Whats the worst thing that the Bills could do

[stinky finger]

Malcolm Kelly, his temper tantrums and shaky knees, at #11

What? No mention of his 40 times?

[/dev/null]

Worst thing the Bills could do is run their draft war room out of the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas

[Búfalo Blanco]

I think most fans feel getting good players is simply getting good players and thus if the Bills come to #11 and a player they had rated in the top 5 or so has some how slipped to them they should take him even if it is not a position of need.

 

However, I think many would be disappointed in a CB choice at #11 because the best CBs available like DRC are in no way elite players (which I define as a top 10 talent). The best CBs are rated as such because they have the talent to cover a WR all over the field. However, since we do not use the CB primarily in this way in our version of the Cover 2, we would simply be spending the #11 resource necessary to pick such a CB, but then we would not use him that way in our D.

 

Perhaps if DRC was an elite talent it might be worth the pick, but he does not appear to be so we would not alter our entire D scheme merely to use him to his maximum potential. Even worse, the main argument for going CB is that our opponents are loading up on vets like Welker and Moss. DRC and in fact any CB which can be had in this draft are not good enough that one should expect them to shutdown a proven vet like a Welker or Moss (even if you were willing to vastly change our scheme merely to get more out of DRC.

 

By far unless a true need to improve our pass protection like an elite pass rusher were to slip to us, the better football move would seem to be to trade down and increase our resources and pick a non-elite DL guy (or even an LB) with a non-elite lower pick.

 

Folks would be disappointed if we took CB or DRC because not only is there a reasonable case to be made that they are a bit of a reach at #11, but then even if you think it is not a reach we would not use these players very well ibn our D. The way we generally employ the CB our pass protection is likely more improved with a second tier rusher than it is by a #11 CB.

 

DRC is not a top talent? What are you on, man?

 

And when are you going to stop saying that our corners don't cover? Jeez.

 

Actually, if you read Pyrite Gal's posts about the Cover-2 scheme, you'd realize her argument makes perfect sense

Here's a sample...

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=994566

 

If the Bills take a CB at 11, I wouldn't think its the worst thing... but it would certainly be a questionable move compared to other options... and their scheme doesn't need the top CB in the draft...

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually, if you read Pyrite Gal's posts about the Cover-2 scheme, you'd realize her argument makes perfect sense

Here's a sample...

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=994566

 

If the Bills take a CB at 11, I wouldn't think its the worst thing... but it would certainly be a questionable move compared to other options... and their scheme doesn't need the top CB in the draft...

Yes, being serious, it wouldn't be that bad, and would mean extra help for our DEs along the lines of the Cover2 point because it gives them more confidence to pin their ears back and not worry as much about what's going on around them regarding the run.

 

However, being silly, drafting a CB will make for a long, long, and very annoying next 4 months due to all the bitching and the requisite 200 threads from the "Draft line, me happy" crowd here. It's as if there are no CBs or WRs in the HOF or something with these guys.

 

Whatever they do, all I can say is: look at the last 2 drafts. Past performance is usually a pretty good guarantee of future performance, and only an idiot would look at the last two drafts and not put each in the top 10 each year, based on what we have seen so far, and they only seem to get better as time goes along (um, Whitner, McCargo).

 

Finally, IIRC, we have a WR named Randy Moss in this division, and I suppose using our #1 pick to address that problem certainly wouldn't be the worst use of that resource. I haven't seen any lineman be able to cover him effectively yet, and, if we go this whole draft(or offseason) without addressing that problem, that to me is the worst thing that can happen.

[Christopher Capolupo]

The worst thing the Bills could do is take an Expert Opinion from someone with Superior Knowledge... but seriously, the worst thing they can do is try to go against their board, never works out.

[ans4e64]

Actually, if you read Pyrite Gal's posts about the Cover-2 scheme, you'd realize her argument makes perfect sense

Here's a sample...

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=994566

 

If the Bills take a CB at 11, I wouldn't think its the worst thing... but it would certainly be a questionable move compared to other options... and their scheme doesn't need the top CB in the draft...

 

Actually, it doesn't, and I've already argued with Pyrite Gal to the death about it, so if you want to know why it doesn't "make perfect sense" then search through my posts.

[Pyrite Gal]

DRC is not a top talent? What are you on, man?

 

And when are you going to stop saying that our corners don't cover? Jeez.

I NEVER said DRC is not a top talent. In fact I think he is the best CB out there.

 

What I did say specifically is that I define ELITE talent as a player who is good enough to get a top 10 selection. I do not think DRC will go in the top ten so therefore by the specific definition I site (rather than simple fact-free opinion) DRC will likely not be an elite player as I am specifically defining them.

 

To make your post even further non-sensical in this light. Since we have pick #11 then either DRC will be there and thus fail to me the definition I was talking about or you are advocating the Bills trade up to get DRC. Which view do you hold?

 

You may define elite players by some other standard and if so then say so.

[Tcali]

draft walt patulski jr.

[Pyrite Gal]

From everything I've read and seen of the kid, it sure seems like he can be elite. He might be a little raw, but his physical tools are the best on a CB we've seen in years.

Again, I define elite as a player who has impressed enough with his talent that he gets picked in the top 10. Sure players who eventually prove to be elite talents in the NFL get picked lower than this (see Tom Brady who merely merited a 6th round pick if you want an example of this). However, I decided upon this standard as I was analyzing for last year's draft and as I began to look back at the 2006 picks and prior I felt there was a drop-off in success (as measured by who of the first round choices were starting in their second year.

 

I have not done the detailed analysis of the 2007 1st round class yet (and please feel free to do this as work may allow me the time before the draft this year) but for the 2006 draft about 50% of first round choices were starters beginning their second camps and there was a sharp bias toward the first 10 picks proving to be successful.

 

Others may disagree and I would love to see their analysis which make the case for a #15, #20 or any first rounder actually reasonably be deemed an elite player. I reserve this moniker for the top 10.

 

If one accepts this thinking then either DRC as a potential Bill will not be an elite player as he is still around at #11 or

a person thinks he is so good he will be taken in the 1st ten picks and he is so valuable to us we should trade up to get him.

 

I think DRC is likely the best CB out there, I simply argue that he deserves that designation in part because he should have the talent to eventually cover the best WRs all over the field (I think most fans do not expect him to shut down a vet like a Welker or Moss as a rookie which in part undercuts the argument that we need him to deal with the threat Welker/Moss et al. provide). The simple fact is that GENERALLY the CB in the Cover 2 as we run it is simply not used to Cover WRs all over the field. They are used for short zone WR coverage and to contain outside rushes.

 

If we choose to spend major resources for a player we will not use to the highest value of that player then so be it, but I think this would be a waste of resources on our part.

[Pyrite Gal]

Actually, if you read Pyrite Gal's posts about the Cover-2 scheme, you'd realize her argument makes perfect sense

Here's a sample...

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...st&p=994566

 

If the Bills take a CB at 11, I wouldn't think its the worst thing... but it would certainly be a questionable move compared to other options... and their scheme doesn't need the top CB in the draft...

Thanks.

 

You are right that picking a CB at #11 would not be the worse thing. However, it would not be a pick that does the most for improving our past protection and production. Ironically, perhaps the best thing we could do to improve the performance of our pass D in real measurable terms may actually be to draft offensive players who help us avoid so many 3 and outs and simply reduce th # of first downs our D gives up by keeping the opposing offense off the field.

 

Despite my repetitive posting, some folks still choose to interpret what I am saying as some blanket statement that our CBs do not cover the pass. THE CB's DO PASS COVERAGE FOR US, HOWEVER, DEEP PASS COVERAGE IS NOT THERE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COVER 2 AS WE EMPLOY IT.

 

Our CBs perform:

 

1. Short zone pass coverage as they actually turn the WR over to the safeties on the wing or to the MLB over the middle once they get to 12-15 yards down the field. If someone is interested in improving our pass protection against WRs all over the field or on deep throws, they should be far more interested in improving:

 

A. our pass rush so there is no time to run the deep route

B. our safety play because they will primarily do the mid to deep WR coverage

C. our offense so we have fewer three and outs.

 

All three of these aspects of the game are much more vital to good pass protection for the Bills than getting a better CB.

 

2. Containment and tackling of outside rush threats. Our CB needs to make good reads so he is not dropping back on outside runs to his side or pinching in when the QB is looking into the shortzone for the WR.

 

3. The CB blitz- as our CBs generally do not have deep duty, the formation allows them to do more CB blitzes.

 

4. From time to time, we will run a more traditional coverage and the CB will in fact need to run with the WR on a fly pattern. However, I think this formation and utilization is by far the exception rather than the rule and though our CBs may not be good enough to consistently cover a WR running fly patterns all day, it is a different thing when a CB only has to show this ability from time to time.

 

Even if we do not feel good about Greer, McGee, or Youbouty on the fly pattern generally, we do have the ability if the coverage demands that the CB cover the deep pass we can line the CB up a few steps back off the line so he need not run continually or keep up with the WR. Further, when the coverage calls for the CB to go deep it is possible for us to supplement this package with the safety still backing the CB up deep,

 

Yes, the CB will need to sometime do deep coverage in our D but this still is the exception rather than the rule.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

Thanks.

 

You are right that picking a CB at #11 would not be the worse thing. However, it would not be a pick that does the most for improving our past protection and production. Ironically, perhaps the best thing we could do to improve the performance of our pass D in real measurable terms may actually be to draft offensive players who help us avoid so many 3 and outs and simply reduce th # of first downs our D gives up by keeping the opposing offense off the field.

 

Despite my repetitive posting, some folks still choose to interpret what I am saying as some blanket statement that our CBs do not cover the pass. THE CB's DO PASS COVERAGE FOR US, HOWEVER, DEEP PASS COVERAGE IS NOT THERE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COVER 2 AS WE EMPLOY IT.

 

Our CBs perform:

 

1. Short zone pass coverage as they actually turn the WR over to the safeties on the wing or to the MLB over the middle once they get to 12-15 yards down the field. If someone is interested in improving our pass protection against WRs all over the field or on deep throws, they should be far more interested in improving:

 

A. our pass rush so there is no time to run the deep route

B. our safety play because they will primarily do the mid to deep WR coverage

C. our offense so we have fewer three and outs.

 

All three of these aspects of the game are much more vital to good pass protection for the Bills than getting a better CB.

 

2. Containment and tackling of outside rush threats. Our CB needs to make good reads so he is not dropping back on outside runs to his side or pinching in when the QB is looking into the shortzone for the WR.

 

3. The CB blitz- as our CBs generally do not have deep duty, the formation allows them to do more CB blitzes.

 

4. From time to time, we will run a more traditional coverage and the CB will in fact need to run with the WR on a fly pattern. However, I think this formation and utilization is by far the exception rather than the rule and though our CBs may not be good enough to consistently cover a WR running fly patterns all day, it is a different thing when a CB only has to show this ability from time to time.

 

Even if we do not feel good about Greer, McGee, or Youbouty on the fly pattern generally, we do have the ability if the coverage demands that the CB cover the deep pass we can line the CB up a few steps back off the line so he need not run continually or keep up with the WR. Further, when the coverage calls for the CB to go deep it is possible for us to supplement this package with the safety still backing the CB up deep,

 

Yes, the CB will need to sometime do deep coverage in our D but this still is the exception rather than the rule.

 

 

I generally agree with what you laid out here, but perhaps point four is key. Perhaps, if the Bills had a "shutdown corner" they could mix up coverages more, and be more adaptable to an opposing offenses' adjustments. Like say an OC, or QB is adept at picking apart the Cover 2, or their playmakers' skills matchup to the Cover 2 (good route- runners), the versatility could be very beneficial.

[OCinBuffalo]

In all cases, as a guy who was sitting in the end zone at the Ralph watching the Pats* run crossing route after crossing route against us, and as soon as we had the right d package in there to stop that, they ran fly/post/out routes against us, I would say that we first and foremost needed a better pass rush going into the off-season. But it sure as hell doesn't begin or end there.

 

After all, a real crossing pattern, especially one that starts on the left side WR spot and ends with the guy catching the ball on the right side slot position, obviously takes time to develop. Also, we can't have our guys getting caught in "no man's land" between the line of scrimmage(and 5 yards back) and 10+ yards beyond the LOS, as we were that entire home game against the Pats*.

 

So what's left?

 

Either we get a real pass rush that was similar to the Giants' and not let them wait around for those crossing routes to develop, or, we go get guys who can cover premier WRs all over the field.

 

Hopefully, if we have any intention of not getting crushed at home again, we do both, because a great pass rush only gets you so far when you have a system QB like Brady throwing 7 yard outs to RBs and TEs. Therefore, we need to have good CBs covering/jumping/bumping those routes off, or this whole "pass rush" concept is a huge wast of our time.

 

It's nice to think that D line can save everything, but that is a pipe dream. Just ask the vaunted Pats* D line who contributed exactly 0 in stopping Manning on the last drive of the SB. And seriously, what could they really have done differently?

 

Either we have the guys that can stay with the Pat's Wrs, Cover 2 or any other formation, during the entire 60 minutes, or we don't, and D lineman , or O line, will not change that.

[obie_wan]

In all cases, as a guy who was sitting in the end zone at the Ralph watching the Pats* run crossing route after crossing route against us, and as soon as we had the right d package in there to stop that, they ran fly/post/out routes against us, I would say that we first and foremost needed a better pass rush going into the off-season. But it sure as hell doesn't begin or end there.

 

After all, a real crossing pattern, especially one that starts on the left side WR spot and ends with the guy catching the ball on the right side slot position, obviously takes time to develop. Also, we can't have our guys getting caught in "no man's land" between the line of scrimmage(and 5 yards back) and 10+ yards beyond the LOS, as we were that entire home game against the Pats*.

 

So what's left?

 

Either we get a real pass rush that was similar to the Giants' and not let them wait around for those crossing routes to develop, or, we go get guys who can cover premier WRs all over the field.

 

Hopefully, if we have any intention of not getting crushed at home again, we do both, because a great pass rush only gets you so far when you have a system QB like Brady throwing 7 yard outs to RBs and TEs. Therefore, we need to have good CBs covering/jumping/bumping those routes off, or this whole "pass rush" concept is a huge wast of our time.

 

It's nice to think that D line can save everything, but that is a pipe dream. Just ask the vaunted Pats* D line who contributed exactly 0 in stopping Manning on the last drive of the SB. And seriously, what could they really have done differently?

 

Either we have the guys that can stay with the Pat's Wrs, Cover 2 or any other formation, during the entire 60 minutes, or we don't, and D lineman , or O line, will not change that.

 

 

yo,ace-

 

that's the point.

 

if you have CB that can cover allover the field, but you r defense has them locked in zone on 1 side of the field,- it is a major waste of resources to pay for a top flight cover CB.

 

To play man effectively, you will need top flight CBs to cover all of the NE WRs or else your weak CB will get picked on and toasted. - thereby again wasting your big cost, top flight cover CB.

 

Impact defenders for the front 7 that can stop the run and rush the passer is the priority.

 

 

 

 

.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Worst things they could do:

 

10. Get beamed up by aliens

9. Collective amnesia

8. Ride their Harley helmetless and get hit by a taxi on the way to MSG

7. Draft Durant Brooks at #11

6. Oversleep

5. Trade their entire draft to move up to #10 and pick Durant Brooks

4. Take vacation in the Caymans

3. Go to see the Statue of Liberty

2. Blow off work to spend the day with 'Kristin' and friends

1. Give credence to fans opinions

[Astrobot]

Up until now, this was the most intelligent thread of the last month!!!

It was a great topic, and Great reading!

[NFLBighits]

My Take would be Not Drafting Limas Sweed!!! At the 11th Spot!!!

[Orton's Arm]

In all cases, as a guy who was sitting in the end zone at the Ralph watching the Pats* run crossing route after crossing route against us, and as soon as we had the right d package in there to stop that, they ran fly/post/out routes against us, I would say that we first and foremost needed a better pass rush going into the off-season. But it sure as hell doesn't begin or end there.

 

After all, a real crossing pattern, especially one that starts on the left side WR spot and ends with the guy catching the ball on the right side slot position, obviously takes time to develop. Also, we can't have our guys getting caught in "no man's land" between the line of scrimmage(and 5 yards back) and 10+ yards beyond the LOS, as we were that entire home game against the Pats*.

 

So what's left?

 

Either we get a real pass rush that was similar to the Giants' and not let them wait around for those crossing routes to develop, or, we go get guys who can cover premier WRs all over the field.

 

Hopefully, if we have any intention of not getting crushed at home again, we do both, because a great pass rush only gets you so far when you have a system QB like Brady throwing 7 yard outs to RBs and TEs. Therefore, we need to have good CBs covering/jumping/bumping those routes off, or this whole "pass rush" concept is a huge wast of our time.

 

It's nice to think that D line can save everything, but that is a pipe dream. Just ask the vaunted Pats* D line who contributed exactly 0 in stopping Manning on the last drive of the SB. And seriously, what could they really have done differently?

 

Either we have the guys that can stay with the Pat's Wrs, Cover 2 or any other formation, during the entire 60 minutes, or we don't, and D lineman , or O line, will not change that.

You express yourself well; and I agree with everything you've written, at least up to a point. The one thing I'd like to add is this: suppose you know that you have mediocre CBs, and suppose you know your pass rush will take 5 seconds to reach the QB. In that case, it would make sense for your CBs to give the receivers big cushions; so that at least you'd be less likely to be beaten deep. But if your pass rush can put the QB on his back in 2.5 seconds or less, those mediocre CBs can afford to be more aggressive in defending the underneath stuff, because there won't be time for the QB to beat them deep.

 

Despite this, good CBs are valuable to a defense, for exactly the reasons you've described. In the above scenario, good CBs would be valuable, because they'd do a better job of defending the underneath stuff, and a better job of defending the deep pass if the pass rush didn't get there on time. Good DL and good CBs are important, and a good DL is even more important.

 

I'm hoping the Bills' draft picks meet the below criteria, in this order:

1. The players should be better than you'd expect given their draft position

2. The players should be at positions of need (I don't want a first day pick used on a running back!)

3. The intention should be for the picks to spend their entire careers here. (I don't want another first round, first contract and out CB.)

4. The players should be at positions which take a while to learn in the NFL

 

I feel the Bills are two good drafts away from being a serious Super Bowl contender. Of the Bills' needs, some are at positions that take a while to learn (C, WR, TE, etc.) while a few are at positions that can be mastered more quickly (DL). If possible, it would be best to get the positions in the first category taken care of with this draft, so that those players will be ready to play at a high level come 2009. For example, the Bills could do the following:

 

2008 (trade down in first round)

1. (#17 overall) Limas Sweed

2a. C (Pollack)

2b. TE

3. CB

4. FB

5. QB

6 - 7 special teams guys, depth, best player available

 

2009

1. DL

 

What about the rest of the first day picks in 2009? Odds are they'll be necessary to fill needs which aren't obvious today. In the happy event the Bills only have one real hole (at DL), they could always trade up to take a DL that's higher on their boards. If everything went according to plan, the Bills could find themselves in serious Super Bowl contention come 2009; and could remain in contention for the next several years to come.

[Búfalo Blanco]

Actually, it doesn't, and I've already argued with Pyrite Gal to the death about it, so if you want to know why it doesn't "make perfect sense" then search through my posts.

Seeing as how you've already "argued with Pyrite Gal to the death" on the finer points of the Cover-2, I will not go into that debate any further... If you can't agree with her about the scheme, then I'm certainly not going to change your mind... I will go back and read some of your arguments...

 

However, I will say that if a CB is taken at 11, and that CB develops into an all-pro, then based on the current history of CBs in free agency, that all-pro is going to be very difficult to re-sign in his prime.... a smaller market team may lose that player in 5 years...

 

But in the spirit of this thread's point, I will say again that drafting a CB at 11 would not be the worst thing... I just don't believe it is the most productive thing they could do...

 

The worst thing they could do is draft a RB, QB, or S at #11...

 

Thanks.

 

You are right that picking a CB at #11 would not be the worse thing. However, it would not be a pick that does the most for improving our past protection and production. Ironically, perhaps the best thing we could do to improve the performance of our pass D in real measurable terms may actually be to draft offensive players who help us avoid so many 3 and outs and simply reduce th # of first downs our D gives up by keeping the opposing offense off the field.

Good point... and although I'd rather see them trade down before choosing an offensive weapon, a trade down may not be that easy... In addition, this regime has shown in the last two years that they are not afraid to "reach" for the player they want... Considering their last two "reaches", Whitner and Lynch, I'm fine with them taking whatever WR they deem their favorite... But the pundits will have a bloodthirsty feast if that favorite "reach" WR ends up being the "can do no right" Malcolm Kelly... It would be interesting to say the least....

 

they should be far more interested in improving:

 

A. our pass rush so there is no time to run the deep route

B. our safety play because they will primarily do the mid to deep WR coverage

C. our offense so we have fewer three and outs.

 

All three of these aspects of the game are much more vital to good pass protection for the Bills than getting a better CB.

I've said all along that my greatest hope is Sedrick Ellis falls to 11... But if he's gone, his teammate Keith Rivers could fall, and he may not be the "luxury" pick some think he would be... He could replace Angelo Crowell, a possible free-agent loss next offseason... which could very well happen if the Bills negotiate a rich extension with Evans... Either of these USC guys would help bolster the front seven for years... As you said, improving the pass rush is a priority, so a guy like Harvey looks like an interesting pick too...

 

But again, if they get their offensive weapon at 11, fewer three and outs certainly will help rest a cover-2 defense that is predicated on speed...

[KD in CA]

Draft a Chargers cheerleader at #11.

 

 

Then again...the Jills need upgrading almost as much as the pass rush.

[Realist]

So it sounds like the fans will be disappointed if we draft a CB, DL, LB, WR, and there won't be any OL good enough for #11, so that leaves QB and RB. Git 'er done!!