krazykat

As a case in point in fact, the knock on Kelsay was that he didn't play well against the top competition in college. Well, what is Kelsay today in the NFL? He's an OK DE, meaning a very average one, but if you look at where he has his big games, they are all against the worst teams and worst QBs with an exception or two now in what, four seasons. Nothing's changed. He rarely if ever steps up against the best and in the most meaningful games. And I don't mean in the annual what has become the "Squish the Dead Fish" game either.

LOL on Allotay. I suppose, but I've also followed these things for years now and it's unlikely that a player that has a hard time against the better of his opposing defenders and/or systems, etc. in college, will all of a sudden turn it on in the pros. Does it happen? Yes, but with relative infrequency at the WR position. The top WRs in the NFL don't change much from season to season. It's not as if five rookies join the list every year yet dozens are drafted and even more are picked up as UFAs that could easily have been 6th or 7th round picks. Measurables paint only part of the picture and are extremely overrated. In fact one of the big sports writers wrote something to that very affect this offseason. Forget who it was. Maybe King. Measureables often fall flat too. Just look at the extensive list of annual busts that had great measurables. I look much more at how they actually performed than their measurables. Measurables are almost a 50/50 proposition whereas how a player handled the pressure and opposing talent of big games against top competition, either team or individual, IMO means much more. Speed can't really be coached but it also isn't necessary for success as a WR in the NFL if other skills are present. What you as a scout ultimately look for is how coachable some of the lesser tier players are and how likely their weaknesses are to be improved via good coaching. Which raises another point. Good coaching. Not all coaching is good and it would be remiss to suggest that this team's coaching is at the top of that curve. At least for a player that has stepped up in a big time situation against top caliber talent, both team and individual, you can catch a glimpse of something actually happening rather than having to wonder if it's even possible, which is the case with Hardy since he didn't do it at IU. As you said, that doesn't always translate to the pros, but again, not having done it doesn't translate "doing it" to the pros either, and even less so. I mean it would be silly to argue that because a player hasn't done something that there's reason to believe he will when the going gets tougher.

Correct. And there are also indicators as to how good teams actually are besides reducing it all to a W-L record, fortunate or unfortunate. Many teams have records better than how good they actually are and many teams have worse records than how good they actually are. All of that usually gets sorted out during the playoffs.

I think I pretty much explained that in post 19 of this thread. But just for you... Yes, the Dolphins will have improved more than either the Jets or Bills. Ever heard of Jake Long? How about Bill Parcells? How about Justin Smiley? Reggie Torbor and Randy Starks are in the same range as Mitchell and Spencer Johnson except that Starks has been a starter here and there whereas Johnson has only been a backup. They have also signed quite a few decent veterans to either start or as depth. For them that will be a massive improvement. But I understand how it works here. Only the players that we sign amount to anything but the players that our rivals sign all end up being bad acquisitions. I get it, don't worry. I think we can both agree that the Jets sucked last year, right? OK, since we barely beat the Jets once last year and beat them very indecisively in the other game for essentially two unimpressive wins, and two games that frankly we could easily have lost, let me ask you, how then are we clearly better? If all you're looking at is the W/L tally, great. But if you're looking at how each team played last season, particularly against each other where at least in one game the Jets outperformed us, I don't think there's any clear indication that we are in fact the better team, especially since the Jets were 10-6 the year prior when we haven't won 10 games since the '90s. Call me shortsighted.

That is an excellent assessment of the Jets Shnooks. Their RBs listed independently don't scare anyone, but their RBBC may very well be adequate, especially with Pennington back there. But I agree, they shouldn't be looked past, especially by a team that struggled and didn't play well against them last year in spite of having won two games.

Well that's good to hear that you appear to be saner than most here. While it may not be a stretch to say that the Bills are the best team in the division, both the Jets and Fins had more productive offenses last year and defenses overall. As to how that all shook out in Ws and Ls and why you can figure out. But it is a stretch to say that the Bills are clearly without any doubts better than either team this season. The Dolphins have improved more than any of the three teams. You and others keep talking as if we dusted the Jets and Fins last season when that wasn't the case. It was the case in one game vs. Miami, but that's it. We almost lost to both teams and we only beat three other teams on our schedule last year. So while you talk about how crappy they are on one hand, where's the accompanying statements about how they accounted for four of our seven wins last season? And furthermore, it's not as if we beat some really good teams otherwise either. We beat the equally downtrodden Ravens and Bengals, and barely edged the Redskins in a very weird game that we technically lost other than for Gibbs' mistake. I mean what player did the Ravens have on offense besides McGahee that was any good? Ogden, Pro Bowl LT, was out. So was Heap. McNair should be playing shuffleboard at the local home. It's funny how most people here just view things one way from one perspective, the perspective that the Bills' organization can only move upward and improve and that it's either status quo or improvement relative to the other teams in the league. You would think that most fans have learned their lessons in that way by now, but I guess not. I don't know what this season will bring as none of us does. But I wouldn't lay a plug nickel right now that we finish 2nd in the division. For us to improve in record it seems to me that we will have to sweep the Fins and Jets again and I'm not even sure that I would bet on that happening either. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Fins take two from us this season or that we go 2-2 in those four games. Again, it's not like we dominated those games last year. In fact, in those four games, the Jets and Fins outgained us in net yards in two games, one each, in rushing yards in one in a big way (Fins), and they held close in a second (Jets), and their passing offenses put up substantially more yards in two games and comparable in a third. I'm just not seeing here how we were so much better because our offense scored one more point because of a 2-pt. conversion than the Jets in one game, three more points in another, and having put up 17, 13, and 11 offensive points against teams that you state sucked. I mean was that good in your view? And what talent did either team have at RB for example? Ronnie Brown was out, it was Leon Washington and Thomas Jones for the Jets. Do you think that they're good? So Miami had Lemon and a bunch of backup scrubs at RB and nearly beat us in one game. Is that supposed to impress anyone? Do you think that Cleo Lemon played well last season and is a good QB? His statistics on the season were just about a carbon copy of Edwards, so are you going to talk about how poised he was? He was surely much more consistent than Edwards and that was without a decent supporting cast which presumably we can agree on, no? So as I see it here, we barely edged two of the most downtrodden and poor teams in the league last year and we did it very unimpressively on top of it, and nearly lost at least two of those four games and could easily have lost a third. And you're trying to sell me and others on notions that even though our offense has barely improved and where it has improved has everything to do with the play of rookies and an OC that is trying his hand at offensive coordinating for the first time, that we are all but certain to take 2nd place in the division? I'm just not seeing that. I see a team that, if it's not careful, could have the Ws that they logged vs. six really poor teams last year mostly go the other way on them this year and are teetering somewhere between a .500 season and something much less depending upon how the breaks go this year. Last year most if not all went for us. And no, the Denver and Dallas games the breaks did not go against us, they went for us. We still couldn't pull wins out. Both teams schooled us on moving the ball and prevented us from moving it. Denver 470 net yards, Bills 184 Dallas 385 net yards, Bills 229 I'm sorry, but no team deserves to win games when they have that lopsided ball movement. I can't say that they should simply because it's my team. In the Dallas game we scored 3 points off a FG and no TDs. Against Denver we had only 7 offensive points. I don't understand why anyone thinks that that is anything but the suckiest of sucks. Also, Losman played the Denver game, not Edwards, so why anyone is using that game as any kind of indicator for this season when under Edwards the offense didn't even average two TDs/game is beyond me. Sure, you can do it, but it doesn't make any sense like so much of the rest of what gets thrown up here. And Edwards got to play with Lynch having had some games under his belt whereas Losman got a raw rookie just beginning to learn the ropes. Is that a fair comparison in your view? The offense stinks. How much it will improve depends entirely upon Edwards, some rookie WRs, and Schonert all of which are mysteries at this point. But the odds of all three coming together to make the kind of difference that propels a team from being DFL or close to it to anything that will win games based on the offense are not good. And if Schonert struggles through his first season of being OC, then the offense may not improve by much at all. What will save it is the seemingly easy slate of defensive opponents. If Edwards improves but only marginally, then that will be awful too.

LOL OK, so you think that Welker was just as good in Miami with one receiving TD in two seasons and less yards in both seasons combined than he had in NE. OK, noted. I really don't know how to respond, but you can think what you want to. I will say that if you had told people prior to the start of last season that Welker would have almost 1,200 yards and 8 TDs you would have been laughed out of the room.

Yet, the converse isn't true, right? That we beat the Jets and Fins by only three, the Ravens by 5 in a horrible game for us, and the Skins by 1 on a completely flukey ending that means we were also 12 points away from being 3-13. If you're going to be fair, then you need to acknowledge both. Also, did we outplay the Cowboys, or just capitalize off of their TOs? I mean could our D prevent them from moving the ball or could our O move the ball on them? What about the Denver game? Who had more rushing yards, passing yards, total net yards? This is getting silly.

Once again, excellent points.

Cash to cap! Can the team afford it? He would undoubtedly have to get more than Dockery by a margin. Dockery got 7 years $49M, $18.5 guaranteed, $13M SB. So presumably Peters would have to get 6 years, $70M+, $20M+ guaranteed, with $15M+ being in SB. Will that happen?

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you understand what I'm saying. You cannot then deduce the opposite, that since "collegiate stats do not correlate all that closely with WR productivity in the NFL," or that the lack of any such performance somehow heightens any particular WR's chance for success in the NFL which seems to be going on here. I will also challenge that notion too, which is at least partially absurd. I think that it's very safe to say that in spite of the 1st round and day one WRing flops, far more WRs from day one picks and early rounds have more success generally speaking than day two picks and later round or UFA players. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. I mean looking at the AFCE alone, Evans and Moss are the two best who were both 1st rounders. Which actually brings up another point. Look at all of the WRs drafted on any draft list over the past umpteen years. Then ask yourself how many have performed to the level expected by Hardy. Mathematically Hardy will be defying the odds if he can do that at all, much less as a rookie. So I don't know what the chances are, 1 in 10 maybe, maybe slightly lower because he was a 2nd round choice, but the odds are greater that he won't be. Just math. I know that many here will challenge that and try to pass off that this year is different, or Hardy's different, or how our staff is that much better than any of the other teams in the NFL, but for anyone looking at this objectively, it is unlikely that Hardy makes the kind of difference, either directly or indirectly, that propels an offense that sucked last year into a playoff caliber offense. The facts otherwise are that little has changed. As to "the offfield stuff," that's all hypothetical, but the NFL is harder today on offfield stuff than it was when Moss and Owens entered the league. In fact they're making examples of players with just about every opportunity these days.

Two very good points! And the Bills' offense was the worst scoring offense in the NFL last season. They scored fewer TDs than any other team in the league offensively which obviously includes teams that everyone routinely makes fun of here like the Raiders and Niners. They also ran fewer plays than any team in the league. Interestingly they were also 6th in the league with a +9 TO ratio. So much of what many are hoping for presumably also hinges on the notion that they will once again finish around 6th in the league in TO ratio. Otherwise, for a team to have that kind of TO ratio and still stink the joint up both offensively and defensively really says precious little for it.

Do you think that his numbers would be the same if Cassel were throwing the ball in NE? Welker obviously didn't do that in Miami.

I don't know about that. It's pretty difficult to not at least consider double coverage for a 6'5"/220 lb. WR. IMO what's more important is how the OL and Edwards play. There's far too much hype for a QB that did nothing last year, literally. To assume that we're going to "Hardy our way downfield" on 3rd-and-8 completions all season for scores is ridiculous. We will need consistent ball movement rushing and from the passing game in general in order to even boost this offense to the ranks of average.

I was using the term "greatness" loosely and in probably the lightest possible sense. I meant inasmuch as making the kind of difference for this offense that many are expecting. Again, his success against the types of DBs found in the NFL is very limited and his game experiences in which he shone vs. outstanding Ds is also severely limited. There is no debate about that, or should not be. Other teams need to account for every player on the field. His size is not at all unusual in the NFL. They said loftier things about Matt Jones who was even taller. There is no verifiable coorelation between his size or athleticism and his chances of succeeding in the NFL. To suggest that there is has no basis. He will have a learning curve just like every other WR, and if he doesn't keep himself clean then all of this performance related debate may very well be moot. I think we've pretty much beaten the dust out of this dead horse though. We will have to see what he does on the field plain and simple. I also don't think that anyone is disputing the notion that having Hardy and Johnson on the team will not help them improve. There's a big leap though from where this offense was last year, and where it needs to be in order to become a playoff caliber offense. A lot of people are expecting the Bills to make the playoffs. As to the coverage lasting, let's just see the OL play consistently first. No team goes to the playoffs by mounting only two decent drives every game.

The only ones saying that are those that think that Hardy is a shoe in for greatness in the NFL. There is far too much of people here looking at the most superficial of indicators and ignoring all the stuff that goes into the conducting of thorough due diligence. You can cite all the pro writers all you want, but they're wrong just as often as they're right and usually do little of their own analysis.

It may be "very well put," but it doesn't make sense. Check out my prior post.

I don't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level for any reason other than to compare how he played vs. the type of competition that he will face in the pros. Hardy hasn't come close to proving that he can "hang with the big boys" whereas Johnson has, at least to some extent. And you're absolutely correct on your assessment, but the converse is also true if not even more so, that simply because a player hasn't played against that level of competition and/or done well against it, that does not mean that he's even as likely to succeed as the players (Florida, Reed, etc.) that you mentioned above. Otherwise, a lot of the other players you mentioned were top WRing prospects in the draft. But where I want to focus is on your second statement; The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot. In terms of productivity, that isn't all that matters at the end of the day since the pro game is a whole new ballgame. And off-field issues such as character play a far greater role in the pros since those players often quit getting coddled as they've been for 4-8 years, especially if they don't produce commensurate with their high draft positions. In other words, let's say Hardy gets in trouble in some way and proves to be only a 35 catch/ 450 yard WR the next two seasons on average. The Bills, or any team, are a lot more likely to consider that his character issues are not worth hanging onto given that production. If he's putting up 1,200 yards and 10 TDs however, then they may deal with it more readily and willingly. But either way, Hardy hasn't proven that he has produced in all situations that he found himself in. He faced no teams that finished in the top 15, almost top 20, that he played well against or "produced" in. His biggest games were against Ball St., Indiana St., Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan St., and PSU. The only good team there was PSU and I've already shown you that PSU's passing D wasn't good although it was the best he faced. In other "situations that he found himself in" he didn't do much of anything. In seven other games, he had less than 50 yards. Two of those games were against Illinois and Wisconsin, the two best teams that he played, he didn't do anything and his team's O scored only 14 and 3 points in those two games. He had one TD and 42 yards receiving in that game. So what you just said there isn't true. What's true is that Hardy stepped up against mediocre and worse competition but didn't do anything noteworthy against the best teams that he played. So, in the NFL then, to succeed at the level that is expected for a 1st or 2nd round pick, and remember, he was slated as a 1st rounder by some and many said we got a 1st rounder in the 2nd round, then he will essentially have to begin doing what he hasn't done. Johnson's already done it, at least more so than Hardy has. So I would challenge your comments there. With Steve Johnson that's not true say what you want to about him. And you said this: If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot. Well, Hardy doesn't run any faster! There's like half a second between them. Johnson doesn't have a knock about his hands either. Also, the list of good games against solid pass Ds and regular Ds ran well beyond LSU and Auburn if you read the list again. Either way, what you're doing is dismissing Johnson for that, but then suggesting that Hardy who also runs about a 4.5 and haven't even had a good game against a team like LSU or Auburn is somehow more likely to play well. That makes no sense.

I won't disagree with that. But consider, Hardy's been playing football forever whereas Johnson has not. Both have similar weaknesses, but similar with similar speed. Johnson also didn't start every game, yet, the two posted very similar stats/performances, and again, clearly the competition that Johnson faced was far tougher, far. Johnson's relatively new to the game of football, and with good coaching, a serious question mark with the Bills, his weaknesses can easily be overcome. So here's what we have: Two players with similar skill sets, strengths, and weaknesses, but one that's started, has enormous physical gifts, yet who has not outplayed the other who lags in experience substantially. IMO we've seen what Hardy can do. Remember when guys like Matt Jones came out, they said the same and even much more about him, yet he hasn't impressed. Does that mean Hardy won't impress? Clearly not. But just because he's a big receiver, does not mean that he will. He's also not physical, which when I hear that about a 6'5"/220 lb. WR, I'm concerned. Johnson also averaged over 17 ypc and 3 ypc more than Hardy suggesting that he's a better downfield player and can stretch the field if need be. As to Johnson's 7th round status, if he were a Jr. and had stayed one more season and posted similar numbers, he'd have been a day-one pick easily. So that's mostly because of his lack of experience. Truthfully, if one of the two works out to a solid #2 or reliable starter, we will be ahead of the curve statistically speaking. WR is a tough position to transition to and rookies rarely play well enough to make much of a difference all other things being equal. But having said that, IMO Johnson, even in only one season, has shown more in terms of performance against what will accurately reflect NFL defenses and passing defenses and big game experience. He also clearly has a lot more upside since he's somewhat new to the game which isn't always bad. But IMO Hardy's a known commodity that will have to rely on playing well against competition that he quite frankly hasn't seen and yet still performed not much better than Johnson. I also still think that Hardy relied almost exclusively on his size in college, and again, not against competition that he will face in the pros. To me this means that he will have to do what he hasn't done yet against much stiffer competition, and based on my experiences watching football, that is significantly less likely to occur than Johnson doing it since he already has, or at least much more so than Hardy.

Hey ax, about Hardy, I guess I'm just saying that I have more hope for Steve Johnson who had good to outstanding games against LSU, the national champs and 9th ranked pass D, Mississippi State, the 7th ranked pass D, Vanderbilt, the 18th ranked pass D, Arkansas, the 23rd ranked pass D, and Georgia, the 36 ranked pass D, better than anyone that Hardy played, and the 2nd/3rd ranked team at the end of the season. He also helped light up FSU in his bowl game and was probably the biggest reason for the Wildcat's win. So if someone said that I had to lay down a hundred bucks on one of the two having a better pro career and posting 1,000 yards next season, my money would go down on Johnson without a thought.

Well you're painting a picture of a less than .500 team though.

Well, OK then, with a top 5 RB, and a great OL, Lee Evans, the reason why the Bills did what they did last year is because of Edwards and he had little to do with why we couldn't move the ball or score.

No it doesn't matter how he played against teams that were "ranked when he played them." The rankings are at least partially subjective to start the season and teams sort their way thru them. Look, I'm tired of fielding points for every excuse floated here Believe what you want to for whatever reasons you want.

OK, so we're already down to three teams then. Otherwise PSU made 25th in only the USA poll and neither of the other teams was higher than 18th otherwise. PSU was ranked 55th in total O, 11th in total D, and 39th in pass D. Wisc. was ranked 46th in total O, 38th in total D, and 49th in pass D. Illinois was ranked 34th in total O, 55th in total D, and 83rd in pass D. Seems to me as I mentioned, the Big 12 was somewhat weak last year. But based on the above, do you thinki it was more O or D that got those teams barely in the rankings, and just barely for the most part? Either way, my point about Hardy not having posted any good games against top pass D competition is valid regardless of how you try to dismiss it.

Well good, then I look forward to Hardy coming close to posting 1,000 yards this year.