Pyrite Gal

I think McKelvin lives or dies depending upon how much pressure we get from our pass rush. If Stroud is back to healthy I think it will be pretty good. I think the best thing we did this offseason and in the draft was to solidify our DL rotation with the acquisition of Stroud and Johnson to team up with McCargo (who has been developing nicely) and Williams (who amazingly proved to be adequate as a starter which bodes well for him in a rotation). With the DE position anchored by high motor guys Schobel and Kelsay and backed up by the reliable Denny and new guy Ellis (the main fear expressed about him in the scouting reports was whether he could play a full 60 and now that is not even an issue) this DL should do a lot for McKelvin. The addition of Mitchell at OLB should help as well as he is simply a proven success with NYG and it is to be hoped he can establish leadership here in getting the LBs to be opportunistic on the rush and help allow the DTs to penetrate by picking up the slack against the run. This I think can be the key to successful performance by McKelvin. If the rush is not there and someone like a Brady has all day even a shutdown corner is gonna get racked by vets like Welker and Moss. As far as my expectations for his personal performance. My guess is that coming from the college game to a Cover 2 which demands good NFL level reads in order to play it well he actually may have a bit of a slow start. Particularly as he came from a small college where he could dominate simply because he was physically better than his opponents, my guess is that showing a vet mental part of the game may well take him some time. He will likely start at nickel and be used on downs and situations which do not so much require doing vet reads but being a good physical player. If he has a lot of problems as a position player I would expect him to be given a prominent role as a punt returner as the media will easily be ready to stir up a controversy by labeling him a bust even if such labels are not justified for 3 years. I think he should be a good one eventually, but his first year will have its challenges (unless the pass rush is so good it takes the pressure off all the DBs.

It would be interesting. Teams used to routinely set two guys back to receive kicks but the current approach seems to be to have one return guy back who shifts left or right depending on the direction of the kick. I think there are at least 2 factors which have led to the one return guy being the standard: 1. When they moved the K from being launched at the 40 to create more run backs this both allowed more time for the return guy to run to either sideline to field it and also increased the yardage the coverage team needed to run to get to him. This increased time allowed for one guy to hang back instead of needing two depending on which side the kick went to. 2.STs now really choreograph the return blocking in more complex patterns than simply setting up a wedge and everyone else man-on-man blocks. This has led to there only being one return guy as adding a second guy would making the blocking patterns even more complex. 3. Kickers are more accurate these days and rather than simply attempting to kick it as far as they can each time, they now kick for a particular height and hang time as well as direction so the blocking patterns have become more complex as they try to anticipate what the kicker might do. April seems to be a good enough coach that he should be able to figure something out with two kick returners. If they both are dynamic and raise fear due to success we might well see more kicks out of bounds simply giving the Bills the ball at the 40.

I think a lot depends upon how fast the coaches judge McKelvin picks up the mental side of playing the Cover 2. Many players have said that NFL vets need a year in the Cover 2 before they really gain enough command of making the reads about what the other team is doing and communicating with each other to make sure they are making the same read. My assumption is that not only will McKelvin have to deal with the load of adjusting to the NFL game being quite different that the college game (a difference made even more pronounced by the not top rate competition he faced at Troy State) but he will have the additional load of gaining command of the Cover 2. The physical side of the game should be no problem at all for McKelvin, but I will not be shocked at all if it takes him a little while to demonstrate to the coaches and his teammates that he is ready to go as a starter. That being said I would expect to see a lot him at CB pretty quickly as a nickel and in the many plays will play when neither the Cover 2 nor the variation known as the Tampa 2 is appropriate (ex. plays in the redzone where there is no deep zone, short yardage plays, prevent defense, etc). If however, the coaches deem another player a better choice for position play, then I think it is more likely we will see McKelvin returning kicks. Rather than deal with the impatience of fans who invest in the conventional wisdom that a first round pick should immediately start and a media which would be happy to prematurely label him a bust if it sells advertising on WGR or fills column inches in the Buff News, If the coaches feel McKelvin needs more time seeing pro plays before they can entrust the CB role to him then I think we will see him as kick returner.

Exactly.

In another thread someone made the claim that the stats indicate that it was Greer who most often faced off against the opponents #1 WR rather than McGee and thus Greer should be considered our current #1 and McGee the #2 as McKelvin competes to make the starting line-up. I must admit I did not pay a lot of attention to these match-ups since as I have said repetitively, in the Cover 2 as we run it, the CB responsibility for the WR is in the short zone and his job is to work with safeties (and the MLB for the deep middle when we are running something more like the Tampa 2) to turn over the coverage of the WR for the mid and deep outside zones. The CB does have match-up coverage on the WR in the shortzone as he is expected to do press coverage, but the claim that we are assigning our top CB to cover their top WR is actually illusory as in the Bills scheme Greer is always playing the right CB role in what is basically a match-up zone coverage and McGee is playing the left CB role. To the extent that there is any statistical indication that we chose to have Greer face the tougher opponent it is because IF the offense made a choice they chose to have their better receiver pick on Greer. Traditionally and early in the first year under Jauron/Fewell we ran our D in a static mode with CBs assigned not a particular WR but always assigned to a specific side of the field. We changed this up in the middle of last year and had Clements assigned to the opponents #1 because McGee had a not atypical problem of really operating well in the Cover 2 (many players say it takes a full season or even a little more for a player to really get it as far as doing correct reads and playing the Cover 2 like it should be played). McGee actually had such problems that the coaching staff simply benched him for a game and made him watch and learn without having to worry for a game about getting toasted. In addition, when McGee re-entered the line-up, they then switched us from a static application of the D scheme where a particular CB always covered the same side of the field to one where NC covered the opposing #1 WR whereever he lined up. These two moves had a beneficial impact on McGee's play which improved a lot in the second half of 06 to the extent the Bills were comfortable with him as the #1 CB last year despite his trials and tribulations in the first half of the 06 season. The stats I saw last year seemed to bear this out in terms of McGee's play. The overall team pass D stats were simply horrible, but I attribute this as much to and actually even more to our horrendous lack of a pass rush than to coverage issues. So my question to anyone who was tracking this, did the Bills tend to always send their CBs to the same side of the field as they traditionally have done, or did they assign a particular CB to do his press coverage in the short zone on a particular WR. I think it was the former and thus to the extent the stats show Greer getting more action than McGee or dueling with the other teams #1 WR it likely was because the opponent chose to pick on Greer rather than us sending Greer in to do battle against the other team's #1 because we judged him to be better than McGee. As far as McKelvin goes, he should ultimately become the answer at one CB slot for the Bills for years to come. However, though the conventional wisdom is that a 1st round choice is supposed to start immediately, it would not surprise me at all if McKelvin will be doing quite well if he were even to win the nickel role in game 1. Did McKelvin play in some collegiate version of the Cover 2 or if not did he see many opponents using the Cover 2. If likely not, then it would surprise me to see it take a season of play before he is ready to start for the Bills at CB even though he is an incredibly gifted athlete who was clearly the best CB in college ball. McKelvin may end up in a tough position with many rabid fans and the uninformed media types labeling his a mistaken pick if he does not start immediately at CB. He easily may not and he would still be the furthest thing from a bust if it takes him a chunk of time before he can be trusted to play much less start at CB. It could get even tougher for him with the nervous Nellies who will demand he start and contribute immediately if in order to get a shot at return duty he would have to beat out one of the best PR guys in the NFL and a former recent Pro Bowler at KR for us. Personally, I hope he is so good he immediately becomes our CB and stars there. I doubt however, my fantasy wish will come true. We'll see.

Thanks and I think you are right on target about one of the large selling points for McKelvin being his kick returning. However, as I have let this marinate it simply brings up some questions for me: 1. How do we utilize the great return skills shown by McKelvin when we have two of the best return guys in the league hauling back punts and KRs for us? I am curious if anyone has heard or has any thoughts on this. Having depth behind these two return guys is great (particularly since both like most humans are not immune to missing a game due to injury) but this would seem like a marginal reason to be enthralled with a 1st round expenditure. 2. Part of the great pluses to McKelvin's talents are a demonstrated ability to cover like a blanket WRs all over the field. However, in the Cover 2 as we run it, the CB is not asked for to cover WRs all over the field. Are we going to require McKelvin to simply give up one of the best parts of his game (Jauron's previous MO with folks like CB theftmeister Dre Bly who vocally whined about playing CB in a Jauron designed D) or is McKelvin good enough we alter the D application so that we do more than have the CB cover deep from time to time? My sense is that Jauron/Fewell likely do no stand their scheme on its head and simply require McKelvin to give up one of his strengths. 3. Hopefully, folks who see McKelvin as revolutionizing our ability to match up with Welker/Moss/Brady are right but my guess is that they are deluding themselves. Some are stupid enough to interpret my pointing to the limitations or rookies as some flat out assertion that all rookies are dumb. The only thing dumb about this assertion is that interpretation of it. All I am saying is that rookies are not vets (yet) and that what you learn to become a vet is actually important to performance. We see this all the time from every NFL player saying they did not realize how fast the pro game is compared to college play until they actually got to the NFL to us seeing tons of players lose a step as they get older but maintain their effectiveness because experience allows them to accomplish the same feats with fewer steps. Moss/Welker are almost certainly licking their chops hoping that the Bills have the temerity to ask McKelvin to cover them one on one. If we do they will likely help McKelvin become a vet by beating the snot out of him on pass plays. Will having McKelvin make a difference for our coverage? Sure, it means Dustin Fox will not see the field as a back-up to McGee and if we are lucky Youbouty gets beaten out at nickel (by Greer if McKelvin beats out Greer for our second RB starter slot). However, against NE we will have to run the same zone package with the CB doing press coverage on Moss/Welker and us needing to do go reads for the coverage to hand him off to the safeties on the wing and Pos over the middle deep when the CB releases them. If the WR finds a seam on the handoff and Brady reads the same seam we are cooked. The key to our Cover 2 or a Tampa 2 working remains the same which is our DL and sometimes the LBs getting enough pressure on Brady to put him on his can or pressure him enough that it is hard for him to find the WR in the seam. The idea that McKelvin is going to make a difference in our coverage on very good receivers by himself is nice but a likely flight of fancy. 4. What parts of McKelvin's game does he need to work on? Does anyone out there want to claim he is perfect in every way? He is not (and if he were even close to it he likely would have been what I consider an "elite" player meaning he forces teams to pick him in the first ten picks. He may well be close as the Bills seemed to have honestly had him in the top 10 on their board. However, the word I hear is that there are a couple of things he needs to work on. i do not know if these assessments are true so I am curious what others have heard. Specifically, A. There appear to be some questions about his ability to get INTs which apparently stem from him having a few bad drops of passes he got his hands on. Is this true? It does not make a lot of sense to me as he clearly is a great return guy and routinely fields kicks indicating some ball handling skills. Further, I have heard some his alleged drops excused because it was because of his outstanding coverage that he even got a hand on some thrown balls and they were apparently difficult INTs to begin with. Is he another Antoine Winfield in that he can cover like a demon but has trouble translating great coverage into INTs. B. There have also been some questions raised about his tackling ability or willingness. Is this true and are there questions here? I can see how a desire to break-up or INT the pass might lead to a player passing on focusing on making tackles. However, since our scheme is only going to require short zone coverage, this puts a premium on his ability to press cover and also to contain the outside run. I have little doubt he can press cover but it will be nice to hear confirmation of him as a savage or at least good tackler. As these questions get answered in OTAs and camp I look forward to him being a fixture on our D (though unless his college play called on him to develop skills making good reads it would not shock me if this #11 choice actually needs some pro seasoning before he can start for the Bills.

Though the Pats appear have done on the test by cheating (or even if they did not cheat have come off to their opponents as snotty which simply makes the game less entertaining to lose to them) I think rationally we have to admit that this test has a curve to it for grading purposes. There are either more than the two methods you suggest of measuring whether it was a good draft or not, or at the very least different measures which should be used for assessing adequacy based on where a team is in terms of achievement. The Pats (like it or not but amusingly to me because losing only the last game his a hilarious comeupance for their snottiness) simply have a different standard for judging their draft than those of us at 7-9. This is true not simply because the Pats think they are special (which they are not and going 18 and ONE shows this) but simply because they need different things to potentially come back than we do. An example of this same phenomena is the Jags who struck me as reaching a lot to trade up merely to get Harvey, but I understand that they feel they are merely a pass rusher away from reaching the Big Show so in this case a reach beyond getting a good value may be just what they need to do in order to achieve their goals. Likewise I agree the Pats reached for some of their picks, but their need to retool after doing some things like having a bunch of old men lead them at LB to the SB means the piper needs to be paid somehow. The Pats have made a rational attempt to build on some phenomenal assets (Brady/Moss/Welker for example) by reaching and taking longshots to fill as quickly as they can holes created by their decisions at LB and holes created by the decisions of now non-Pats like Samuel and Gay at DB. The neat thing about this for us Pats dislikers is that because of their rational reaches, they stand a far better than even chance of crashing and burning this season. This fall will made even harder by the lofty Icarian levels they reached with the ONE-18 record and by Pats ball washers declaring this draft so wonderful. BB is like it or not a master tactical coach. However this is a team which has had clear weaknesses in their OL and pass protection schemes shown in the last SB and these weaknesses allow for nullification of one of their prime assets (Brady/Moss/Welker). Its easy for me to see the possibilities with the rookies developing more slowly than they wish, a couple of strategic injuries and opponents picking on the areas of weakness they showed to see them go south in a hurry in 08. Who knows maybe BB can lead them to reverse these deficits with good work and some luck. However, this is a situation where the margins are thin enough that even with good work they may end up with a much worse W/L. 08 may be a very fun year for those who dislike the Pats and those who sing the praises of their draft have simply made the fall harder and the shangfreude of defeat even more fun to experience.

IMHO DBS were needed but I think the were a lower priority for making this team better immediately than CBs. I am in a different camp than many on this board so quite likely I am wrong, but I liked the second day better than the first day. My sense was Pick 1- McKelvin was a good value pick as he was on the Bills board as one of the top 10 players and once he dropped to 11 at a position we had some need for the Bills picked him. It was disappointing to me because I do not think we will run a D that is best for McKelvin's strengths. However, maybe he will surprise us all by forcing his way in as a kick returner (and if he does then look out because both McGee and Parrish are among the best in the game at this). I think those who think this rookie will shut down vets Welker and Moss are deluding themselves. Pick 2- Hardy feels a definite need and literally does this in a big way. However, one of the reasons I am bummed we could not trade pick 11 to get another early choice is that particularly given some character questions for Hardy i would feel better and we have room for 2 WRs with the loss of Aiken. Still good pick. Pick 3- Ellis is intriguing and in our rotation may be just what we need to rotate and create pressure. The key to stopping the Pats is not going to come from some rookie shutting down vets like Moss/Welkerbut from the pass rush putting him on his butt. 4- Fine is likely a bit of a reach at TE who I think attracted the Bills because of his ST value. Despite the adoration of man I will continue this later, my machine seems to have partially seized up and I can send this but cannot move easily between files so i will reboot (when in doubt kick the tires).

There's no need to fret too much if the Bills' plans work out as we want and with penetration and pressure from Stroud/McCargo/Johnson/Williams and contain and pressure from Schobel/Kelsay/Denny/Ellis Brady is at least under tremendous pressure if not sitting on his butt. Just as the leading sack team in the NFL pressured Brady into his only losing game of the season, so too is the pass rush going to be the key to Bills taking on Brady and the Pats this year. Its a team game so the contribution of other units is going to be essential to improving the Bills play from the addition of the additional pressure of additions like Mitchell to the play of the secondary. However, the story will begin (and it is to be hoped not end since if the pass rush is not there we will see Brady produce the same numbers in 08 against the Bills as he produced in 07.

Perhaps

It certainly does not hurt that they got McKelvin with their #1. However, a #1 is well-spent on McKelvin if you use a D scheme which maximizes his abilities (can cover all over the field and run with WRs going deep among other things that made him the first CB taken and almost an elite talent (which I define as being a good enough player to command a top10 choice). However, in our case, we run a Cover 2 as a base scheme and Fewell estimates we run a traditional Cover 2 only 25% of plays. In this scheme rather than covering a WR all over the field the CB turns them over to the safeties after the short zone. We also run a version of the Cover 2 generally known as the Tampa 2 in which the MLB covers the deep middle and the safeties need only worry about a 1/3 of the deep field. When one also eliminates plays in the redzone where there is not enough field to even go deep and we run a different scheme or short yardage where the opponent is almost certainly not going deep, there simply are only a few plays each game where we are running a scheme which plays to McKelvin's strengths (or more important for our purposes where a CB of far less than elite talent like a Greer or McGee can be expected to play CB adequately in our D. In general if we want to make the highest best use of McKelvin we will need to change how we employ our base scheme to allow him to cover WRs all over the field. This is well and good for McKelvin, but it does raise a question of whether our other defenders who were acquired for and practice the Cover 2 will do well in a D which gets altered to take advantage of what McKelvin can do. Its not at all that we can get by with bad CBs because we run a Cover 2. However, what is the case is that players who were never good enough to start at CB under the old system like Greer, or CBs who clearly were far less talented than Clements can actually play adequately in a Cover 2. McKelvin was not a bad athlete to acquire. However, it was likely a waste of resources as it definitely would take a #11 pick to acquire McKelvin but actually a lower pick and less accomplished player at the Greer level can do an adequate job with this D. I wish we had been able to pull off a trade which allowed us to move down in the round (or even out of the 1st round) and let us acquire some more 2nd and 3rd rounders in compensation. Its all woulda/coulda/shoulda but it is easy for me to see if we could have made such a deal we could have acquired another WR to compete with Hardy (a Jackson or Tweed for example) and also have gotten a Conner or other players to make us a better team. We did not and this is reality and we will have to do well with the value pick in the first, hope that the behavior issues in Hardy's college life were due to immaturity, and that a CB like Corner turns out to be an ST stud because it seems quite unlikely that we are gonna get away with a 5' 9'' CB against folks like Moss/Welker. Is this an indictment of the professional with the Bills. No because it would not be a very good one. Who knows what trades they were offered. As far as football knowledge they have forgotten more than us fans will ever learn about the game. However, us fans are entitled to our opinions (no matter how fact-free they are) and actually NFL professional make dumb choices like picking Mike Williams or trading their entire draft for Wicky Williams. The Bills braintrust is far from immune to criticism of this draft and in fact this business should welcome it. It sells far more tickets than people not caring enough to be disturbed by the draft.

probably 06 (because we got so many starter on a team which improved its W/L on the second day) and possibly 07 (the jury is still out but we seemed to find quality starters in all three rounds the first day (Lynch definite, Pos lead the team in tackles before he got IR'ed and Edwards looked great for a rookie though he has not proved enough on the ield to be deemed a consistent starter (yet). However, this draft is not even over yet so it is way to early to jump the gun and call this one great. In fact, we good a very good value pick in Rd. 1 though CB despite those still whining about the loss of NC was not a priority position need for this team, we got the position player we needed in Rd 2 but the simple fact is most rookies WRs put up Peerless '07 like production #s their rookie years even when they are good, and our #3 may be a good addition to our rotation but no one imagines him to be a starter at this point. This one may prove to be great in 3 years, but there would seem to be no way to reasonably call this a great draft right now.

We went with a very good value pick in Rd 1. Took a definite position need in Rd.2 and filled a rotation/position need in Rd. 3. However, since then it appears Bobby April has taken over the direction of the braintrust and the players taken looked to be more geared toward rebuilding our ST (a definite team need) than worrying about any position gaps. Specifically: Corner- He simply looks to be too short not to get picked on a lot (he is even two inches shorter than Greer whose stature many have questioned) particularly on fade routes in the redzone. However, he has great athleticism and seen in his leaping ability and ball skills. A pick of a CB was reasonable (at least somewhat) when a potentially elite talent McKelvin dropped to #11, but it seems fairly outrageous to devote the 4th round pick to a CBwho at best will be 5th on the depth chart. I suspect he was taken with ST contribution in mind big time (virtually all second day picks are gonna make their mark on ST if anywhere their rookie years). This player almost certainly will need to develop into a go-to guy on ST the long-run as he seems to have little upside or potential for us as a position player since not only is it doubtful he will have a growth spurt, his biggest ST problem seems to be question are raised about him making arm tackles. The can fortunately be trained to tackle properly though he will not be trained to grow. Fine- A TE is what people wanted but Fine seems like a clear prospect who will need to be trained up big time if he is to be a position player for us. The lowdown on him I read indicates he did some good ST play in college and I suspect this probably led to his drafting and will be the focus of his initial work as a Bill this year. Bowen- Clearly will need to bulk up bigtime and in no way seems a starting prospect. However, the write-ups also indicate good ST chops for him. Bobby April is likely a happy man right now as often it is the UDFAs which is where a lot of the ST fixtures are found.

Winfield was obviously a very good player (and he was one the Bills were setting up to sign him as an FA but Milloy suddenly came on the market and AWs money correctly was used to give a huge contract to Milloy so we did not have to start Coy Wire at SS) and the comparisons with McKelvin are overblown. AW was a very good cover guy and McKelvin may be even better. McKelvin also brings performance in the return game in college that AW did not have, That being said, folks are concerned because in the version of the Dover 2 we run, McKelvin will not be utilized much as a cover guy expected to take WRs all over the field. Unless we alter our D a lot the best part of his game will not be utilized. What's worse, given the primary role a CB plays in a Cover 2 of containing and tackling outside rushers, IF this is a problem for him he does not seem well-suited to how we use the CB. As far as MN sucking in pass protection, they apparently are spending major resources to improve their pass rush. Particularly with WRs getting so big and so good and with QBs aspiring to the Tom Brady model of accuracy depending upon shutdown coverage as the primary way one stops the pass is simply a losing battle. Most teams would easily trade 6 passes being defensed in exchange for one TD. Unless the CB is good at getting the INT to really stick a fork in the O, simply defending against the pass is good but ultimately is a losing proposition.

Fans would be foolish to conclude we are DDOOOMMMEEDDD merely because the 1st round did not play as well as it could for us. In fact things are already looking up as the plethora of lower first round and later round WR picks in this draft allowed us to be pick up Hardy who has the size and the college production in the red zone to be just what we needed. I was merely commenting on the irony that actually Hardy may be as valuable to us for better results against the pass as I think in our D McKelvin will play a limited (though important) role in pass protection where as if we develop Hardy into the possession and red zone threat we want we will give up fewer passing yards simply because our offense stays on the field a lot more.

As best as I can see, there were three ways that the Bills could have gone at #11 to improve the production of their bottom of the NFL pass production: 1. Improve the penetration and pressure of their DL (NYG demonstrated in the last SB that a good way of stifling Brady is to put him on his butt everytime you can- Stroud was brought in to stiffen us against the run while giving us interior penetration we lusted for last year from Walker and never got from Triplett). 2. Improve the tackling from the LBs and their time to time penetration help (Mitchell should be a big help in this regard but depth is always an issue and Crowell as he gets older and Poz who is still unproven are question marks). 3. Improve the O with either a #2 WR or a receiving threat at TE (None of the players available at these two positions were worth a #11 but trading down to get more resources and be in a more appropriate position to draft a WR was a good thought). Unfortunately, the run on the good DL guys even forced Jax to trade up and get Harvey who might have been on the table for us as a value if we traded down (Jax may be a pass rusher away from the SB so stretching up for Harvey MIGHT make sense for him though he only made sense for the Bills if we traded down). Improving the DL was may null and void by the way the draft went. The idea of picking an LB would have been tough for us but this was simply made impossible by the CIN and the Pats taking the two best all purpose LBs on the board. Perhaps we tried to trade down (we picked with some time on the clock which makes me think no) and obviously did not and made a good value pick for McKelvin who some had as an elite player (which I define as a player who gets a top 10 pick) who slipped to #11 when the Pats traded down but did not start a rush on CBs, and Jax traded up. We got McKelvin who is a good value but a disappointment IMHO for anyone who really wanted us to see us use the 1st round resource to help the pass production. We simply do not use the CB in our base defense to cover WRs all over the field. McKelvin appears big enough to do press coverage and help us cover in the short zone. He seems to have the talent to do one of the primary things a CB is required to do in a Cover 2 which is contain the RB on the outside run. However, unlike increased pass pressure from the DL and LBs which would really improve the way this D works against WRs going deep, the selection of a good player who can cover WRs all over the field but except for sometime change-ups will not generally be used this way is thin gruel for one interested in seeing better pass protection from the Bills. The irony here is that the pass pro probably good have gone more production help from a player who helps avoid 3 and outs rather than from another CB (even a potential good one like McKelvin). This who somehow think that a rookie CB is going to solve the problems created by vets like Welker and Moss are simply just likely fooling themselves.

McKelvin is definitely a good value pick, but I am bummed in that being a future is now kind of guy rather than in making a pick for the future (I hope folks do not seriously think that a rookie CB is the key for dealing with vets like Welker/Moss) I had hoped we would trade down, pick up more value (this team is simply not talented enough to go deep in the playoffs yet) and fill some major needs on offense. The irony of this is that with the way the Bills use the CB, we likely could have improved the production of our defensive pass pro by getting some receiving help that would stop us from going three and out so much. The big deal here is that the draft ain't over yet because we still have a lot of work to do after this value pick.

I think it would be a waste of resources which will help us win if we spend the 1st rounder on McKelvin. I think he is clearly the quality CB in this draft. However, I do not think the Bills scheme will make the highest and best use of his CB talents since our base scheme would not allow him to cover WRs all over the field. Really the choice of McKelvin means not choosing to use him well. We get far better value for making this team perform better if we trade down for more picks.

Agreed that if he somehow were to slip to #11 we take him and are thankful we got a player rated as an elite pick (top 10 IMHO) at #11. However, we simply have needs at far more important spots for increasing the productivity of 2008 Bills than CB and likely will draft accordingly as we have shown a strong penchant for valuing need in the 1st round despite what others want with the pick of Whitner and somewhat with the pick of Lynch. Repetitively and repetitively, McKelvin is a hot prospect because he has shown the ability to cover WRs all over the field and with our base Cover 2 and change-ups to something more like the Tampa 2 we simply would not be making the highest and best uses of a McKelvin if we got him to play CB for us. Both McKelvin and DRC appear to be great prospects who will almost certainly go in the top 10 (McKelvin) and the top 15 (DRC) but do you seriously think that they are good enough we should adopt a more traditional base D scheme because we have this player? To do this would actually be pitting a lot of faith in our #2 CB, McKelvin's back-up, as well as this rookie because if we switched schemes and he ever got hurt that is who we would be depending on to cover WRs all over the field. This is why there is not much love for Leodis IMHO.

There are two reasons why for the most part DRC will not be the answer for the Bills for Moss. First, in the classic Cover 2 we only use about 25% of the time according to Fewell or in the version similar to the Tampa 2 which is really our base D, in order to escape DRC, Moss merely needs to run a route of more than 12-15 yards and in our D the safeties (or the MLB over the deep middle) will be covering Moss. Unless you somehow believe we are gonna switch to a more traditional D where DRC will cover Moss all over the field, DRC is a relatively easily avoidable issue for Moss if the coaches choose to do this. Second, even if DRC is an incredibly talented rookie (and some credible sources actually have him as the second best CB in this draft behind McKelvin) likely Moss and Welker will be licking their chops to get ahold of any rookie attempting to cover them. The Bills may well choose DRC (though the far better football move IMHO if we can pull it off would be to trade down to get a WR in the lower part of the round and use the extra pick acquired to get another WR as the loss of PP and Aiken means we need two), but if they do it will be because they disagree with those who insist he is not an aggressive tackler as one would want. The way we generally utilize CBs the way the Bills play D is press coverage in the short zone (DRC seems to have the size to do this), run contain on outside rushes, a CB blitz from time to time (the tackling concern comes up for these last two uses) and only occaissonally in the traditional CB role where he would need to run with a Moss. In fact with the potent WRs which NE has and the laser beam arm of Brady, it seems a far better football strategy to go with a zone and a pressuring rush rather than simply manning up when the opposition has better men (even with a DRC choice).

My sense is that all parties (NFL. NFLPA, and individuals) wanted everything put off until after the new CBA was agreed to. Most did want to complicate already difficult negotiation with another high profile issue. Others hope that the new CBA would create new allies and eliminate old kneejerk opposition to whatever came down. Others saw no need to clean house if the house was going to collapse anyway if no new CBA was agreed to. Whatever reasons folks had for putting things off simply resulted in a logjam of unfinished business. In addition, the agreement of to a CBA was a natural highpoint in Tagliabue's career, regardless of whatever happened no achievement was going to equal pulling off this agreement.

Neither player would do very much to improve our pass defense production so I doubt (and hope we do not) do this.

I consider the draft a crapshoot because many teams win in this crapshoot and also many teams lose. Simply listing the many successes does not prove that my view of this is wrong. The Bills past failures at drafting inform but do not drive my feelings about this just as the Bill's success the last two years in drafting a bunch of starters on an improved team merely informs but does not drive me to a particular conclusion. The simple statistical facts are that not to far from 50% of even first round draft choices are solid starters in their second year. The first 10 choices are where the "elite" players are found that almost certainly will get starting jobs and after that there is a steep drop-off to some players making it and others failing to be solid starters. The Bills will have to do a lot of things well in order to rebound and the draft is only one of them. What is wrong with this idea?

Many are definitely correct that we have a critical need to upgrade the performance of our pass D (and our run D and avoiding 3 and outs on O as well). However, where I think folks are in error is the conclusion that in order to improve the performance of our pass D the critical need is for us to draft a shut down CB. It would seem obvious to draw this conclusion given the traditional manner of running an NFL D that your CBs have a consistent responsibility to cover WRs all over the field. However, this ain't your grandmothers' NFL anymore and in our scheme the base D simply does not call on the corners to cover the WRs all over the field. Their BASE duties in our D are: 1. Cover the WRs in the shortzone (10-12 yards but this amount varies) 2. Contain and tackle RBs making outside rushes 3. Do the CB blitz from time to time. 4. Cover the WRs going downfield from time to time. The bottomline for those who want to see our pass pro improve, the more important positions to focus on improved play IMHO are: A. DL- The way we run the Cover 2 depends on solid penetration and pressure from the DL and particularly the DTs shooting the gaps. This is why we had a significant interest in trying to sign sackmaster Walker whom we acquired from Philly and this is why Triplett ended up being cut because he never proved to be the consistent pressure artist he showed he might be for Indy. We are going to ask a lot of new signing Stroud in that we hope he recovers and finds his Pro Bowl level play which allowed him to both pressure the QB and still perform as a stalwart run stopper back in the day. Its possible but sounds like a lot IMHO. Here's hoping he has found some fountain of youth and can return to his past form, OR FA signee Johnson or the developing Mccargo can step or their games, OR we get a phenomenal DL rusher from this draft. B. I was a bit torn about this, but actually take the paradoxical stance that a key acquisition for improving the production of our pass D is actually the acquisition of a quality #2 WR. One great way of stopping the opposing O from picking up yards and first downs is simply to keep them off the field. The Bills simply had too many three and outs last year which resulted in their defense having to take the field and stop the Welker/Moss combos from doing what they do best. A definite will work way of improving the pass D production is to reduce the number of times they have to work flawlessly by keeping the ball moving in our O. If one is committed to improving our pass D you should be interested is us filling the gap left at #2 WR. C. I do not think our O is going to make a lot of us of the TE, but even signing a better TE will do more for our pass D than signing a CB. D. Getting better LB production will serve the dual benefit of one giving us someone who does better pass coverage in the short zone and also makes opponents runs on early downs less successful so that the opponents have a run/pass option on third down. E. Again looking at how we play the CBs, if one is concerned about covering the WRs deep we are better off focusing on improved play by our safeties than on spending resources on CBs who for the norm will not be covering the WRs deep. F. One needs to get down to our 6 alternative before we start looking at a better CB to help us perform better against the pass. Some folks argue that we need a CB for those times when the situation calls for a more traditional D approach or to give us the flexibility to do more traditional coverage where the CB covers the WR all over the field. This view is supported by Fewell being on record saying that the Cover 2 is in fact our base D but that we only use it a quarter of the time. Some folks hear this and immediately think we need a shut down CB 3/4 of the time. However, though I suspect what Fewell says is true and we only use the classic Cover 2 a quarter of the time, the other 75% is composed of: a. Times we are running the variation of the classic Cover 2 called the Tampa 2 where the MLB has deep pass coverage duty in the middle of the field. In this variation on the Cover 2 the CBs still have the same short coverage and run contain duties. b. Times where the yardage/distance and down call for a D which is not the Cover 2 but in now way does the CB have deep coverage responsibility. For example, it would be silly to run a Cover 2 or any zone when the opponent is in our redzone and there is not enough yardage for an opposing WR to go deep unless the play calls for him to go to the Chevy in the parking lot and look for the ball. c. The game is in hand and we are in a prevent D (boy I wish this happened more). Even if our base D is only employed a quarter of the time, this in no way leads to the conclusion that we are running a traditional D a lot. In fact, when the circumstances call for the CB to cover the WR all over the field, we are not just hosed and Greer needs to be able to cover Moss 1 on 1. Actually, for those plays where we give the CB a more traditional duty, even this does not mandate that he be good enough to match up with Welker/Moss. Even when the CB has primary responsibility for the WR he likely is not going to have this duty alone. In fact, if a team is banking on their CB to shutdown Moss all day on his lonesome, Moss would simply being licking his chops and wondering whether he is gonna need two hands to count his TDs that day on his fingers. A team would be foolish not to run a lot of double-teams on a player like Moss. The CB generally will be assigned either the under coverage on Moss and his duty is to press cover but when he gets beat a safety will actually have the over coverage on him. Likewise with a Welker, the CB will be doing press coverage on Welker and his job will be to ride him in the first 5 yards but then break off (or expect the slippery Welker to break coverage) and someone else must be there to help out deep. The bottomline is that it is gonna be relatively rare that we are going to give a CB sole coverage duty. In fact, if we do then it is silly to demand that a rookie is going to take on a vet like Welker/Moss and win many of these battles. For anyone who watches the Bills understand that drafting a CB is not the first (second, third or fifth) thing we want to to do to improve our pass D.

My sense is that some folks will want/demand that the Bills take a CB in this draft because they were influenced by those who hyperventilated at our letting Clements walk. Very good CBs are very good to have, but the bottomlines are NC for all the doom predicted on this board was when he left arguably not even among the top 5 CBs in football much less worth being the highest paid defensive player in football. In particular when one takes into account that th Bills were committed to a scheme within which a CB who covers WRs all over the field is not going to be utilized in that way, it made perfect football sense to do what the Bills did which was to wish NC well but let him go. It would have been dumb even to franchise him another time as the market required a payment of the average of the top 5 CBs in the league and we were not going to utilize NC in that way even if he stepped up his play. The answer to your question is do not believe the hype or folks who insist we are DDDOOOOMMMEEDD.