to look at the games in the first half of the season which saw CB McGee get benched to get him to watch the game a little bit to really get an understanding of the Cover 2. The Bills gave up 2 deep TDs to WRs running fly patterns on plays where McGee either missed the switch or simply did not see that both Whitner and Simpson (the two plays were made with each safety having deep coverage which they could not apply in time after McGee cut his coverage off after the shortzone as is customary in the Cover 2. In these two cases the Bills were scored upon on deep throws and actually they were beaten a couple of other times but opposing QBs did not connect (an example was the game against MN where if Johnson and Robinson had connected a win likely would have been a loss.

 

In these two case it was the CB who seemed to get the blame as he was benched, but nevetheless both Simpson andWhitner looked like the rookies they were out there feebly chasing the WR who scored.

 

However, as opposed to reality as this hyperactive endorsement seems to be I think that your extreme indictment of Simpson is simply not borne out by the reality of what happened.

 

In his one full year of football Simpson simply logged a bunch of PT for a defense that though it simply sucked in overall statistics, if was much improved over the 2005 Bills D which operated without the rookies. In the big picture the big stat was that a team which finished 5-11 the previous year improved to finish 7-9. Even with the lousy yardage stat, the Bills as a team with the D a big part of it and Simpson a big part of the D the team was much improved by Simpson's rookie play. Any indictment which complains about his stride or some other subjective point where the views of any fan need to show some proof for anyone to take it seriously if the view is opposed to that the coaches.

 

Folks were correctly psyched about Simpson because since it was a fact demonstrated by the 06 record that the team improved in the ultimate stat W/L with him logging a lot of PT that it was not unreasonable to look forward to seeing how the team did in 07 with him playing at the same level (even if what you claim about his slowness and too long stride is true) with a year of experience.

 

Folks strike me as flat out deluding themselves if they expect this 4th round pick to come back and be the Bills answer to Ronnie Lott. He is not that good nearly. However, it is quite reasonable for them to be psyched about him coming back since his PT in 06 was simply part of a much improved performance by the team.

 

In terms of 07, the results produced by the team was the same 7-9. Its reasonable to look at the particulars from this all important stat though. Overall, though I think it speaks well to the Bills not only looking to improve at FS (hence the interest in McCree) but also looking forward to the heightened competition between a returning Simpson and a developing Wilson.

 

The mistake I think your thinking makes is making a conclusion that the Bills think that the Simpson/Wilson duo is a disappointment that must be replaced because they were looking at McCree. It is true that the Bills can improve at FS as the two players penciled in at this slot are a one season player coming off the IR and a player switched from O to D. The Bills would be stupid not to take any player they think can be better at a reasonable price.

 

However, the fact the Bill did not offer enough to McCree to attract him here actually is testimony to the simple fact the Bills do not view the FS situation as so bad they are willing to pay anything to get in a replacement. The failure to offer more money to McCree is a sign the Bills are correctly looking to improve at FS but in fact do not see this as such a must have that they are willing to pay more than they think FS augmentation is worth. They have done this before at S as the Bills were willing to pay Lawyer Milloy a premium higher than what his play dictated because they were so disatisfied with Coy Wire. The fact they did not sign McCree means they felt good enough about the Simpson/Wilson combo that they were not willing to pay anything at all to get McCree.