Leonidas

Well, a standard cover 2 might refer to the coverage, but the Tampa 2 - when it is employed - refers to the entire scheme and doesn't generally employ blitzes. And I'm not surprised that we use cover 3, but when do we use cover 4 besides 3rd and very long??

Ignoring your sarcasm, the pressure generally has to come from the defensive line as your linebackers drop back into their zones. Tampa was successful with this because of Simeon Rice and Warren Sapp. Indy was/is successful with this because of Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis. We are relying on...Chris Kelsay and Ryan Denney.

Now wait just a second, Dean. So those us who find Rosenhaus a slimy, despicable human being are now "brain dead"???

You do know how the Tampa 2 is run, right?

No they don't! Name one not named Jordan Gross and Jake Long. None of you people should ever run a franchise. You have no idea what negotiations are. Frankly, $9-10M is FAR too much money for him as is, and if not for the Long contract - and just recently the Gross contract - the number would be much smaller. Funny how you can't compare his salary to Walter Jones or Matt Light or D'Brickashaw Furgueson or Bryant McKinnie or Ryan Clady or Joe Staley or Tony Ugoh. Is Peters categorically better than every one of them? NO!! Ship his ass out and replace him. These contracts are getting absurd.

That's just a lie. Picking an OT in the first round or two has significantly higher results than picking any of the other "90" that were allegedly drafted (it's probably more like 50, including 6th and 7th round scrubs). You could seriously play hardball with him and just not offer him a new contract, forcing him to play out his final two years. Then you could franchise him which, by that point, will probably amount to about $8M/year, give or take. Then you could trade him. I doubt the Bills want that kind of distraction though. Oh, and sacks were a "pseudo-stat" until 1982. Were those irrelevant in the 70's??? ummm...okay? I mean, you're wrong, but I won't argue. This is completely irrelevant. Both players will be taken in the top seven. Yeah, Jason Peters = Bruce Smith. Good argument. "Just pay him" and then wonder why the Bills franchise is unsustainable as having the lowest ticket prices in the league and watch us drift back into salary cap hell. "Just cut Chris Kelsay." It doesn't work that way, sorry.

Yes, in total defense we went from 31st to 14th. But how much of that is owed to the improved play at CB? Or the weak offenses we faced? I'm sorry, but Stroud didn't come in and shut down the run a la Pat Williams. I'm not thrilled about this deal.

I don't think first day draft pick offensive linemen are as much a coin flip as they are an educated guess. And if Peters gets traded we'll have more guesses. The consensus seems to be a first and third for Peters, giving us picks at #11, #21/28, #42, #75, #85 in the first three rounds, needing to fill spots at DE, OL, OLB, and TE. I still don't know why we haven't signed Kendall Simmons yet, but I think that needs to be done (in addition to signing an OLB like Keiaho or Brooks). Assuming E. Brown is taken at #11, with Philly's pick Oher, Beatty, and Britton should all be around - take your pick. With the second pick, Mack/Unger would probably still be there. That leaves a TE (Coffman?) and an OLB (McRath out of Southern Miss? Cody Brown out of Connecticut?) in the third. This is definitely do-able.

This isn't even a discussion, though. Magox's concerns are legitimate and more than enough to rule a guy out who's position you don't need at all. We've got what, seven WR's on the roster now? Even when T.O. inevitably leaves after the season we still have a plethora of potentially very good WR's. The Bills aren't pulling the trigger on Crabtree. Their offensive line is falling apart, their defensive line couldn't get around my grandmother and her new hip. WR is the position we are deepest at, even beyond CB.

That's the problem: it didn't. In 2007 we were 25th in the league in rush defense. In 2008, without arguably our worst lineman against the run (Schobel) we were 22nd. We went from giving up 124.6 YPG and 15 TD's to 121.6 YPG and 18 rushing TD's. I like Stroud and all, but I just don't see where he's helped our rush defense all that much, and if your "stud" DT doesn't do that I'm not sure why he deserves all that money. I know everyone here is applauding the move just because they are paying a player who shows up and doesn't sit out and pout, but did he deserve it? I guess we'll see this year. If we're 12th in the league against the run then he certainly was. But I fear that this was another Chris Kelsay extension, perhaps to a lesser degree.

Great call. Why did we let Dick LeBeau go after only half a season????

Fair enough. But what if he doesn't turn into Larry Fitzgerald. What about the very real possibility he turns into Marcus Robinson? Or, at worst, Mike Williams (WR, obvi)? Or Charles Rogers? Remember, both Rogers and Mike Williams dominated at WR in college. It's not like Crabtree is a lock by any means. Knowing that, you absolutely have to address the positions of need. If you don't like a particular player and a particular spot (i.e. if the FO isn't high on Brown they can certainly pass on him at #11) then you don't have to take him, but don't go off the charts and pick a WR when that is legitimately the position you are deepest at.

Sacks weren't a stat until 1982. Your whole "isn't a stat" argument is irrelevant. Having "some issues" in pass protection?? Hahahaha, yeah, you could say that. Not my problem. Not the Bills problem, the fans, or his teammates' (although it became his teammates' problem when his play deteriorated). If you choose not to honor your contract and then your play deteriorates from said defiance then that is your problem. I'm not sure if there was a season Pace did report on time, but that never hurt his play. I know Orlando Pace, and Jason, you are no Orlando Pace. And yes, Peters made some good plays. But that's the thing about playing offensive line. If you give up a sack every game - just one play in every game - you can't cut it in this league. Too bad he had three years left on his deal. Holding out was the wrong move. The reason teams like Philly and New England have a zero tolerance policy for holdouts is because once you cave to one you invite more people to hold out on you. And I think you've got Peters confused with a Pace/Ogden type. Peter was considered one of the best young tackles in the game meaning teams liked him for what he did but even more for his potential, since he's so young. But he doesn't have the pedigree, he wasn't even drafted out of college, and only had one solid year at LT previously. So yes, as one of the best young tackles in the game he was underpaid. He could have worked out a deal as the season went along (a la Lee Evans), or he could have played out one more season (to tally a total of two at LT) and would have certainly gotten a new deal this year. But now he's burned his bridges with management, fans, and possibly some of his teammates all the while having the audacity to ask to be the highest paid lineman in the league, as if he comes anywhere close to deserving it. Get real. Also, Fred Jackson isn't holding out. If you actually read some of the other posts (or by chance been more familiar with the CBA) you'd realize he hasn't signed his tender and therefore would be violating union rules by attending voluntary workouts. It does, you're not actually sorry that it does, and it also doesn't make any sense. Do you think if Trent has a solid year he's going to mind making less than $1M year while is above average LT is making twelve times that much?? Are you serious?? Do you think his teammates give a sh-- about the Pro Bowl? Only you and a handful of idiots do. What kind of precedent does this set?? Everyone who busts their ass on defense and brings the unit up to the #14(?) ranked defense in the league sees a guy who skips every single manadatory workout until the regular season, comes in and plays below average, and gets a $60M raise?? And that doesn't affect what every other player thinks their worth?? Are you insane?? Oh wait, it's all about Pro Bowls, I forgot. It reminds me of the 2003(?) baseball season when Nomar Garciaparra was leading the All-Star voting at SS despite missing every game up to that point. I guess if he had made it the Red Sox front office should have cut him a check. So when the cap is gone, the team in the smallest market should just spend wildly on all it's players?? That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard (well, today). As a fan of a small market club, you should be very concerned about uncapped seasons past 2010 and 2011 and hope for a new CBA to be signed soon. Ever watch baseball? Do you remember the last time the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals were competitive?? I don't.

Actually, if I do recall, I think Kiper (maybe it was McShay? I forget) was saying there were no WR's worth a first round pick, but he was predicting a few reaches (one of them was Dallas taking Hardy with their second pick). I wasn't all that surprised, none of the WR's stood out. Devin Thomas only really played one year. Malcolm Kelly was kind of slow. Hardy couldn't get off the bump. Sweed had injury concerns. Jackson was too small.

That's not what it's about. It's about building a better football team. If Crabtree turns into Larry Fitzgerald and Orapko/Brown turn into Schobel but help you win football games (and hopefully playoff games) then that's what matters. It doesn't matter how many superstar WR's you have, if you can't protect your QB and have no pass rush you will lose games. That's why New England - who passed on Moss in the '99 draft - is a perennial winner and Oakland - who I think drafts solely on 40 times - is a perennial loser.

Was this the same guy who said we had good depth with Brandon Rodd??

Sorry, I didn't see the part about Jason Taylor You're right, if Jason Taylor was to sign and we were to draft Raji (who I'll admit I haven't seen much of, but everyone seems to think he'll be a beast) we'd have one of the most dominating defensive lines in the league. I thought you meant with just Kelsay/Denney/Schobel/Ellis...

This isn't news: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...86426&st=80

No argument there. Another reason why trading to 25 - if the right offer was made - might not be a bad idea at all. You could pick up a plethora of offensive and defensive linemen with picks at #25, #42, #56, #75, and #87. I...assume you're joking? We've got arguable the worst pass rushing DE's in the league. B.J. Raji doesn't change that.

haha, do you live in East Buffalo?? Totally agree, unless they were targeting different players than we are. But you can't do it hoping you can just jump in front of Atlanta, agreed. But if they are targeting Ayers, a G/C in the second, and Coffman in the third (for arguments' sake) then this would be a phenomenal trade. Netting an extra second and third could really help solidify the offensive line and maybe even the LB corps (as I am not sold on this Alvin Bowen guy at all). Agreed?

...which would make him the best lineman ever...

The problem is, who do you grab at #25? Pettigrew is all but gone at #24 to Atlanta. The top DE's are gone. I guess Ayers is still around, but I don't really want him anyhow. Michael Johnson is probably there but I'm cold on him after watching some "highlights" of him. It's too early to grab a Nelson, Cook, or Coffman. They'd have to throw in another pick (a third, or a second in '10) to make it worth it (even the draft chart agrees with me there). Then we could jump in front of Atlanta (moving ahead two spots) with just a fifth-round pick and grab the top TE.

Here's to hoping you're wrong, but afraid that you're right. What, that you should chew before you swallow?? That rocks aren't edible?? I think his point is that a) Peters didn't earn it, and b) $12M/year is enough to pay several contract extensions. And I agree with him.

He's also demanding somewhere around 4-5x more than what Peters is. And Jackson more than filled his role last year as the #2 (and potential #1) RB; Peters sh-- the bed at LT. It still blows my mind that people who supposedly watched the games didn't notice this. Bottom line is, if you offered Jackson a deal somewhere around 3 years/$9M there's no way he turns it down (beyond the standard agent negotiations and such). Peters wants, what, six years/$70M? There are a whole host of reasons not to pay him including a) his level of play in '08, b) what it does to the payscale for the rest of the team, c) what it does to the salary cap, and d) what it does from a future negotiating standpoint. THAT is why I think it's time to say bye-bye to the latest JP (sorry for sort of turning this into a Peters thread). One interesting thing is that as an RFA - someone correct me if I'm wrong - if we tender him this year, then someone swings in next year and signs him to a contract of a certain dollar value (this year's was $2.2M - I'm not sure what it's based on) then we get a first round pick as compensation. That could preclude the team from signing him to a long-term deal. If that is the FO's strategy - a strategy I like, personally - they could still pay him more THIS year than the $460,000 tender but would probably wait until after signing the rookies to offer it to him. Remember, Freddy J. is 28. Once RB's hit about 30 or 31 they're just about done. Marshawn is 22. He is the future at RB. Parlaying Jackson into a 2010 first round pick would be a brilliant move by the FO. Well, those guys at least proved it in college. When you come in as an undrafted free agent you don't have that luxury. And the rookie pay scale will be addressed before the new CBA is signed. Nobody wants a top five pick anymore because it's too expensive and that needs to be addressed. haha, I was trying to remember who that bum was!

He has nine sacks in four years, only three last season. Pass.