Pyrite Gal

Trading JP for a draft pick does little to help this team compete in 08. I like my fellow fans love the draft because it is over-hyped fun, but the idea that we should depend on or expect help to come this year from players acquired in this crapshoot is fun to dream about but really is little more than a dream. Unless the Bills can acquire a back-up QB vet who can play the Frank Reich role simply getting rid of JP because someone does not like his face is a bad football idea.

I know that the web tends toward extreme views, but while I fully agree that taking a CB in the first would be a big disappointment (particularly for those of us who believe the future is now) its hard for me to see this investment made in the crapshoot we call the draft as being a wasted pick. I will see it as a waste if we pass on a player who seems good enough right now to make an immediate difference, but as even at the lofty #11 pick I do not see an immediate impact players slipping that far as being an alternative choice making the "kissing cousin" choice of the best CB a total waste.

The Bills have clearly shown a willingness to take a player on the first day at a position where they do not have a screaming need (in Youbouty's and Edwards case the positions did become needs pretty quickly though) the question to me is whether they will be willing to do this in the 1st round. McKelvin sounds like a good player and this pick will not be horrendous, but it shows what a crapshoot in general the draft is.

The situation you state is one of the bad effects that has clearly happened to the Bills with the debacles of life under GW and MM. This is an effect which should be avoided if one wants to win. However, we should be aware of what is a cause and what is an effect. The cause of the Bills coaching debacles under GW and MM was rooted in TD making a bad choice in hiring GW (who was a great DC in TN but proved to have no offensive feel and a bunch of insecurity in this area). MM turned out to have a better feel for HC work and picked an OC who was initially effective and had a DC forced upon him who was also initially effective. However, the cause of MM's coaching failure was TD's weird activities which in the end seemed more motivated by having an HC he hired never run him out of town again and MM not being able to HC his way out of a paper bag in this dysfunctional situation while Ralph was willing to tolerate a dysfunctional set-up rather than eat MM's remaining contract. In the end it is my sense that the effect of having players who did not fit GW's Noffense under Sheppard and Gilbride and the offensive abortion we ended up with under TC was if we were gonna revolve the coaching door, the HCs hired needed to be good enough and secure enough to strike a balance between shoveling players who did not fit their preferred style out the door but instead built an offense which put the players we wanted to keep in a better position to win. I think you can both fire an HC if you have to and hire a new HC who can both acquire the players he wants but also keeps guys it makes little sense to cut and build an offense (or defense)which fits the talents of the players we must keep. I agree that if a very good player is available to you at your pick you take them even if there is no need perceived there. However, if DRC were an elite player (which I define as being a player good enough to merit a top 10 oick) then pick him when he slips to 11. However, though DRC is likely the best CB in this draft, I do not see anyone arguing he is such a great player we MUST trade up into the top 10 to insure we get this elite player. Likely DRC will be there when we pick at #11 not because he is a great player who will slip to us, but because he is a good player who is available we should instead take a good player at a position of need for us, or more likely trade down because the best players in this draft for filling our needs at WR and TE likely will be available later.

This opinion strikes me as a reasonable view, but it is not the one I took from your statement. Its one thing to argue that we should take DRC because with the system we use he can provide us with the best value. However, it is another thing to argue that DRC would provide us with the best value of any player likely available at #11 IF we actually run a different scheme which would put our players and DRC in a better position to win. It seems to me you are arguing that you do not like the Cover 2 system. Fine, and you should say so. This comment ends up being pretty meaningless though in the real world of the Bills because like it or not this is a team which use our version of the Cover 2 as its base system. One can choose to tilt at windmills and argue against the Cover 2 or one can accept the reality that Jauron/Fewell are only going to make marginal changes in our base D scheme and if they do DRC will be a disappointing choice for us to make. This is true not because you can run a Cover 2 with bad CBs (you cannot) this is true because DRC's talents are best utilized in a more traditional D scheme. If we want to improve the real world production of our D against the pass the answer is to either improve the DL or improve the O performance so the D is not on the field to give up yards. If one's answer is instead to emphasize more talented CB play one is doing little more than sticking your thumb in a crack in the dike.

It's no bother. I am simply curious what his line of thinking is.

Its not at all that I think a pick of a CB means that the Bills staff does not know what it is doing (they have forgotten more than I remember about football), its that I think a CB pick would indicate that the Bills plans are aimed more directly at 2009 rather than 2008 as I see a pick of DRC or any CB as providing a marginal return for us this year. I argue not that a CB pick is a bad player (by definition the Bills 1st round choice will be someone they think is a good player and in the last two years both Whitner and Lynch are potential Pro Bowl level 1st picks. Even better, the Bills have gotten outstanding depth from their later picks in the last two drafts. What I do argue is that: 1. Improving the pass pro is a priority for this team and paradoxically in terms of conventional CB use, improvement at CB would do less for improving out pass pro than improving the DL play or even improving the receiving so we avoid 3 and outs. 2. Again paradoxically, the best thing we could do for the productivity of our pass D is actually improve the ability of this team to get 1s downs and simply stop the opposing offense by keeping them off the field. 3. The though some seem to have that our opponents loading up on the Moss/Welker types means we need to take the best CB needs believing in the foolish thought that any of the rookie CBs are going to be able to shutdown NFL vets like Welker/Moss. Do you really think DRC is that good? I do not. He is pretty clearly to me the best of the CBs out there but as I define an elite player as one good enough to demand a top 10 pick, if he is still there at #11 then by the definition I use he is not an elite player even though he is the best of the CBs. I will be disappointed if we take a CB not because I do not think he is good, but because I do not see even the best CB paying big benefits to us until 2009. On the other hand, if we could get a solid #2 WR (which I think we should be able to get even by trading down0, I think this team would improve it production even more quickly. What's wrong with this thinking?

Thanks. You are right that picking a CB at #11 would not be the worse thing. However, it would not be a pick that does the most for improving our past protection and production. Ironically, perhaps the best thing we could do to improve the performance of our pass D in real measurable terms may actually be to draft offensive players who help us avoid so many 3 and outs and simply reduce th # of first downs our D gives up by keeping the opposing offense off the field. Despite my repetitive posting, some folks still choose to interpret what I am saying as some blanket statement that our CBs do not cover the pass. THE CB's DO PASS COVERAGE FOR US, HOWEVER, DEEP PASS COVERAGE IS NOT THERE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COVER 2 AS WE EMPLOY IT. Our CBs perform: 1. Short zone pass coverage as they actually turn the WR over to the safeties on the wing or to the MLB over the middle once they get to 12-15 yards down the field. If someone is interested in improving our pass protection against WRs all over the field or on deep throws, they should be far more interested in improving: A. our pass rush so there is no time to run the deep route B. our safety play because they will primarily do the mid to deep WR coverage C. our offense so we have fewer three and outs. All three of these aspects of the game are much more vital to good pass protection for the Bills than getting a better CB. 2. Containment and tackling of outside rush threats. Our CB needs to make good reads so he is not dropping back on outside runs to his side or pinching in when the QB is looking into the shortzone for the WR. 3. The CB blitz- as our CBs generally do not have deep duty, the formation allows them to do more CB blitzes. 4. From time to time, we will run a more traditional coverage and the CB will in fact need to run with the WR on a fly pattern. However, I think this formation and utilization is by far the exception rather than the rule and though our CBs may not be good enough to consistently cover a WR running fly patterns all day, it is a different thing when a CB only has to show this ability from time to time. Even if we do not feel good about Greer, McGee, or Youbouty on the fly pattern generally, we do have the ability if the coverage demands that the CB cover the deep pass we can line the CB up a few steps back off the line so he need not run continually or keep up with the WR. Further, when the coverage calls for the CB to go deep it is possible for us to supplement this package with the safety still backing the CB up deep, Yes, the CB will need to sometime do deep coverage in our D but this still is the exception rather than the rule.

Again, I define elite as a player who has impressed enough with his talent that he gets picked in the top 10. Sure players who eventually prove to be elite talents in the NFL get picked lower than this (see Tom Brady who merely merited a 6th round pick if you want an example of this). However, I decided upon this standard as I was analyzing for last year's draft and as I began to look back at the 2006 picks and prior I felt there was a drop-off in success (as measured by who of the first round choices were starting in their second year. I have not done the detailed analysis of the 2007 1st round class yet (and please feel free to do this as work may allow me the time before the draft this year) but for the 2006 draft about 50% of first round choices were starters beginning their second camps and there was a sharp bias toward the first 10 picks proving to be successful. Others may disagree and I would love to see their analysis which make the case for a #15, #20 or any first rounder actually reasonably be deemed an elite player. I reserve this moniker for the top 10. If one accepts this thinking then either DRC as a potential Bill will not be an elite player as he is still around at #11 or a person thinks he is so good he will be taken in the 1st ten picks and he is so valuable to us we should trade up to get him. I think DRC is likely the best CB out there, I simply argue that he deserves that designation in part because he should have the talent to eventually cover the best WRs all over the field (I think most fans do not expect him to shut down a vet like a Welker or Moss as a rookie which in part undercuts the argument that we need him to deal with the threat Welker/Moss et al. provide). The simple fact is that GENERALLY the CB in the Cover 2 as we run it is simply not used to Cover WRs all over the field. They are used for short zone WR coverage and to contain outside rushes. If we choose to spend major resources for a player we will not use to the highest value of that player then so be it, but I think this would be a waste of resources on our part.

I NEVER said DRC is not a top talent. In fact I think he is the best CB out there. What I did say specifically is that I define ELITE talent as a player who is good enough to get a top 10 selection. I do not think DRC will go in the top ten so therefore by the specific definition I site (rather than simple fact-free opinion) DRC will likely not be an elite player as I am specifically defining them. To make your post even further non-sensical in this light. Since we have pick #11 then either DRC will be there and thus fail to me the definition I was talking about or you are advocating the Bills trade up to get DRC. Which view do you hold? You may define elite players by some other standard and if so then say so.

I think most fans feel getting good players is simply getting good players and thus if the Bills come to #11 and a player they had rated in the top 5 or so has some how slipped to them they should take him even if it is not a position of need. However, I think many would be disappointed in a CB choice at #11 because the best CBs available like DRC are in no way elite players (which I define as a top 10 talent). The best CBs are rated as such because they have the talent to cover a WR all over the field. However, since we do not use the CB primarily in this way in our version of the Cover 2, we would simply be spending the #11 resource necessary to pick such a CB, but then we would not use him that way in our D. Perhaps if DRC was an elite talent it might be worth the pick, but he does not appear to be so we would not alter our entire D scheme merely to use him to his maximum potential. Even worse, the main argument for going CB is that our opponents are loading up on vets like Welker and Moss. DRC and in fact any CB which can be had in this draft are not good enough that one should expect them to shutdown a proven vet like a Welker or Moss (even if you were willing to vastly change our scheme merely to get more out of DRC. By far unless a true need to improve our pass protection like an elite pass rusher were to slip to us, the better football move would seem to be to trade down and increase our resources and pick a non-elite DL guy (or even an LB) with a non-elite lower pick. Folks would be disappointed if we took CB or DRC because not only is there a reasonable case to be made that they are a bit of a reach at #11, but then even if you think it is not a reach we would not use these players very well ibn our D. The way we generally employ the CB our pass protection is likely more improved with a second tier rusher than it is by a #11 CB.

What are your reasons for thinking this?

These facts confirm to me that our CBs have trouble stopping the passing game and makes the case that a key to us helping out these troubled players is for us to invest in getting a better pass rush, Can you really make the case that there are rookies and UDFAs out there who are gonna shut down opposing passing games?

The WR need is much larger than can be filled by a sleeper. We not only cut our #2 but also: 1. The number 1 WR Evans shows great potential and may one day be a consistent Pro Bowl performer, but he is coming off a troubled year, showed good teammate loyalty but mouthed off in a negative way about JPs situation, and will hit the FA marketplace unless resigned. Maybe he recovers and has an outstanding year, but maybe also he is gone after this season. 2. The number 3 was impressive as a PR guy and because of his speed. However, the fortitude he demonstrated several times going over the middle and bouncing back from some wicked hits, is also a scary thing because he is a little guy. 3. This team has journeyman at FB, a is lackluster in terms of receiving threats at TE which likely means we are going to depend hard on the WRs. Reed is a good guy but probably fits in better as a #4 than as a #2 snd Parrish is a bigger threat at #3. It is not outrageous if we pick two WRs and actually make them both high picks.

JP being named the starter or even having an equal footing shot (and actually even having an unequal footing shot) at the starters job in Buffalo just ain't gonna happen. He himself declared the Jax game make or break for his career as a Bill and its hard to draw any other conclusion than that he broke. As long as JP is a Bill he could conceivably get a shot at starting only if Edwards suffered an injury which cost him PT. Even then there are several things which would have to happen beyond any statistical case in order for him to truly win the starters job. They are: 1. Win the confidence of his teammates- This could conceivably happen in this what have you done for me lately NFL life. Despite what knee-jerk JP detractors say, he clearly has shown as recently as the NYJ game last year where Edwards just simply failed to be productive with the team and got knocked out with an injury (the injury issue is a concern as it should be with any QB in the NFL but even despite his troubled history with injury in college it is way too early to label him injury prone so this concern is not a worry without further evidence). JP's play was a key to winning the NYJ game where Edwards failed prior to his injury. Further, those who simply rag on JP seem to forget that he took this chance to play well enough that though the Bills coaches wanted to bring Edwards back in he had to sit for at least a week though healthy because JP was simply performing to well to bench. If he gets into the line-up and patches together a couple of wins like last year he could quite easily win back the confidence of his teammates. 2. However, winning his fellow players loyalty is only part of the equation and actually is the less important piece compared to winning the confidence of the HC, OC and QB coach. These men like the players are heavily motivated by winning and JP despite whatever statistical case folks want to cobble together to claim he is a bum (these rants as well as the one which is pro-JP which started this thread show how stats can be used to prove just about anything). The coaching braintrust is more of a believer in a player they pickede rather than someone chosen by the old regime. They are most motivated by winning and like last year if JP is the QB while the team is winning they would not sit him even though they were more enthused about the guy they picked. However. JP could read the handwriting on the wall hence him calling himself out. When he broke in the Jax game it was a simple thing to sit him and go with their guy Edwards (particularly when he showed he came to play upon getting back in the line-up and his outstanding performance for a rookie made the job his as the season ended and he proved unable to play well in bad weather toward the end of the season (I'm sure some statistical excuses for his unproductive play can be found but these excuses simply demonstrate that though Edwards is definitely and correctly our starter he has not shown he deserves this nod with performance rather than potential on the field. 3. He needs to restore the faith of Bills fans. This I think can be done for a majority of the fans. As much as folks like to pretend there is only one right answer to the question of who should be the starting QB, there actually are multiple right answers depending on what type of fan one chooses to be. I think (it is merely MHO) that the majority of Bills fans actually could love either player as the starter. Some our die-hard Bills fans and whoever wears the colors they root for. Many others who root for the team are actually casual rooters and they care little which player is starting. I think the 3rd largest group are simply ticked at JP for never proving himself and for disappointing them so many times as the playoff droughted Bills have disappointed them. Many of these folks will never forget or forgive and would definitely prefer to see JP gone. The most virulent of these fans concoct statistical fantasy which equal the pro JP statistical bending which started this thread. This is where a bunch of the WGR callers come from. A fourth group and I think the smallest cadre are JP rooters for some reason and seemingly will forgive him anything. 4. The fourth group he needs to win over is the media and this will never happen. Folks like GR make too much money selling commercials listened to by JP haters and as the one sports radio station in this town. Legends in their own minds like Jerry Sullivan are hard at work trying to provoke the next QB controversy which makes their job of filling column inches easy to do. A swath of the media will never forgive JP and are happy to trade on the loudest voices in the third group to stir up trouble even though it makes the team less effective. JP start? i don't think so.

1. the first game against the Seahawks is by far the most important. 2. Since you asked for three the next game against Jax is the second most important. 3. Again since you asked for three then the third game against the Raiders clearly is the next worry, but if the players look at this as anything more than the next game they are doing themselves and the fans a disservice. Time and again we see players who almost certainly were focused on future games and then failed to take care of business in the easy one next week they looked beyond. We saw this a couple of years ago when a hapless Fins team managed to beat a Pats team that had already logged a game as a victory. One of the reasons the NFL is so much fun to watch is that the cliche around the phrase any given week is simply true to often.

The NFL business is not about a focus on selling mid-level luxury seats at all. They are happy to sell you anything for as much money as you will give them so yes they do promote this feature. However, under the old CBA which fenced off luxury seat sales from being part of the money that the players accessed because it not part of the gross receipts designated for determining the salary cap. Under the new CBA the cap is determining by looking at ALL the gross receipts and removed this incentive for defining everything the owners could as a luxury item. Again, there is no case to define this financially as a situation where the NFL has to make and either/or decision between Buffalo and Toronto. The bean counters at the NFL know it would be dumb for them to throw away the significant number of nickels that Ralph has spent years building in WNY when they do not have to in order to also harvest dollars from the Toronto market. There is no question that a Toronto franchise would potentially make a lot more money than a Buffalo franchise, but again what are the credible reasons why the NFL would choose not to make money from BOTH a Toronto franchise and a Buffalo franchise if they can. They already know that they can make massive amounts of money from a Buffalo franchise and the huge list of potential ticket buyers indicates that at least initially there is a massive amount to be made in Toronto as well. It is simply a mistake to view the Bills franchise decision as being solely that of an individual owner. As the NFL as a whole will have the right of approval of any owner Ralph (or his estate) sales outright to, the decision will be not simply what is good for Ralph (who actually will be dead when the sale takes place) but will be determined by what is good for the NFL as a whole. Given a choice between the least money in Buffalo, a larger but still lesser amount of money from Toronto, or getting the most money by having franchises in both places, the likely choice is that the NFL will choose more money and run franchises in both cities.

They will choose.... BOTH The NFL is all about maximizing $. I see few reasons why the NFL would make a choice to toss the 40,000+ season tickets they sell here, the 30,000+ individual game tickets they almost always sell for a game here. The millions of dollars from advertisers to the market interested in Bills games which have not only already been cultivated but generally are either used to or champing at the bit to give the NFL bucks for tie-ins. The millions of dollars of other tie-ins which have contributed to the Buffalo franchise being one of the most valuable in sports. If for some reason they feel they must throw away all of this money to get a shot at making even more money from a TOR franchise, this amount simply pales against the total $ they would get by setting up a new franchise in TOR and still maintaining the millions of dollars which are virtually guaranteed from the Buffalo franchise. IMHO, the current move is a smart move to cement the Bills claim to TOR being part of the Bills market which allows him to demand that any new franchise in TOR, in addition to the kings ransom they will pony up for the franchise they will have to make a direct payment to the Bills for invading their territory. Many folks seem to have their panties all up in a wad in their worries about whether the Bills will be attracted to TOR by the big bucks. This view might have some legitimacy if some Al Davis like new owner wants to move the team to his/her hometown, but actually the days of individual owner capitalism have been replaced with a new communal capitalism of the entire NFL being the closest thing to a printing press at the mint in terms of turning out the bucks for the group as a whole. We saw this when over the objections of the old guard like Ralph, the NFL under the leadership of Tagliaboo signed a deal which negotiated away 60.5% of the total revenue because 39.5% of the NFL take from the big cash cow of the networks is more money than the individual capitalist owners even dreamed of making from their teams. The huge interest which TOR fans are expressing in their willingness to pay huge amounts of money for a mere pre-season game is great news for those who want to keep the Bills here because it is a clear demonstration of enough interest at least initially for Toronto to more than carry its own franchise and still pay a huge fee to the Bills for not competing with the new franchise. By putting a new Toronto franchise in the same division as the Bills one not only guarantees two sell-outs but begins to build a rivalry which creates more interest in both franchises. The Bills business will be harder as the regional marketing scheme we have suddenly needs to compete up north, but actually, Toronto is looked upon by a significant number of Southern Ontarians with disdain and the Bills even in a TOR/NFL world would still give the Bills some significant support. As long as there are customers willing to give their nickels to the NFL, the league will make every effort to take their nickels. I for one am not worried about TOR taking away the Bills franchise and I am made even less worried because of the tremendous interest north of the border.

The sense I get from hearing a number of draft rants is that its more complicated than simply declaring this a weak WR draft. If you are looking for a top 5 or top 10 draft talent to be your WR it is a very weak class. However, if you are looking for a talent at WR who will probably get a late first or second round pick this is actually a fairly deep class. This actually works to the Bills favor as we are not looking for a talent who will be our franchise #1 WR for years to come (though that would be nice but while possible in this crapshoot called the draft where Tom Brady is found in the 6th you cannot bank on that and reality is what one should bank on). We are looking for someone to be our #2. Banking on a crapshoot for immediate return is already a hard thing. Even if you find a Pro Bowl quality WR talent like an Eric Moulds it can easily be 3 years before he hits his stride. My sense is that what the Bills want to do is to trade down in the hopes of first only having to spend a low first round choice for the low first round talent at best we will get for WR and also to get a second first day choice to dip into what appears to be a fairly robust pool of second tier WR talents. The odds are that any WR we get is going to be a disappointment in his first year. The intelligent thing to do seems to be to get a couple of first day choice we can spend on WR with the plans that one of these two will work out.

Sorry. When I do part 2, i will try to focus a little more on presentation rather than simply thinking out loud.

A very thoughtful post from R. Rich which lays out the general notion that as no one player/position improvement will put the Bills over the top, but improving a variety of positions with the very good but not great players we will likely be able to get will not hurt our team building at all is a good one, This sensible view if taken forces us away from the notion that we MUST choose a particular player by trading up or trading down, but we can see how reality develops (reality is a pesky thing) and simply try to do the right thing (this may be trading down, making a pick depending upon who is left and who slips as we approach our pick, or even trading up as it becomes more clear if a player who is top 5 on our board slips to #8. This view is frustrating I am sure for the over-active poster such as myself IF one has a point of view that wants a particular player or position (fortunately I do not have my eye on any one player or any one position so I am not driven to make my usual repetitive case for some pick). It also must be frustrating for the legends in their own mind out there who think and argue they have it all figured out, even though the draft is a huge multi-variable equation and usually a surprise happens somewhere in the top 20 (like the run on safeties which led to 3 being picked in the top 15 year before last when some argue safeties should not be taken to round 2 and even more reasonable folks had Whitner (who has been the class of the safeties taken so far) meriting a pick in the 20s). It is fun to mock draft and theorize but it is even more fun because reality usually renders most mocks as being silly notions by pick #10. Though inspired by an earlier post I put this up separately as I think through this new model of looking at things for me and of course to invite any comments helpful or the weird certainty which sometime echoes loudly on TSW (drop dead certainty often strikes me as odd since I think specifically this is all interesting because it is impossible to know exactly what reality will be and different realities are totally legitimate ways to proceed depending upon what happens- ex. picking Whitner at #8 was totally whacky if Huff was also still on the board AND there were good opportunities to trade down and still get one of the two, however, with Oak surprising folks and taking Huff at #7 the Bills were simply forced to fill their safety hole by taking Whitner at #8 as he likely would not have made it to #10 as DET at #9 was looking for a safety. Fortunately for us Whitner has proved to be noticeably better than Huff so this way early pick of the second safety in the draft in retrospect was the right move- though after 2 years it really is a year too early to draw legit conclusions. At any rate, I am more than happy to leave it to the mods to deal with folding this into the Rich threat which prompted it if they wish. At any rate, my thinking now revolve around assessing where the Bills are at particular positions (fairly typical assessment), but also articulating for myself where they are in terms of the quality of a plan B and a plan C at each position. I then factor this against my sense of the quality of the players and who is likely to be available (a virtual total crapshoot as I do not know the needs of other teams as well as I feel I know the Bills) and the results of this multi-variable equation leads me to be comfortable or uncomfortable with various mocks. Specifically, my sense is (this is presented in the order of the Depth Chart at Bills Daily and is not a statement of the importance IMHO of particular positions): OFFENSE Quarterbacks- Plan A- adequate, Plan B- Adequate, Plan C- who knows. Edwards has not yet done enough on the field to earn the title of a solid starter, but he has outstanding potential and deserves the starter shot though I expect him to be a second year player with the ups and downs that come with this. Losman called himself out in the Jax game as a make or break and he broke. Though his career as a starter as a Bill is done (I think he has great athletic talents and a fair chance to do well in a different situation though he is done as a starter here) he is a former NFL starting QB who if we do not get a good deal for him (this must include us being able to sign a viable back-up) he has the talents to fill in for us in spots if we need it. Hamdan is an unknown quantity with a fun name. I will be happy if he is seen from time to time but never heard from. I see no need to worry about this position for draft purposes. Tight End- Plan A- inadequate, Plan B- inadequate, Plan C- Nonexistent The player quality at this position leaves me longing for an approach like the St. Louis Rams where until their acquisition of McMichael last year this team would get a reception or two from the TE. If Schonert plans to run a more traditional offense using the TE as a receiver then a receiving TE is one of our primary needs. The unfortunate thing is that no TE is likely worthy of a 1st rounder and even though folks like Bennet, Kellar, or Davis MAY one day be very good pros, none are so drop dead certain that one would want to build an offense around them and we dod not even has a good plan B TE receiver as Royal is a consistent blocker at best. We showed some flashes of good receiving production out of the TE slot in a couple of Edwards game (though one of my favorite plays of last year was Fowler/JP muffing the snap but JP showing great athleticism picking it up on the bounce and great QB skills keeping looking downfield and then hitting Gaines who stuck with getting open to catch the pass, but Gaines is gone and Royal has been inconsistent so we need something different to happen here. Ironically, if we solve this issue, the big beneficiary will likely be our pass D production as an effective mid-short zone passing game reduce the number of 3 and outs we have. Getting a working TE threat would improve our pass D productivity far more than getting a CB who can cover WRs all over the field IMHO because we rarely use the CB in this role in our version of the Cover 2. Our draft needs really depends on what Schonert is going to try to do. RB- Plan A- Very Good, Plan B- Very Good, Plan C- Adequate I think Lynch has an impressive rookie year and if we use the receiving skills he showed in college (which we never did consistently using the Fairchild O regardless of who the QB was.) he can become a legit Pro Bowler. Jackson is a great plan B who not only subs well from play to play, bu can even peel off a 100 yard game. Wright has the unusual talent combo of being a good receiver and good short yardage back in college but we need to find an effective way employ these skills No draft need here, but a big coaching task for the OC to develop a scheme which uses them as receivers and the position coach to train these very young players to realize receiving talents as pros they showed in college. No draft needs at RB. FB Plan A- Inadequate, Plan B- Inadequate Barnes is a journeyman and Evans is a journeyman in training. The main thing which makes me doubt that the Bills will not pursue a TE who is more of an offensive threat is that it seems pretty clear that FB in not only not an offensive threat but even marginal for pass blocking ability. No ability in this draft to even meet our FB needs if this were to be made a key to our offense. We are most likely to employ Wright as our short yardage guy and go with a HB set-up that merges our inadequacies at TE with our inadequacies at FB. Wide Receivers Plsn A:- Adequate to very good, Plan B: Non-existent Plan C: Good to very good, Plan D: Adequate, Plan E: Inadequate The lack of receiving threats on this team at FB and TE our failure under Fairchild to effectively use the RBs ar receivers (be it the failure to effectively bring production from Lynch as a receiver despite good college chops and regardless of which QB was in and even seeing far better us of Willis as a receiver in Balt than here) means we likely will need to get a lot of production from our WRs. Evans had great chemistry with JP but needs to develop the same effective deep passing production with Edwards. His loyalty to JP was admirable but approached hissy-fits due to his lack of clicking with Edwards and his FA status next year looming large. The lack of us having an effective threat at #2 is not only a problem in itself but makes the multi-variable Evans equation impossible to solve correctly without credible #2 production. Parrish has great explosiveness and open field ability demonstrated in his PRs and some quick slants. He also has shown himself to be a tough and becoming reliable receiver over the middle (very impressive for a little guy). Reed is a very talented #4, but is not a speed threat at #3 and is overmatched as a #2. If we see injuries like in the past and given ST needs, the #5 WR is more than a mere afterthought. I like both Jenkins and Mayle as good competitors who if the show ST production are great to have. I see us needing two good players at WR from this draft. Though this draft does not have anyone I see as worthy of a #12 pick at WR we should be able to find two first day choices to fill out our WR needs. Guards- Plan A: Adequate could be very good, Plan B: (really A prime) adequate good be good. Plan C: Journeyman could be adequate, Plan D: Disappointment as starter could be adequate, Overall chemistry and health will be key. Dockery has gotten the big bucks and while he has not yet developed into a Kent Hullesque leader of this unit by performance or respect, it would be still be silly to demand he produce this in his first year. For now, I think folks feel there was a clear upgrade in OL play and Dockery though we are paying him a ton was a clear important part of that upgrade. His fellow guard the very young Butler was also impressive, but is still learning and ain't there yet but there are reasons to be hopeful. Whittles injury meant that our main back-up G questions are not answered though he has the experience to fill this role. Yet, he is old enough that it may be this injury is just the first in a string which makes him not an answer for us. The other guard Preston is simply a disappointment, but actually he showed enough that he got a shot though he proved not be starting material. yet we are looking for a #3 G at most so his failure as a starting answer does not necessarily mean he can not be good enough to be the #4 (or maybe the #3 G. You can never have enough depth on your OL and a G is a good thing for us to get if we think he can become a solid back-up. Tackles- Plan A- Excellent. Plan B (A prime)- adequate, Plan C- Inadequate Plan D- Inadequate Peters being drafted by a UDFA TE and then being convinced and supported by JMac to switch to LT is a piece of great work that should leave folks satisfied with what JMac brought to the Bills despite his not repeating his SB OL performance he produced for NYG with a bunch of has been OL players. Walker is a huge man (and it is really hard to teach huge) who also shows signs of coming into his own as an RT. Nevertheless injuries are a constant concern even if the starters do not make it a worry and our two back-up Ts ain't there yet. A tried and true vet on his way out might have been a better patch to have but increased OL depth and in particular at T is needed so this may be a draft need Centers- Plan A- Adequate (but we want and need more) Plan B- Adequate (barely if that). I think Fowler has done an OK job in his play and our OL situation is improved from under its previous guidance at center. I think he has proved to be far more durable than his earlier career indicated. That being said if we want our OL to be dominant we will need a more dominant center than Fowler. I think many fans realize that and some in an attempt to advocate that over-reach and claim Fowler sucks and cannot play. I disagree in that I say his play so far has been adequate and he is very mobile which would hold us in better stead if we used his skills more with pulling center runs to the outside or used a mobile pocket for a QB of JPs strengths and weakenesses. However, unless Schonert changes our offensive style our game does not fit Fowler that well. Add to that back-up Preston's disappointing performance in an effort to have him start at G. Again folks are overclaiming seeming to say that because he is not good enough to start consistently at G he cannot be an adequate back-up Center. Actually the C spot is his natural spot and even if him being back-up C is not anyone's preference and he/we will be in trouble if he Foler goes down for multiple games rather than giving him an ocaisional blow or one or two spot starts then we might be in trouble (as most teams would be if their starting C went down. Center is not a draft priority but we should be on the look out if a quality C slips and to look for a development project for next year or so, L DEFENSE - I'll work on that tomorrow. Ends Tackles Outside LBs Middle LBs Aaron Schobel Marcus Stroud Angelo Crowell Paul Pozluszny Chris Kelsay John McCargo Kawika Mitchell John DiGiorgio Ryan Denney Spencer Johnson Keith Ellison Copeland Bryan Kyle Williams Blake Costanzo Ryan Neill Jason Jefferson Shaun Nua Corey Mace Daniel Watts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerback Strong Safety Free Safety Terrence McGee Donte Whitner Ko Simpson Jabari Greer Bryan Scott Bryan Scott William James John Wendling George Wilson Ashton Youboty Jon Corto Jon Corto Dustin Fox SPECIAL TEAMS Kicker Punter Punt Returner Kick Returner Rian Lindell Brian Moorman Roscoe Parrish Terrence McGee D.J. Fitzpatrick D.J. Fitzpatrick Fred Jackson Roscoe Parrish Fred Jackson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snapper Holder Ryan Neill Brian Moorman Duke Preston

I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off... ahh what's the use.....

It is possible to think the worst thing about JP that one wants and still be correct in realizing that the media includes a bunch of whiners and profiteers over any Bills misery they can stir up as well. These two notions are not contradictory at all.

I think a lot of this will be determined by where the Bills rank Jenkins or Hardy as good pass catchers at TE. Given the limited use of our CB in pass D to the short zone and a change-up from time to time where our CB actually might cover the WR deep, there is a good argument to be made that the best way to improve pass D is by avoiding so many three and outs which force the D onto the field. The need to improve pass D performance is a definite need for this team. However, the utility in picking a CB on the first day of the draft to do this is a more questionable call the way we run our D.

AsHorus noted above but in repetitive greater detail. The keys to improving the Bills pass D are: 1. Even more improvement in the DL since as NYG demonstrated in the last SB while good DB play is key to neutralizing Moss/Welker (and for the Bills with a base Cover 2 scheme it is more the safeties than the CB play where we need effective work rather than the CBs primarily), the big key was to sack and consistently pressure Brady. 2. Good LB play is also key as blitzes by the LBs are a key point of pressure, good tackling on the RBs keeps the O out of the run/pass option for picking up the 1st down. This allows for more effective coverage of the WRs. 3. Again better safety play is far more critical against the WRs as in our base D the CBs release the WRs in the deep and even mid zone. 4. Though in the it is man against man it is arguable that an even better method than getting improved CB play for getting better production from the pass D is actually to get a good possession WR or a TE who reduces our 3 and outs and simply keeps their WRs off the field. You are right that the pass D production must be improved, but getting better CB play is far from the primary method we should pursue to get better production as the CB generally will play the short zone and from time to time run with WRs all over the field when we switch to a more conventional D,