CookieG

He posts on our site now. Thanks for the gift. I hate you all.

I didn't know that about Miller. The 1978 draft looked great on paper. Miller ran through a number of very good D's in the Big 8 (at the time). On defense, Knox said he wanted guys who were strong, fast and mean. Hardison and Hutchinson seemed to fit the bill. They were better than what we had, since the run D was about as bad as it was last season. But something seemed to be missing. Other than the eventual trade-and-Kelly-pick, the other thing that took the sting out of the Cousineau debacle was the drafting of Smerlas and Haslett. Like Hardison and Hutchinson, they were strong, fast and mean. UnlikeHardison and Hutchinson, they made a difference. The D improved to about average their first year, and went to No. 1 in the league the next. I said it at the time, and still say it, I'm not sure Cousineau would have started in front of either Haslett or Nelson on the inside.

I strongly doubt that. This is one game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_VBKVmhyAo Missouri did the same thing to him. Put speed on him and he's in serious trouble. His tech is atrocious, he stands straight up on pass protection. I'm sure there are more than one O-line coach who believe they can fix him. I'm not so sure.

That's who I'd pick too. They were the worst running team in the league the year before, and he put up nearly 1200 yards and 11 TD's (and 1600 yards from scrimmage). A hard running do-it-all little guy who made people forget Terry Miller really quick.

I think he has him rated as a DT. He has him rated at No. 1.

Using Fairley as 3-4 DE, at least as a 2 gap DE, would be as big of a waste as when Oakland put Warren Sapp at DE. Can he hold his ground? Maybe, even probably. But he's at his best when he's in the backfield, shooting through a gap. Its what he does. Silly to squander talent on a stupid scheme. That said, I'm not sure about his work ethic, as most do.

You can watch some of his games here: http://www.youtube.com/user/JoshMTD Here's what I saw after watching him against Bama, Texas A and M and Auburn Big, very fast, very good at keeping a receiver at the line. On the other hand, I saw about 5 passes that were thrown in tight coverage to him. No ints, no pb's, 4 completions. That was actually disappointing for a guy that's supposed to be the best DB of the last decade. He can be beat with regularity on a comeback route. In run support, his ability to get off a blocking WR is average. For a guy that's 225lbs...below average. He needs A LOT of coaching in that area..there were times watching him when I'm thinking "If I'm this guy's coach, I'm gonna be screaming at him on the sideline. Get off the damn WR and make the tackle!". In taking angles and hitting, he's no Ronnie Lott, Troy P or Bob Sanders. He did get dragged 10 yards by Cam Newton though. Someone in this thread made the Donte Whitner comparison in run support, and it isn't too far off. I don't see him making our run game any better. In 3 games I saw 0 big plays. 6'1" DB's that run a 4.2 don't grow on trees, but he has a lot of work to do. For a guy that runs a 4.2 and plays close to the line, you'd expect more plays at the LOS. For a guy 225lbs. you'd expect him to get off a WR better.

Use the Planet Theory to your advantage.

well, there's only been 4 DB's taken in the Top 5 in the last decade (Berry, Taylor, Newman and Jammer. Of course, the Bills only had one top 5 pick during that period, or the percentage would be a lot higher.

He was terrible with the Chiefs, didn't play much again until this year with the Jags. I doubt he's gotten any better.

The problem is we're not talking about drafting a 70's rated player vs. a 90's rated player. You're really talking about, depending on who is doing the rating....you may be talking about taking a 95 in a position of non-need vs. taking a 90 rated player in a position of need. Fairley Bowers Dareus Each can be dominant if used correctly and if they play to their potential. As with every top 5 pick, each comes with a bust factor. Fairley has the Warren Sapp first step and can take over a game, like he did in the NC game. He comes with a bust factor, probably higher than the other 2. Bowers looks to have the big DE athleticism of Mario Williams or Julius Peppers. If you watch him, he can hold his ground against a RT, but is better getting in the backfield. Dareus can be used in a number of positions, can definitely hold his own in a 2 gap system, but for a guy that strong, has the ability to get in the backfield and move laterally very well. I'm really curious as to how each tests out at the Combine, but these aren't average players. The key is finding the least lazy one and then using him correctly.

Good. I nailed it on Bradford and Suh too, if it makes you feel any better. I thought the 300 lb. statement was kinda strange too. Almost sounds like something Dick Jauron would say.

I think they did try to trade up for Rothlesberger. But that was a Rooney call. They were planning on drafting an OL, but Rooney said he always regretted passing on Marino and didn't want to do it again.

No, I don't think I am. On the other hand, I question whether some know what makes a player elite, outside of what they read in draft reports.

They considered Whitner an elite talent, that's why they drafted him at 8. He was supposed to be the Troy P, Bob Sanders guy they were looking for. Nagata was passed over due to the uber stupid theory of "he doesn't fit our scheme". The problem was both of the top DT's were off the board towards the end of the round, and they considered McCargo the best before a big drop off, as well as his quick first step being "better fitted for our scheme" (there it is again.). The problem the Bills have had is...when they are evaluating elite prospects, they always gravitate towards the little guy. There's always that little guy with the measurables that are too good to pass up. It has been going on for 10 years. It comes partly due to not knowing what makes a big guy elite. I think some just look at it as "well, he's 6'5" and 300 lbs., he should be able to play." It doesn't work that way. That's why we keep choosing mediocre big guys in later rounds and watch them rarely come through. If you watch a Dareus, you see a guy with an extremely powerful lower body coupled with the first step quickness that isn't seen every day. More importantly, you've got a guy with lateral quickness for someone that is 300+. Suh's lateral speed may be once in a decade, but I can say that Dareus' lateral quickness doesn't come along every year. He's also a guy with the versatility to move easily from DT to DE. That type of versatility doesn't come along every year either. Based on physical gifts, he's far from mediocre, and on physical talent alone, I'd use the word "elite". It'd be nice if we took an elite talent in a big guy for a change.

2 of the 4 listed (Rice and Holmes) went to the defending SB champion the year they were drafted. San Fransisco had won 2 SB's in the 80's before Rice was drafted in 85. The Steelers won a SB in Swann's rookie year, when he accumulated 200 yards in receptions. Would the 49er's have won a SB without Rice? Well yeah, they did. Twice. Would the Steelers have won a SB without Holmes? Well yeah, they did. That doesn't disparage any of those mentioned, and 2 of the 4 (Rice and Swann) are 2 of my all time favorites. But to pretend that drafting them was the reason their teams went to the SB isn't factually correct.

You can add Brian Waters to that list. When Haley first came on, Waters asked for a meeting to see where the team was headed. Haley blew him off. Waters asked some of the Cards vets what they thought of him and they hated him. he begged for a trade, but Pioli wouldn't allow it. His defense sucked until he brought in Crennel, probably his second smartest move after bringing in Weis. Like a good owner, he really needs to bring in good assistants and stay out of their way.

Depending on what they've uncovered as evidence, the "daddy working for a major sports network" is really a pretty good angle, from a legal perspective, to show actual malice. With Times v. Sullivan protection...public figure cases are never easy. But if they can show how much crybaby Craig James influenced their reporting, malice is there. That's what makes it different from many other cases, the key employee of the defendant with a grudge to bear. It will be an interesting case.

No, guys like him don't come around every year, or every decade. He just happened to come around at the same time as Reggie White. There haven't been 2 with the combination of speed and power as those two since...well, forever. After LT became a star, every year you would hear about the "next Lawrence Taylor". Some good players, Bisquit, Derrick Thomas, and some busts...Aundray Bruce, Duane Bickett, Quentin Coryatt, etc. None ever were, but there were also comparisons. But the comparison seemed to be an annual thing for a while. But you rarely heard anyone talk about "the next Bruce Smith" or "the next Reggie White". There were none who were worthy of the comparison. Just a whole different level.

Its also what a Matt Millen-led team looks like. Why are you so sure it isn't the latter?

Of course it wouldn't have happened. Why grab an OL in the first 3 rounds when you can get some schmuck in the 7th, and tell everyone how much of a steal the guy is.

He might not if we had taken some of the other Ravens' picks we passed on: Oher taken 12 spots after Maybin Flacco taken 8 spots after McKelvin Grubbs taken 16 spots after Lynch LeRon McClain taken 16 spots after Dwayne Wright Ngata taken 4 spots after Whitner Chris Chester taken 30 spots after McCargo Ozzie must just laugh every year. "OK, let's see who the Bills need and just take the guy they should have taken." Taking all of the picks we passed on and later selected by the Ravens, our O line would be Oher Levitre Wood Grubbs Chester (or another RT) We'd also have a Pro Bowl defensive lineman and our QB of the present and future. They did beat us to the punch by taking Yanda a few picks before we took Edwards, but why do I have the feeling that wouldn't have happened anyways.

Edwards doesn't seem to be much of a blitzer, and its strange that I thought the whole reason for the change to the 3-4 was so they could blitz easier. But I agree, they have to try something. One thing I noticed is that they are getting killed by cutback runs. Even players on the D line are saying that they are losing gap control and that is how the cutbacks are happening. There are several reasons for this. A guy like Spencer Johnson is getting killed at the point of attack, especially when he double teamed. The Jets had a field day with him. Other times, guys are over pursuing and LB's are getting caught in junk inside. They aren't disengaging, and they aren't holding their gap either. If it is me I try something like this: I go back to the 4-3, just because you have more quality DL than you do linebackers; I move the LB back a yard or 2. They're mostly playing around 3 yards off and they aren't getting off their blocks. I stack all three, since none are very good at taking on an OL, and hope this gives them a better chance at getting free. Moving them back a yard or 2 gives them a little better chance in pass coverage, something they've been burned at too. I'll still overbalance the line if there's a good guess as to which side the O is going to; And yes, blitz, lots of it. You can blitz from that formation, ask the late Jim Johnson. And one last thing...Whitner...Jesus...you've been burned at least twice for 2 big runs in the last 2 games. LT left your jock on the field against the Jets, and MJD burned you for 23 yards against Jax. On the MJD run, you comepletely bit on a play to the hole (which was covered), he bounced it outside and ran by you. You're a safety, not an LB, play like one. You are the last line of defense...do...not...let...a..RB....get...past...you. Pay freaking attention do what you're doing and know your freaking role.

It depends on how you define "bad" or "worst". Do you like a peak and valley or do you like a long term flat line? I'm a little too young to remember the pre 1973 years, except to say that I knew they were bad, and no doubt looked hopeless. But the bad years of the 70's and early 80's were at least broken up by a few playoff appearances, and at least an offense that was tolerable to watch during the few good years. The 73-75 teams at least had the best running game in the league, and the 80-82 teams could compete with the best teams in the league. At least when Saban and Knox came in, you could at least expect a change in things, if only temporarily. We've spent the past 10 years being "2-3 years away". The only time they really came close to challenging for even a playoff spot was in 2004. That was 6 years ago. During that time, we've had a presentable offense for exactly 1 year. Up until the last year or 2, I'd never have compared the past decade with the 70's or 80's. But the "2-3 years away" routine has worn out its welcome for me, along with the "we have to rebuild the defense with a new scheme" routine. It is time to "build" rather than "rebuild". And it is time to win games.

good ideas. Another suggestion is to use one of those styrofoam cubes that you might have from, say, Omaha Steaks. I've found they really insulate well, maybe because they seal so well. I had one filled with frozen Sahlens this summer on a drive back from Buffalo. 2 days in a trunk of a car and they were still frozen.