Pyrite Gal

I for one would be incredibly disappointed if we go with a CB in the first. The Bills may do this because their habit has been to pick the guy they judge to be good at his position on the first day even if there is no perceived need there (such as the 3rd round picks of Youbouty and Edwards though in both these cases a need at these spots quickly emerged if only due to injury). In the case of a CB such a pick would actually be welcomed by many Bills faithful, though actually my sense is that in the short-term this would essentially be a wasted 1st round pick for us as the CB in the Cover 2 the way we play it relatively rarely covers the WR all over the field, We would pay through the nose for a potential shut down CB and then pretty much fail to use him this way unless we plan to turn our D style on its head. Even worse, there are those who are running scared at CB out of fear what WRs like Moss and Welker will do to us in this pass happy league. Quite frankly it is simply foolish to think that a rookie CB unless he is the rebirth of Deion Sanders is going to be able to do much with vets like Moss and Welker. Our shutdown CB is not going to be the key to defending against these two, but just as it happened in the SB, the key is actually to get consistent pressure on Brady and to make him land on his butt as much as you can. Not only would this CB we spent a mint on not even cover the WR on the majority of plays, but when he is called on, Moss and Welker would be licking their chops to go against a rookie rather McGee or whoever wins the battle for #2 CB. We might draft a CB in the first as this would satisfy a lot of the media or fans with a superficial knowledge of the game, but I will be disappointed if this is the move as it really will be a waste of a valuable resource which I hope we can expend on solving an immediate need. A great CB would help us do better containment on outside runs and if the player chosen has a good press coverage rep he lives us to it will help our D, but it really is a fantasy for folks to assert that a great CB will be drafted who will do much to help us cover WRs all over the field.

I flatly disagree with the premise that it was easier to start over back in the day than it is now. This is demonstrated by the factual happenings where even when teams like the 02 Bills improved from 3-13 to 8-8, this historic turnaround was actually second in the league in turnarounds that year. Here in the first decade of the 21st century it is much doable to go from worst to first than it was in old days of the 70s and 80s. What you may be saying (though since the premise discussed above is contrary to the facts I am not sure what you are saying) that though it is in fact easier to turnaround your record from worst to adequate, what folks do not do well is actually taking the steps to move the shorter distance from marginally inadequate to adequacy. Here I think the Bills problems are not anchored in any systematic difficulty in the task but in the fact that the owner Ralph has badly managed the teams slide down from the glory days. Specifically he: 1. Handled the GM situation badly as he failed to get a long with Polian who played a critical role in rebuilding this team and in his next stop in Indy eventually oversaw them winning an SB. The move to Butler was not goshawful in that the team's SB appearances continued with not only a team that Polian helped build but with a team that contained Polian acquisitions but was mostly a Butler product. However, the relationship between Butler and Ralph ended up so badly (in any failed relationship my sense is both parties deserve a fair share of the blame even if one agrees that is not equal) that I think it is pretty clear the team has suffered from the bad with the good of Ralph's GM management and hiring. When one add the TD debacle to the GM story, the first problem may be just an incident. The second problem may be a co-incidence if one tries to be charitable. However, the 3rd GM debacle represents a trend and the buck must stop with the owner. 2. Ralph deserves a good deal of praise for showing the commitment to keep the Bills here over the decades and his commitment to keep them here while he is alive. However, there are a series of events such as his vote against the CBA when all others except the Browns saw that the owners had to choose between making more money from the NFL than ever before or holding their breath til they turned blue over the fact the NFLPA was affirmed as the majority partner with 60.5% of the total gross receipts going to salary and that the good ol days when the owners simply kicked the Garvey led NFLPA's butt were over. His failure to get voted into the HOF is a fair indicator that Ralph has pissed off a substantial portion of the NFL somehow in his time (my bet is that it was him unilaterally violating the salary cap with his handshake deal with Jimbo). He deserves praise for honoring the Bills fans by keeping the team here, but the facts are he has whined in the Buff News publicly about fans not giving him sellouts in the early 90s, he ran a mid 20th century business style until TD got here (he sucked in some onfield decisions but ran a great business that finally moved into the 21st century) when Willcall tickets were still sorted in shoeboxes, and he has launched stupid tirades leading to insane actions like his grievance against Wade which he lost badly. 3. Ralph owns the team and thus in our society it is his right to meddle and play if he chooses. However, he has made some moves that simply did not produce for the Bills on the field such as his handshake agreement to reward Jimbo in a future contract (a contract which never happened because in the playoffs against Jax it became clear he was done as a player). In addition, he pulled rank and made the team go with RJ in the last playoff loss. The decisions is debatable but the results are what they were. Its easier for a team to move from worst to first in the NFL these days if you do what it is possible to do smartly. Ralph deserves honest praise for what he has done, but also the fact simply is he also deserves an honest assessment that his decisions generally have not been very good throughout the 90s and the first part of this decade.

I definitely agree there is the POSSIBILITY that Willis is going to be special in the cover-2. I found your pointing out that Urlacher provides a real world example of what it takes in terms of performance from a rookie to be special in a Jauron designed cover-2 at MLB. The Urlacher example does show it is possible that it can be done. However. what it takes to do it is for a player to be judged worthy of the 9th pick in the draft as Urlacher was (by definition if Willis falls to us and we take him he is not a top ten player though he would be close) and he produced a result where he has achieved multiple Pro Bowls and even was NFL Player of the Year. I think even if one is psyched about Willis, asserting this is the standard he will achieve is a bit much for anyone to assert. I agree that at worst he is a marginal starter (and probably actually would prove better than that even though I suspect that learning process would involved some moments of great pain as the rookie learns to be a vet). However, I think that the higher POSSIBILITY for the Bills to get better fastest is to get some more draft resources and look for competition and vet experience to fill our gaps, Specifically, if we can find a deal partner (and several possibilities have been suggested of folks lower than us who may want to trade up) such that we can trade down into a pick in the low 20s we can get multiple 2 and/or 3rd round choices in this draft which would allow us to: 1. Take 2 of the RBs deemed worthy of 1st day choices (there are a bunch of Pittman, Irons, Booker, etc types) and these two can vie with A-Train to give us multiple options for a player worthy of the #1 RB slot or give us lots of options at a RB by committee approach if that difficult thing is what we have to do. 2. Still allow us to take Pos with a pick at 20 or lower (where the consensus seems to have him going) and slot him in at SLB and use Crowell as MLB who some have doubts about, but given that I think a vet is more likely to read plays better than a rookie and that his stats INDICATE that with his reasonable INT total for an LB each of the last two years (he got 2 last year despite missing a quarter of the season which is less than but comparable to in a truncated seasonthe 4 F-B led NFL LBs with, he finished 3rd on the Bills with tackles despite the shorter season, AND he registered a reasonable number of sacks in each of the last two seasons (his 2 tied F-B for the team lead among LBs again despite the truncated season). While some folks do complain about him taking bad angles tackling and other technical complaints, these are merely reduced to whines folks may be making to sound good unless they can back up these observations with specific cases (siting the at least the game and preferably even the gametime so folks can review taped games if they want) or with stats which are not conclusive but at least are an indicator based in observable data. Folks can merely have the typical fact-free opinions if they wish because us psychotics devote way too much time to this, but they should not be surprised if their whines are viewed simply as that. Crowell may also prove to be a mere reincarnation of Fletcher evoking complaints of him making tackles to deep in our secondary. However, his stats and specific plays he made like a very good INT he got against Miami in the first game to nip a drive in the bud at tne end of the first half are a reasonable INDICATOR that he may step up and produce a game which has good pass coverage and the aggression we want from our LBs as indicated by his sacks and tackles to his credit. 3, If we get the right deal and augment our 4 current first day picks with two acquired in trade with the flip flop we may even be able to draft for more depth at MLB to sit on the bech and play ST while he learns the MLB game such as a Buster Davis. If we can pull off a trade down with the #12 I will be very happy as we will have competition to fill our many needs rather than simply hoping that Willis turns out to be the next Urlacher. It could happen but it seems quite risky to bank on it and foolish to assume it will happen.

This an example of why the draft for all the dead lock certain analysis is really a crapshoot in the end. For all the hyperventilating regarding Willis, is he the quite reasonably judged the best LB in this class? Yeah for sure. Is it a stone cold certainty he will be the answer we seek at MLB for years to come? No, its not a certainty at all, but I am pretty hopeful this tackling machine would be just that in long run. The fact simply is that in the future he could look back on his career and legitimately judge it as being excellent boasting many Pro Bowl appearances, but this great career can include two incredibly non-productive years as a starter and his career would be following the track of a Eric Moulds or Larry Johnson Will he be an immediate starter for this team? Actually, if he most likely this occurs because he was good enough to start at SLB or he is declared MLB and John DiGregorio is the alternative. Of the 18 out of 32 players picked #1 in what was judged to be a strong draft who were #1 on their team's depth chart A FULL YEAR AFTER THE DRAFT, there was a tremendous bias toward these players being top 10 picks. By definition, if Willis drops to us he will be valued outside of what I define as an elite pick. It certainly is possible that he could be an immediate starter, but I think it goes a little too far to declare this a certainty beyond the fact that the best alternative to him is Crowell (which puts him at SLB) and the depth chart alternative to him is DiGregorio (which if we are even thinking that mean Crowell at MLB or a lot of pain this this year while Willis learns to become a vet). Well its about 50/50 or so given what has happened in the real world in terms of results. I hope we trade down if we can because competition is really our best alternative for getting better quickest.

I would definitely say that looking a Chicago and then also at the Colts (who got simply shredded by the run at historic levels in some of their final regular season games) is that it raises either the question whether the old saw Marv subscribes too that it all starts with stopping the run and running is in fact true in the "new" NFL. or alternately whether it is quite possible to do a sufficient job of stopping run without a behemoth in place. There is certainly a danger in simply looking to the most successful teams and replicating their scheme with lesser players, but also the fact that the two best teams ran the Cover 2 and triumphed is a real world result which deserves some analysis.

The question is actually whether drafting a run plugger DT is the method this team will use to stop the run. Actually it is not and unless there is some unexpected desire by the Bills to simply take the best player available because an Okoye falls to #12 I doubt they will go through the pain of deciding whether to cut Triplett who just signed last year, McCargo who just drafted in the 1st round last year, Walker who they just signed, or Williams last year's starter whom they just drafted. In other words this drafting of a run plugger ain't gonna happen. As described above the only DE in any way at risk is Hargrove and a DE to replace him is not going to fit the run plugger model you are talking about The plan actually is to have this unit greatly improve against the run. Based on how the Cover 2 seems to work based on my rank amateur observations is that the DTs in fact do not play so much as run plugging bulwarks who hold the LOS, but as active penetrators who if they diagnose the play correctly penetrate and blow up run plays. or force the OL to double team them and work hard to make sure they do not blow up the run that blocking bias is so obvious that an aggressive LB can come in pretty much unblocked to stuff the run or an aggressive stunting effort by the DEs and DTs stop the run. Can this work? Yep it can if you have good mobile DTs rather than run pluggers like a Big Ted. The model for this is actually the Jax defense which finished 4th in the league in rush defense, The biggest DT is Henderson at 325 (about 40-50 pounds less than the standard big run plugger like a Big Ted). The other 3 DTs Stroud, Meier and I can't remember who else all weigh in at less than 310 (I think a couple of them have playing weights below 300. There are many things uncertain about the Bills in this draft, but one of the more certain ones is that we are not going to spend big resources going after a DL player in this draft.

Someone made a pitch for the importance of back-ups below and I agree, In particular Leonhard currently is second on the depth chart at both safety positions and I pretty much expect the Bills to go for a safety in this draft and probably as early as they can since this player is not going to be an optional development player for this team but he will play in 07 (and if we have some bad luck with injuries or any sophomore slump by our two starting safeties this player may see some critical situations).

1. The maximum number of starts he has EVER had in his career is 13 which he did in 2003. This means if he is even able to do as well as he ever has done in terms of work as a #1 RB (certainly possible BUT he will hit the wrong side of 30 during the season so it is not unlikely that being past the prime age for an RB he may probably as likely do worse than his best year). 2. In his "career" year of 2003 he produced Willis M like numbers rushing of slightly over 1000 yards. 3. The same argument that he has not had a lot of wear and tear these past few years is true but also the flipside is that he was not used because he could not or was at least unlikely to according to his coaches play or produce. His long time not lugging the rock also brings with it the undeniable flipside of age and he is simply not the young rookie he once was. Can A-Train burst forth to be the #1 we want? It certainly is possible. Is this likely to happen. No not at all likely even if possible.

It sounds like everyone is practicing buyer 101. A final great negotiating tactic if you plan to make a deal is to walk out of the door and see if the seller runs after you with his "new" final offer. AJ did this with sending word out that Turner is likely to remain in SD and now Marv is saying this with a quote which in no way says he is willing to give up a 1st and a 3rd (despite some panicking in this thread) but that its complex and all options including not making a deal are open. The Bills should trade down the #12 if we can (Peterson likely will not drop that far and if he does it may well mean his injury is serious) and Willis is the best of a not as strong as last year LB crop with no consensus top 10 pick amongst the LBs). With the additional 2nd and.or thirds we pick up for flipping firsts with a later drafting team we can still pick up Pos (or Timmons if people want) and have enough extra first day picks we can chose two of the first day rated RBs one of whom may well step up to be the #1 or give us a lot of options with A-Train for an RBBC. If we can get extra first day picks we get better faster IMHO by creating more competition in camp.

Solution 6: Trade down the#12 choice if possible. For example, according to draft choice equivalent value charted published at the Redzone site, the # 12 has a value of 1200 points and if you traded down even to #20 (depending upon how risk averse we are we can go down further and get more value in return but still be on the board for Poz) with its value set at 850. In order for us to receive equivalent value the other team needs to give us another draft pick (or combination of picks) equivalent to the 23rd pick in the second round for flipping firsts. If the Bills pull off this type of deal, they then draft Poz at OLB (or Timmons if you believe in him) and have him start at SLB with Crowell at MLB and Ellison at WLB, but then have at least 2 2nd round picks or some combination of 2nd and 3rd round picks which gives us multiple first day choices. They then are able to select two of the folks considered likely first day choices at RB such as Pittman, Irons (and even have enough resources to after all-purpose FB Brian Leonard if they chose. I think they should go this route even if Willis is available at #12 and if they have any doubts about the health of a Peterson should he drop. Willis looks good, butby definition in this case (and this certainly appears to be the consensus theory) Willis is not a top 10 pick (what I define as an elite prospect). He looks good, but he is merely the strongest of a non-10 consensus pick LB class and I have no problem trading down if we can pull it off because I think we are better quicker with this optuion. With two first day RB choices they have a reasonable potential that one of these candidates might emerge as a #1 or if not and they are forced to go RBBC these two join with A-Train to provide great flexibility.

I do not think that one can draw conclusions about what we would do regarding paying to keep a player at another position based on the decision to let NC walks. A: It would have been a waste to pay NC the salary the market gave to a "playmaker" when the Cover 2 we run simply is not going to use him in away that allows him to make plays. I think it was fairly predictable that in the Cover 2 the way we run it the MLB led the team in INTs. Our D has the CB releasing players to the deep zone safety coverage after about 15 yards and as long as we are going to play a D which does not emphasize NC making big plays, it made little sense to pay him a big play salary. B: Different teams simply assign different value to a players. Simply because SF saw fit to give NC a record contract does not mean that NC is worth that much to the Bills as a player. In fact, one of the reasons the tag exists is this keeps a player out of the market completely because once a player is in the market he quite likely can attract a contract of a size much larger than the player is actually worth to the team which developed him. Buffalo and the 9ers both finished 7-9 but if the Bills correctly judge they are more than one player away while SF makes a judgment that a possible Pro Bowl CB will allow them to achieve some spectacular goal, NC can be reasonably worth a larger payment to another team than he is worth to the Bills or at some absolute players. C: Different teams make different assessments of how good a player is and just because NC got a record breaking contract from the 9ers does not necessarily mean for sure that he is one of the best CBs in the league. In fact if one looks the inretrospect stupid contract that the 9ers gave Jennings last year, there may be good reason to assume that the Bills are likely more correct in thinking NC is not worth the big cash. Certainly those who watched the Bills closely such as myself insisted that JJ was injury prone and not worth a big contract and now SF has belatedly found that is true,

I think we do need 2 LBs to replace the 2 LCs who started last year who are gone, but my assumption is that we fill one of those spots through internal player development of Ellison. However, I am one of those is not completely set on the idea that Ellison is ready to start productively for an entire season. He can possibly (if not probably) do this because he was adequate (much to the surprise of many including me) that he did this given his second day draft status. Yet, I count myself among those who believe he can play adequately who doubt he will excel like we want our LB to and had grown use to with TKO when he was healthy as a legit Pro Bowler at Will.

I think one thing which may speak to going after Poz to be a Bill rather than going after Willis is that based on what folks are estimating (its tough to go by what teams are saying because if they are smart they are lying) the Bills better pick Willis at 12 (if he drops to them because if they really want him they better trade up) but if the Bills are targetting Poz they should be able to trade into the teens with their pick and still get him and potentially they can trade into the lower 20s and still get him. It would seem to me that IF the Bills make the judgment that Poz can start for us at SLB, that this team is better in the 07 season with an LB crew of Poz at Sam, Crowell at Mike and Ellison at Will and also have some additional seconds and/or thirds for the trade down (if they can make a deal) than they are with a trio of Ellison, Crowell, and Willis. We simply will have to find two LBs to replace our starters at LB last season and likely will also need to draft two RBs as I only see A-Train and Cieslak as being on the final roster to fill what likely will be 5 RB jobs (I think Shaud does not perform well enough to be our 3rd down back as he is no threat to take it to the house on plays he is in and I think Jackson has gotten some nice raves, but clearly he is nothing anyone should count upon). If we were to secure an extra first day pick or two then I think we would be in a position to select two the RBs who are generally viewed as first day talent (Pittman, Booker, Bush, Irons and maybe Hunt) and with these players and A-Train (and maybe Turner) and there is a reasonable chance that one of these players will step up and deserve a #1 RB slot or make the RBBC effort have a chance of succeeding. In addition, we can probably use some more depth at LB and while there is no one among the first day choices who would be a viable starter, a pick like Davis may add some depth and ST chops that help this team. My sense is that everything will doubtfully work out just as we plan it (injury is always a concern and even top notch picks eventually can simply fail to produce as rookies (look at the Eric Moulds example or the Larry Johnson example if you are thinking about bonafide Pro Bowl level players who simply sucked in terms of production their first two years). I think the Bills are better faster if they continue to emphasize competition. As the lead post in this thread shows there is at least some thinking out there based on objective data (rather than mere fact-free opinion) that Pos and Willis are comparable (I actually disagree with this and think Willis is clearly better than Poz but I do not see Willis as being an elite talent (which I define as a consensus top 10 pick) such as AJ Hawk was at LB last year. I think the Bills can produce more by relying on competition rather than relying on any of the players who MIGHT drop to us at #12.

The problem is that even of the best 18 there few are really all that great. Even in a draft with a lot talent (by most folks estimate) like last year, the 1st round was far from a certainty in terms of the choices being definite great players. The facts simply are that of the 32 first round choices in what was viewed as a pretty strong draft my review a couple of weeks ago found that only 18 of these players were first on their team's depth chart at their position. The conventional wisdom is that the 1st round of a draft should produce a player who will contribute as a starter his first year and if one does it right will be an immediate starter if he is a top 10 choice. The reality was that this proved to be true even in last year's fairly strong draft to be true a bit above 50% of the time. Particularly at LB where this class overall looks fairly weak with none of the players (Willis being the best of them) is seen as a consensus choice to be a top 10 player, this draft unfortunately looks too much like a crap shoot. What are the Bills to do? How do we choose in the quantity versus quality quandary? My sense is that the obvious answer is that you try to go for both. The top grade talent at both RB and LB have too many limitations for us to bank on them as would be required if we invest everything in them. None of the 1B choices look all that strong, but then neither do the 1A choices so if we can trade down and get two 1Bs to compete against each other, this strikes me as a far better strategy than simply assuming that any of the 1As (Peterson and Willis) will work out for sure. Even IF either of these players are as good as advertised, the possibility of injury which wrecks our season are too high. Even IF either of these players ultimately turn out to be multi-time Pro Bowl quality, this may be that their course to glory is like that of a Larry Johnson and his first two years before he starts his Pro Bowl run were pretty unproductive. It is not so much that I have faith in any specific players it that I do have more faith in competition than I do in any specific players. Even of they are good there is simply too much that can go wrong for us to bet the ranch and the dog on either Peterson or Willis.

I think there are simply too many doubts about whether in fact Peterson or Willis will in fact work out to be difference makers that it is not a significantly better strategy for the Bills to trade down and increase competition by getting more 1st day picks. It is not simply just a choice of whether you judge either of these two players to be the real deal, but given that we need at least two stud RBs (A-Train should be an acceptable #2 RB as he was last year, but the potential for even Peterson with his history of injury to be much more than a WM type producer is not a stone cold cinch) and that we will need too replace 2 LBs who started last season (Ellison may be one, but then even if this works Willis would have to be the other unless we traded down and I think it is asking for a lot too work out for us to have two hits at LB here). I agree with folks that FA tends to be a good way of producing role players and that their are few guarantees there, but one should not let the limitations of FA fool a rooter into thinking that the draft is a guarantee of success. Good players tend to get drafted, but also draftees (even 1st rounders) can easily turn out to be big time disappointments. The draft is simply a crapshoot with grave limitations (just as FA is) and the greatest chance of success comes from having two pretty good guys who can compete to see which one is very good rather than generally assuming that a particular player is definitely going to be very good (whether he is acquired via FA or the draft).

This sounds like just the type of thing one would say if you were hoping to move a team that refused to part with a 1st for you off the dime to get them to budge (this is where I think the Bills are) or alternately it may be a last gasp attempt by Turner's folks to get the Bills to budge before he and SD give up and take a second. I hope Marv holds out unless SD caves and if they do not, he trades down from #12 (now or on draft day as I think the team is better in 07 if it trades down for additional 1st day picks even if Peterson or Willis were to drop to #12 for them. Peterson and Willis both have significant upside if they work out, but the draft is simply too big of a crapshoot to bank on either of these two players working out for sure.

I certainly can see how trading down for more 1st day picks this year might actually be a strategy that makes this team better faster so this might be the way Levy and Ralph go IF we get the right offer. I do not think that either Peterson or Willis is so definitely great (but then few are in this crapshoot known as the draft for the most part) that if we get an offer consistent with the relative value draft pick charts we should reject it out of hand. For example, if the Bills are satisfied that one of the likely OLBs who should be available in the 1st round in the 20s (such as Poz or maybe Timmons) can be had, if the Bills trade down from #12 they get their LB (Crowell at MLB and the late 1st LB) and the extra first day pick(s) allows them to choose two RB candidates (Pittman, Booker, Bush, whomever) and even get a reserve MLB (Davis for example) whom they would use on ST and as a reserve MLB tp learn the position (which they would have to do anyway if they used Willis as the starting MLB unless the relatively small chance comes true that he is the reincarnation of Urlacher. If the Bills want to win now then trading down is probably the right thing to do.

10 together may be tough but I agree with those who say this should be doable. Fertile ground for tickets should be from those folks who live in Erie PA or east toward Syracuse who have season tix and love coming to Bills games to tailgate and sometimes even come on Saturday to see friends and then hit the parking lots early. As Monday will be a workday for many of these folks and even if they can get time off they are looking at the 2-3 hour drive back home in the middle of the night. In other words these folks will likely not come. You might try the Bills Backers to see if they have chapters in places like Erie or Syracuse looking for folks who want to sell their season duckets.

Actually thanks for this recollection because I had certainly forgotten about Urlacher and this is a great example because it was in a Jauron defense. Its nice to know that there is at least one example of a rookie doing the job right out the box at MLB. On the other hand, this does not necessarily bode well for figuring or assuming that this is gonna work out. If what it takes for a rookie to do the job we want done is for that player to be at the Urlacher level of of accomplishment, this is clearly possible but does not seem to be something that one wants to bank on it happening. In many ways it would make a better case for being comfortable with the Bills counting upon a rookie to be what we need at MLB if the player were actually someone of relatively average or even very good talent rather than the rookie who pulls this off is clearly an extraordinary player whether the team around him is good or bad. The Bears team around Urlacher in his rookie year was a very good team (I think that may have been the year Jauron was NFL HC of the year and team finished 13-3. I do not think many expect that Willis will have that level of quality of squad around him or running the O. It also is interesting to look at Urlacher's college resume as noted by you with is switch from safety to MLB. I think this and also F-B's accomplishments and play under Jauron speak to the importance of outstanding pass defense being a big part of the MLB's role in our Cover 2. Willis' strong suit seems to be his tackling and run pursuit while his ability to pass cover I am sure is not bad based on his earning the Butkus award and given the speed he showed in workouts, a start by him at MLB will be a departure from what Jauron had in Urlacher and F-B as it is clear that pass defense is not the lead part of the Willis game and actually it appears to be the piece he needs to work on mosty (unless the scouts who cite him for missing a few tackles through over-pursuit are correct that is the part of the game he needs to work on most). I do appreciate you answering my inquiry directly with the Urlacher reference, and I hope others can provide some additional examples of rookies who handled the cover 2 MLB role so that it is more than the one example that may simply be the exception that proves the rule.

Sure we definitely should give him the ball more because he did well with it when he got it. However, it is exactly this lack of him having but on a lot of mileage and show he can take a season's worth of the pounding a #1 RB gets which is why there is no way in the world we should reasonably assume he can do this. Add to this the fact that at NO POINT IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER has he ever started more than 13 games in a particular season and that his best year for yards gained was that same year (way back when in 2003) was him producing a fairly Willis like 1024. Thomas has shown production as a #2 RB and it seems quite reasonable to want to give him more carries particular since we traded our #1 RB. However, there is simply no reason beyond irrational hope that he should be counted upon to be a performer as our #1 RB.

If Olbermann talks about football he will be (as he did in his old ESPN days) he will be fine. If instead he focuses on talking politics as he does now in his current MSNBC gig and Rush did in his aborted ESPN gig he will screw up. The problem here is not which wing of politics you adopt and blather about, the problem comes when a commentator focuses on politics rather than football. It killed Limbaugh's ESPN gig and if Olbermann goes that way it will kill any CBS gig he gets. As far as the punditry, I like what Rick Warren said, people ask him if he is right wing or left wing and he says that actually he prefers the whole bird. If you insist on either wing alone you simply fly around in circles.

I think you reject arguments that force you to abandon one approach totally to adopt the other. The thing adults do is strike balances. It is an easy thing to be a fanatic and simply choose one doctrine or other. Choosing either extreme to the exclusion of the other usually results in the same thing which is failure. The difficult thing to do is to figure out which choice gives you the best balance and if the Bills pull this off as they did last year (the Bills maintained that Whitner would have been their choice as a better player than the highly regarded Huff and they would have taken him over Huff anyway. As it turned out Whitner did produce better stats than Huff and given the run triggered for safeties by Oaks Huff choice I think the Bills struck that balance well).

I have posted a few expositions about why I think that Crowell, though being the prominent OLB player in a blatantly underperforming D the last two years, is a far more likely prospect for adequate MLB performance than the rookie Willis if he were to start. It is not that I have great faith in Crowell being an adequate performer at MLB. It is that I believe over the last two years, that Crowell has produced stats which have made him a team leader each year in tackles credit to him, INTs, and sacks (for example even though his season was cut short significantly by his injury he still finished 3rd on the D in tackles, 3rd on the team in INTs and tied for the lead among LBs for sacks (he was beaten out thankfully by several DL players). The absolute #s were relatively low (2 INTs for example but given that Fletcher led all NFL LBs with 4 INTS getting 2 in 12 games is not bad at all particularly when his pick on MI was quite nifty athletically and pivotal to stopping MI when they were driving). At any rate, while stats prove little in and of themselves, they are a good indicator that he has demonstrated a diverse skillset of pass coverage and aggressive tackling which is the lead requirement of someone playing the diverse roles required of an MLB in our Hybrid Cover 2 where the player is required to both tackle like a DT on runs AND also pass cover like a safety as he has deep cover in the middle of the field with the safeties. My theory is that (and I fully acknowledge it is mere theory from this armchair QB who has not remembered as much as Jauron/Fewell have forgotten about running a D) even a Crowell who does not perform adequately to meet the judgments of us fans is very likely to be a better performer for a year or two than a rookie MLB. IMHO, opposing OCs will be simply champing at the bit to run plays against a rookie MLB looking to fake him into believing plays where they run a delayed draw are in fact going to be passes so he takes a step back or remains still instead of attacking the LOS, or even worse they take advantage of the fact he is aggressive and Marv has said he wants the LBs to be more aggressive and they fake him into attacking the LOS and then some speedy WR runs a post pattern up the middle and receives an easy pass for 6. Many ardent Willis supporters have accused me of being too theoretical with my analysis and say I am making things to theoretical and complicated. They instead seem to point to Willis great speed shown at the Combine as an indicator of how potent he will be in pass coverage and his rep as a tackling machine as an explanation of why he will finally reverse the main complaint many had about F-B that he initiated hits 5-6 yards after a gain in our secondary. For the most part, I would not mind if we drafted Willis, but I think that the team would perform better if Willis started at SLB (where apparently he can play well from some scouting but who knows) rather than at MLB. Crowell may prove to be inadequate at MLB, but I am fairly certain he would be a better than the rookie Willis would be as a performer in large part because I think just about any rookie must make vet level reads to figure out whether he should be running backward to pass cover or aggressively pinch in to tackle or fill the gap left by our penetrating DTs on many plays. Folks may have problems with my theory and that is fine. The different approach is to instead ask the many active football watchers on TSW whether folks know of any real world examples of rookie players performing well as MLBs in a Tampa 2 scheme similar to the one we run. My ideas may simply be theories but my sense is that these theories as conceptual as they are have more relationship to reality than the various fact-free opinions that Willis will transform the Bills D. I and I suspect others would really benefit from getting real world examples from folks of rookies who have mastered and played the Tampa 2 scheme as MLBs.

I think the problem is that most folks watch the entertaining game of football because it is an area where political ideology though it may impact some things for some people is simply not the major force to explain most things in football. If Olbermann comes to a pre-game show he would be well advised to learn from the Rush example (and as ESPN learned) that folks are watching the game to watch the game and they vote, attend meetings or brainlessly call into Limbaugh or watch MSNBC to get their political fix or info. Ultimately ideological rants are simply a distraction from the game for the most part are fairly simplistic explanations which end up being even more off-point than even my overly complex analyses of the game.

I guess the answer is that Patrick Willis is a nice theory as a pro MLB whom we fans hope and pray will work out even though there are few any examples of a rookie MLB being able to even play adequately at MLB given the diverse requirements for an MLB in a Cover 2. I know I as a fan would love to here more than crickets chirping as a response to requests for examples of rookie MLBs who have brought improvements in team performance from their play. I guess the theory is that: a. Willis has a great rep as a tackling machine (though some scouting reports note that he sometimes over-pursues and misses too often tackles that he should make) b. also showed great speed at the combine which should help his pass coverage ability (though a couple of times he got to show this speed doing an extraordinary job chasing down receivers who had toasted his pass coverage) c. Jauron/Fewell are going to quite quickly coach this rookie up so that he does not fall prey noticeably to OC running plays which fool this rookie into taking a step back to deep cover when it actually is delayed draw or to get him to pinch in as he aggressively attacks the run only to find a speedy WR is running a post pattern into the deep middle d. that even though it is quite likely that Crowell will be the signal caller as the only LB or safety with more than a year of NFL experience that we are going to not suffer any miscues in communicating across the field or making solid reads from the wing position of an OLB rather than being in the center of the field and of course e. Crowell is such an obviously inadequate player that folks fairly readily dismiss him as a potential MLB starter, but still see an LB unit built around a rookie at MLB, second year player Ellison at WLB and the decrepit Crowell at SLB is going to be a functional LB unit. Yeah right. This is a great theory.