Pyrite Gal

My apologies for stating what I think is a fairly simple point so poorly that you seem to misnterpret the point I am making. My logic DOES NOT claim you never draft a rookie to start at MLB because it cannot be done. I know of at least one team (I think it was Seattle but i am not sure) that actually drafted an MLB who started almost all their games last year and he equited himself well enough. What my logic argues is that THE BILLS are specifically running a version of the Tampa 2 within which they require the MLB to both attack the run and tackle a lot (as though he were a DT when the MLB is filling a gap on the DL) or alternately on pass plays in our Tampa 2 style D, the MLB divides the deep cover responsibility with the two safeties to cover the middle of the field often running with a fleet footed WR running a post pattern. Certainly an MLB who has shown outstanding tackling ability (as Willis has) and good coverage ability (which I think Willis has one on one against college talent, but he struggled with against the best college talent in the senior bowl and it is an unknown how he covers in an NFL zone coverage against NFL talents) can do this as a rookie. I simply argue that Fletcher clearly benefited from seeing NFL plays run for about a decade so that he could diagnose as well as anyone whether the opposing team was likely to try a run play given the down distance and formation or try a run. I simply argue that while Willis should not be completely overwhelmed and unable to perform at all as our starting MLB (at least I hope not though it is quite possible even for an eventual Pro Bowl quality player as we saw where Eric Moulds playing a much simpler position and being for years the best athlete on the Bills team was simply overmatched for two years) throwing him into this position where it is critical how he diagnoses plays is likely to be quite painful to watch. My contention is that if I am an opposing OC, I simply am salivating at the opportunity to face the Bills who at times in 06 could be fooled or had even with a 10 year vet who is a tackling machine who led NFL LBs in INTs at the MLB position. If i was an opposing OC, i would feel like we failed if we did not get at least 1 TD or huge gain from fooling this rookie MLB into hesitating for at least one step in when I faked a run and instead sent a WR up the middle for a long pass, I certainly feel we can start at rookie at MLB and by the end of the year he will be a vet. I just argue that he will become a vet in part because he makes a few critical misreads that get turned into big plays by the opponent. I think we can do better in 2007 and am not willing to have yet another learning year to get future benefits from a MLB who is our starter for a long time. Do you disagree that starting Willis at MLB will not be something which opposing OCs will try to exploit? Is there something tangible you know that you can share with us about why Willis will be good enough right off the bat to not be exploited. I am happy to give this logic a rest when folks provide some objective credible perspective that says this will not or even may not be a concern.

I think the answer to your question is yes! I do think that Wllis would likely profit from doing the same thing that Crowell did which is to be F-B back-up for a year and be coached, practice and play the opposing D for the O starters and learn the position and be ready to start next year. However, this is probably my own unreasonable expectations that we should be able to get a quality starter immediately from our 1st round choice. This certainly happens in real life as seen in the case of top 10 picks like Whitner and in later round first CBs taken like Clements, though it certainly is not always the case for 1st round choices. Most fans seem to really over-value the draft, but i think that we should be able to and certainly hope for even if we do not expect it for certain that we get an immediate starting contribution from our #12 pick. Thus from what I see of Willis he has great potential to be the Bills MLB for years, my bias is still for us to pick someone who is an immediate starter on this team. I suspect we can do this with an OG choice, create great competition at DT with McCargo if we made this choice, and potentially if NC goes perhaps pick a CB who can start immediately. Given the starters we have in place and the quality of the players who should be available at #12 (though it is still too early to pick a player for sure until we see the Combine results, particularly the reactions to personal meetings with the players) I do not think we can get a QB at $12 capable unseating JP, an RB at # 12 that makes sense for us in terms of unseating WM, a WR which makes sense for us in terms of unseating PP, a TE capable of unseating Royal, a DE capable of unseating Schobel or who makes sense for us unseating Denney or Kelsy, or in this case an MLB who makes sense for us to start at MLB in the version of the Cover 2 we run.

QB- set for a starter, need to try out Nall for #2 and if the braintrust thinks he can do it then acquiring a reasonable disaster QB is fine (or even having Holcomb for another year is fine if we believe in Nall), however if the braintrust is unsure of Nall then bring in a guy who is serious competition for #2. JP is not a sure thing, but it is definitely his job to lose and he should be given a little latitude before going to an alternative. OL- Starters appear to be coming around and I suspect 4 of 5 are capable starters or capable of being trained into it (Peters. Fowler, Pennington, Preston) and Gandy may be but getting a solid G is the priority need to make this unit a force. There is a priority need though to get some back-up depth and we should be on the lookout for a proven back-up talent and use Gandy in this regard. RB- We are in the driver's seat with McGahee who still has the unrealized potential he showed prior to his injury and the hard work which led to his surprisingly good recovery (I would not have been surprised if he had been cut given how badly he was hurt, but the Bills docs got it right that he would in fact come back to be at least an adequate NFL player. His performance has been disappointing for the last season and a half (though this says as much about the unrealistic expectations of most of us fans as it does about his play) but as he was the fastest Bill ever to rush for 2000 yards and given his show of some good stuff like his stiff arm and performances against the Jets, his performance clearly indicates he deserves another chance to prove himself that he really is an elite back (he ain't yet). Many fans wanna throw him under the bus due to his stupid attitude towards women and silly fiscal perspectives (which seem in part based on the press being happy to interpret loose remarks by him in the worse light in order to gain eyeballs and ears so they can use the news to sell commercials). However, there does not seem to be any negative things being said about him by his teammates and unless he appears to be a cancer with a real impact on team chemistry, his off field comments mean zero to this person who really only cares about on-field performance and to a lesser but real extent potential. Particularly since he is in his FA year and the fiscal implications of producing should solve any motivation issues (again I think mostly imagined by folks more focused on the WM soap opera stuff) and that the Bills pretty completely have the choice of signing or tagging him if he produces this year or letting him walk if he sucks, staying the course is by far the smart football move with him and see how this year plays out. Thomas really impressed as a great fill in for a couple of games and even may have some good receiving chops if Fairchild can learn how to use the RB properly as a receiver. However, it would be foolish to count on him as being a starter as his pre-season numbers and very good but not outstanding #2 RB performance indicates it would be quite dangerous to count on him carrying the rock as a #1 RB. WM in fact does deserve some credit for being a workhorse in the same breath as folks whine about him not having breakaway speed. Shelton added little and appears done. The Bills should look to get an RB on the second day of the draft (we have too many other important needs to waste a first day pick on a player likely to sit most of the season). This may be tough but in a blue moon productive RBs can be found on the second day and finding a back-up capable of filling the Shaud Williams role and it is to be hoped at least providing additional motivation for WM by being a threat but really being capable of developing into a starter next year (or in two seasons if we franchise or keep WM) is more possible. I view this player less as someone who will contribute this year, but more as someone who may develop and thus gives us leverage in negotiations to come with WM or an answer next year if he sucks. Shelton should be cut and the Bills should go more with a 1 back and spread offense rather than trying to run a power game that does not work/ I think they will be more successful running in a spread if Fairchild uses the WR's speed to force opposing Ds into the nickel and allows WM to return to using the stiff arm on outside runs and give him an extra DB instead of an LB to run on. WRs- Drafting a solid possession guy with the 2nd (or preferably the 3rd) of our choices would be fine, but actually I think that we have scary speed talent to use Evans, PP, Parrish as our top 3 and then go with Reed and the empty backfield if we want a possession WR. DL- We will need one more who will get some PT in our rotation assuming we will cut Anderson. I think the default is probably to go offense with this draft this year, but if the braintrust looks Amobi Okoye in the eye and like his talent and think his young psyche and body will stand up to being a pro then drafting a DT is probably the thing to do. On the other hand if they believe that McCargo's injury issues are behind him now that our docs have put a screw into his foot and that the sense he was turning a corner just before his injury, then picking up a cheaper FA at DT may be the way to go. DE looks fairly solid and either Kelsay should be resigned to a reasonable contract, but if someone offers him a ton then Hargrove it is. LB- This looks like a weak year in the draft for LBs and I think if Fletch walks then trying to buy a Briggs (assuming he is not franchised) or the best available player (Crowell can move inside if necessary which allows us to look at OLBs to replace him). Willis appears easily to be the most talented MLB, but if the Bills want him it appears they can trade down substantially and get him (which says something about how ready he is to step in at MLB for us particularly given that our MLB in our Cover 2 will need to tackle like a DT and cover like a safety). Willis will eventually learn to read plays like a vet, but it will simply be painful and our D performance will likely be worse while he reads plays like a rookie as he will be for a good while. If we must draft a replacement for F-B, then moving Crowell inside and drafting a Timmons or Polwhatshisname at OLB makes more sense to me than drafting Willis and watching him do the JP thing of being a physically gifted player who simply needs some PT to make mistakes and learn the game before we are confident in him. CBs- I think Whitner and Simpson leave us set at safety for quite a while. Given that the way our CBs play in the Tampa 2 we run calls on them to run press coverage and then release the WR after 10-15 yards, I do not see us paying Champ Bailey money for NC. NC is a great CB and really a playmaker, but he long ago lost the PR job to Parrish eliminating this benefit and actually though I think he can play the press well, he is of Champ Bailey level use in a D which allows him to sit back or range around like the zone blitz or Corey style which allowed him time to sit back, read the QBs eyes and jump routes. I'd rather see us spend these big buck truly making our LBs formidable, getting a vet Guard, or getting a good reserve DT than see it used on an NC we are not gonna use to his full capability the way we use our CBs. In terms of replacing him I see Youbouty proving able to step in as our nickel and potentially even challenge to be the #2 CB as he is a big boy, competitive sort who has shown good hand-fighting ability. If we buy a cheaper vet at CB I feel fine using him in this defined somewhat limited role as our CB in our Cover 2.

There is also plenty of work to do taking responsibility for coaching individual players on techniques, reviewing game tape not only for prep of the O plan but to figure out which techniques will best beat the tendencies of opposing players. The Bills actually Dick LeBeau design our zone blitz scheme, but Jerry Gray kept the DC title and he called the specific plays in games. Dissatisfaction with not having play call duties talked about as a prime reason LeBeau left. Various duties which are sometimes called quality assurance which is reviewing your own game tape looking for the flaws that other teams might try to exploit are also parts of some teams and are duties which may fall to an OC not calling plays.

Actually no one is compensated specifically one for one for a player lost, but all your losses to FA are balanced with your gains and then compensatory picks are given out. So it depends on who the Bills also lose tp FA in the year he goes (if he goes) and that is balanced by who the Bills sign. These compiled player values are individually calculated in some black box formulation by an NFL committee and no one has been able to figure it out so teams for the most part simply ignore any additions they will get in the draft until the actual assignment happens. This is particularly true as the compensation given for lost players has dropped over the years from initial assignment of 1st round pick compensation to 3rd (or maybe even 4th rounders as the top compensation today. In general one needs to simply figure that anyone who is lost to FA will not bring you any real compensation back. Still them is the rules and sometimes you benefit by signing a TKO with nothing given up and sometimes you lose a Winfield.

Just to be clear about things (things meaning the Bills and not about my demographics or anything which really is trivia as far as TSW is concerned). I do think that we should simply stay the course and play WM as our #1 RB because most of the cards are really in the Bills hands with him contractually. His 2006 season was pretty disappointing looking at the numbers with a low YPC and limited production in the receiving game. However, I think any mostly rational look at his career stats and the events surrounding his prospects are: 1. WM is no where near showing the results he offered prior to his traumatic injury at the end of his career. However, the Bills docs were correct in judging that his injuries though traumatic and devastating appeared to be clean tears with the proper development and very hard work by WM could in fact be recovered from to allow him to be a credible NFL player and even starter. Anyone who saw the injury or heard the long list of tears would have been reasonable in figuring his career was essentially done. However, in the crapshoot known as the draft, a player touted as a top 5 pick being available at #23 is a rarity and given what the Bills docs said, this was a reasonable risk to take and while it has not paid off yet, the Bills docs look pretty good and TD made a ballsy choice. 2. Particularly of note is the game his first season of play (2004) when he went out of the game with a knee injury against the Bengals and despite being listed as doubtful all week came back to pick up 105 yards on 15 carries the next week against SF. He not only showed that the showcase drills he did to try to pump up his draft position though clearly not a real indicator he was ready to play (he almost certainly needed the full year of rehab the Bills gave him in 2003) were in fact a good indicator that he would do the work necessary to be able to take the field and in fact, since he has produced over 25 carries for us in a few games he is a workhorse who can be counted upon to carry the rock. 3. On the downside though, despite a great start in terms of effort and work by him and in rushing yardage (like it or not he is the fastest Bills to gain 2,000 yards on the ground and while this no way whatsoever makes him better than complete RB HOF player Thurman or great football player/horrendous person OJ, it is a remarkable achievement that shows even the post-injury WM has potential. The potential is yet unrealized though (which is what makes it potential) as really his production on the field hit a highpoint the middle of last season leading to his since flat out wrong comments that he is an "elite RB" and he has been disappointing (except against NYJ) ever since, particularly when one looks at his YPC. The bottomline IMHO appears to be this: 1. The Bills hold the cards for the most part with WM this season as if he sucks they let him go but if he is great then it is our choice whether to tag and keep him, tag and trade him, or if we both want to show him the money and agree to a long-term deal. The only way for WM to attempt to control the situation would be for him to hold out, but particularly coming off a less than productive season he likely hurts himself financially if he decides to be such a bad actor and unreliable teammate that he gains his freedom. In addition, while his agent Drew Rosenidiot is a loudmouth, he has record of having his client come to camp and play and fear expressed by some of a holdout seem fairly baseless and against WM's financial interests. 2. Further, some complain (whine?) about him being unmotivated. I think this is a judgment which likely says more about the judger than an RB who can carry the ball 25 times in a game, but in any case everyone agrees that money certainly has proven to be a big time motivator for this player who worked out on his hobbled leg to get a draft spot and make it back to be capable of playing in the NFL. I suspect that in his FA year motivation will likely not be an issue. 3. Still, WM is a player who has yet to reach the potential or level we want and keeping him as your only option to be a 16 game starter is not a smart thing to do. Thomas did a great job filling in for WM when he went down last year, but no one mistakes him for someone you would rely on as your #1 RB. Therefore, the smart football move for the Bills would seem to be to draft a player (or sign yet another vet as a cheap FA) who has the potential to become a starter down the line who can fill the role Shaud Williams has not taken by storm and offer some competition to further motivate WM or even replace him in the longrun if necessary. it is to be hoped that such a player can be found on the second day of draft as we have other needs on the OL and DL and to deal with our FAs like NC, Fletch and Kelsay for us to spend a first day pick on an RB who may never see much PT for us anyway. I like where we are at RB right now and though you want to improve everywhere, this position is far from a major need for us except among those who for some reason care what WM says. As long as his teammates have no problem with him (and I have heard no teammate complaints about him) I have no problem with him because I do not care what he thinks I only care how he plays and may play this year. Those who argue that we can find a #1 RB even late in the draft don't worry as all need is to find a potential RB somewhere in this draft and I think we are all set with a second day RB pick.

In addition to it seeming quite unlikely that the Bills will be willing to sacrifice being in the drivers' seat contractually with McGahee by trading him (for those who worry about him lacking motivation he will have every financial reason to want to be productive this year. If he is not then you let him walk and if he is great then you tag and keep or tag and trade). Some folks seem to care so much about who he sleeps with and his crack (or on crack) fiscal advice, that they would be happy to trade him for the total speculation of a draft picks (there have been a couple of recitations of RBs who have been drafted in the 1st round over the years and the majority of them were disappointments so its hard to see Marv or anyone throwing their fates to the unknown of even a well-regarded draft pick as a replacement rather than sticking with the devil they know with WM's NFL production. The amusing thing for me though is the basic contradiction involved with dealing him. If WM is in fact such a negative (and I do not hear from any of his teammates that they have a problem with him despite the rants of us fans) then why would anybody give you anything of value for him. On the other hand, if folks propose that we are going to get our next definite #1 RB for him, then what are we giving up that makes him so valuable for another team to give us what in essence is a stud runner for him. The world wonders.

Agreed that this is really a key point to take into consideration when judging the relative value of PP to the Bills. Overall, I see no reason to engage in what I see as a somewhat farfetched statistical exercise suggested above of doubling PPs output to get a true sense of him because the Bills O play calling was relatively restricted because it was judged (probably correctly) that this was all JP could handle initially. The season stats are what they are. Overall, I think that if the Texans expected a playmaker and a #1 quality WR they did not get one (and should not have expected one) as Moulds has simply gotten old and he through a hissy-fit here because the Bills clearly had recognized this and moved on to Evans being the #1. For us, PP turned out #s which were not great but not bad for a #2 WR. Those who wrote him off based on his failure to be a productive #1 in AT and not really finding productivity in Dallas were simply wrong if they concluded from these failures that he was incapable of being an adequate #2WR. He was a great #2 in his last year here, and though he too has gotten older and never will even give a hint of potentially being a #1 again, his adequate production indicates he can still play that role IF he is used effectively. The question for us is whether he was used effectively and I think the anser is no. A reason for this may in fact be that our O ran at half speed until JP got his legs under him, but I do not think analysis of the game by game results supports that idea. A more real attempt to try to analyze this difference may be found in looking at the game by game. If it were merely JP's limitations which held him back so his production should be divided into an initial lameness with JP followed by productivity such that it is legitimate to double his final stats, then PP's numbers should reflect that difference one half of the season compared to the other. There should also be a relatively straight line of improved output by PP. The stats do not indicate this. The third to last game saw one of PP's worst effort as he got just 1 catch working in a pretty good (though not stellar) offensive performance with the team beating Miami. However, his next game was one of his better ones in which he was a productive target logging seven catches in a very productive offense. His last game was middlin at best as he logged 4 catches and the offense was fairly stymied by the Ravens. Also in this game the complaints about PP not trying hard enough seem their most legit of this season (though the other complaints of him generally rounding off routes seem overblown IMHO). He coulda/shoulda come back for one ball. Overall, I think PP's performance was in fact adequate at best for a #2 and the question I am left with is whether Fairchild could have put his remaining speed to better use by really opening our offense up at the end of the season, Its hard to say for sure, but certainly with much improvement by JP aand having set a precedent on the tape of PP being a possession receiver by us sets the stage for Fairchild to really run our O in 2007 as more of a Rams east offense if he chooses and if he has the ability.

I agree that all things being equal if all we do is plug in the above guys on the existing roster for NC and F-B we are almost certainly worse, but I think this lays the groundwork to employ the cap resources we have to do some damage. If one signs a Lance Briggs to replace Crowell who has moved over, I actually feel somewhat hopeful about Youbouty though not nearly being as good as NC, he our scheme actually will call for him to do alot less than what NC can do (press coverage in the short zone and then release the WR going deeper to the safeties and MLB we are already getting there. Of the first draft choice is Okoye to rotate in on the DL if the braintrust looks him in the eye and feels comfortable being a very young pro I feel pretty good about the D. As far as the O, I think that actually the existing roster was not as well coached as they could have been last year, If Fairchild has gained from his first time OC experience and JP continues to come into his own, I think our O can be productive with a play selection which uses the still speedy PP (I do not know why we used him as a possession WR) and the speed shown in some great episodes by Parrish and more use of WM as a receiver (he showed some potential in college and on plays like the first play of the Ravens game where he caught and ran the ball to a nice game which was called back on a seemingly unrelated penalty) I think that the skill players can get better production. The OL seems to be going in the right direction but can still use a good FA G to upgrade, but I feel like if we make the right moves we can definitely challenge for and make the playoffs.

There is certainly more than one legit method for ranking the top 20 FAs and SI and also many fans seem to be merging two different rankings and not realizing or depicting the fact the two methods are different. A ranking could show the top 20 expected likely salaries and this list would legitimately have a number of FAs QBs like Garica high on it even though I do not think he has played or will play effectively enough to merit a top QB salary or actually deserve based on his play to be among the top FA salaries. A ranking could show the writers estimate of the 2O best players and depending upon the intelligence and biases of the ranker likely not even have Garcia even on the list. A ranking could look beyond the 2007 season and rank players in terms of their likely contribution to a team over their career which for a 37 year old like Garcia could easily be 2 seasons (if not 1) max. This list seems to be a merger which include players likely to make big bucks not only because they are good, but because there is no top 10 player at their position in the draft (Lance Briggs for example). The list includes folks like Garcia who really have no upside for a team which views itself as at least a couple of years away from competing for the SB (even if a team has no QB but views themselves as a ways away Garcia has little value to them). For the Bills purposes, I would rank Fletch as a more important FA for us to keep than Clements. Clements will almost certainly make more $ than F-B from his next contract and also the relative age of the two players versus the Bills easily being a couple of years away from even thinking about an SB would have NC make more sense for the Bills. However, when one factors in that we have an heir apparent for Clements (Youbouty may need another year but then sign a one year placeholder FA CB to train him and keep the spot warm but if you give a big contract to NC, you end up with the semi-sizable McGee extension and Youbouty's first day slotted draftee contract which are all starter money sitting on 2 spots. However, the Bills have DeGregorio behind Fletch on the depth chart and more likely one moves Crowell back to MLB, but he is recovering from injury and now one has a hole at OLB to fill. In addition, with us playing a Tampa 2 which calls upon the MLB to both tackle like a DT and to cover the deep middle like a safety, plugging a rookie in to start for him while not unprecedented for an MLB would likely be quite painful to watch next year. Particularly given that the likely top MLB Willis seems to be a player we could trade down and still get and that he clearly is talented but struggled with pass coverage at the Senior Bowl, the calls for drafting him on TSW have reasonably subsided. The way we run the Cover 2, the CB releases the WR to the safeties and MLB after 10-15 yards and we are moving to a CB press coverage scheme which Clements can play certainly, but is far from his highest and best use sitting on and jumping on passes fir INTs playing the drop back coverage typical of the Bills in the past. A player like Clements is great, he just isn'y worth Cmap Bailey type money or even the franchise amount of the top 5 avg of CB salaries for a player who is gonna be beaten out for INTs by the MLB as the CBs were in our scheme. I'd franchise Fletch before I franchise NC if I were the Bills are they seem to be part of the way to exactly this decision.

No prob from my standpoint as I share your frustration, but I find personally that the pain of rooting for a team experiencing the playoff drought we have had to live through is actually best dealt with as you say by focusing on reality both the hopeful and the brutal reality. Certainly one my consistent rants is that I think folks need to keep in mind that the draft is one thing but actually reality is something else. I agree that a first rounder should reasonably be expected to start and contribute immediately and that first day picks can reasonably be expected and judged to make the starting line-up at some point in their first year. However, this is a mere fantasy league expectation/hope and in the end matters little compared to the reality of whether a player was good enough to start. In general, I think almost all GMs would consider it a pretty good draft if half the players they selected actually ended up starting for the team (I certainly think that is a pretty good accomplishment). However, if that half the picks being starters all came from second day picks and the first day choices all disappointed, I think the reality is likely that it was a pretty good draft and the failure of all the first day picks is interesting and something to think about and work to improve, but still reality says it was a pretty good draft and its really more a fantasy league point of interest that the first day picks turned out to be the non-contributors. Granted it is a legit point that the later picked players generally tend to be not as good as the earlier picked players and our drafter chose wrong on picks where they and their peers have the best chance to choose right. However, in assessing their choices if in fact they got a bunch of starters from their second day picks when they and their peers actually are more likely to choose non-contributors then kudos to our pickers as overall the reality simply is that half the guys they chose contributed. The misses happen and really is little more than woulda/coulda/shoulda second guessing in reality. The fact that the late drafted players are generally less talented is a truth that should be analyzed and taken into account. However, the real way to do this is not estimating whether their picks did as expected (this can say as much about the errors of expectation as it can say about the absolute quality of their decisions) but in fact reality is found in whether the team improved and the quality of their opponents rather than an assessment of whether they met fan/pundit expectations which may have been simply wrong. The reality is that the 2006 Bills team with a bunch of second day picks getting PT actually did improve by a couple of wins over the results of the 2005 team. Even better, I think this improvement is significant as half our games were against teams which made the playoffs (when the results for the total NFL pool is about 1/3 of teams make the playoffs so we produced two additional wins against opponents who produced better results that the league as a whole. In fact, of the 6 top seeds in the ADC we faced 5 of them and also the #1 NFC seed, the Bears, It is true that a team can simply give starts to bad players so simply measuring whether the draftees made the team or whether they started is not an absolute measure of whether the picks made good contributions. However, I will give more creedance to the reality that the rookies got substantial PT and starts on a team that improved its record against winning opponents rather than get ones panties all in a wad over the fact that 2 of 3 first day choices had disappointing productivity for us. The reality simply is that though it is too early to draw any conclusions about any of these rookies for another couple of seasons, that for this one season this draft produced 4 definite starters as the off-season began (the draft saw Whitner and Simpson as the definite starters at S and Pennington the definite starter at RT and Williams the definite starter at RDT though this slot is probably the one most likely to see us go with someone else next season- but even in this case that new starter may actually be draftee McCargo if he recovers from injury and continues to turn the corner in his play as he seemed to be doing before the foot injury). My guess is that Ellison goes back to being a back-up where he belongs, but actually Youbouty should at least take the psuedo starter role of being our nickel next year. The reality is that it is a good drafting job when 8 of the 8 players chosen see some critical PT against opponents who had a good record and your team improved by a couple of games, The fact that the first day choice disappointed in general (though it is hard for me to see how one blames the Bills for the Youbouty pick not producing since this was due to life and not a self-induced or even injury problem. I think if one is realistic this was simply an excellent draft. Could it have been better? Sure, but then we could have skipped Iraq, global climate change could have been avoided if we skipped the industrial revolution and a bunch of other woulda/coulda/shouldas.

Certainly anyone with any common sense refuses to label any of the second day picks (and actually even first day pick Whitner) as long term starters. In addition any one with common sense refuse to label McCargo as a bust. Anyone who would make such a declaration likely would have cut Moulds after two non-productive seasons. Its still to early for anyone to hyperventilate either positively or negatively over last year's draft. However the fact they got so many rookie starters on a team which improved its record significantly from the year before (two additional wins is actually a lot in today's NFL and doing against competition that performed very well generally makes this improvement significant) inoculates them quite a bit if they go DT again in the first round.

The surprising and far greater than normal production of the second day picks from last year probably inoculates the braintrust from complaints about them blowing the McCargo pick last year. My guess is that improving on the field will be the team's primary drive in making a choice rather than worrying about embarassment for making a DT choice that did not work out.

Speaking of angry, is there any additional word on the charges which were filed against him which someone provided a link too a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps the situation has been dealt with or draft pundits are ignoring it for now, since as this was a felony I would suspect that he would drop like a stone on many boards because of uncertainty as to his availability (even if he is ultimately found innocent a trial would mess with his availability) and potentially be a distraction. In any case, if character is such an issue for the Bills we might end up passing on him even if he is thought to be a good player.

Maybe or maybe not. Picking him has more than the normal risk for someone with his production as a four year starter. Having tested into school after he emigrated at a higher than normal academic level for his age, he comes to the pros at a much younger age than the normal pro player (I think he was a 19 year old senior). As this unprecedented (not to mention the unusual fact he is an emigre from Africa) and the NFL loves to imitate approaches that worked before, the faint of heart may fear making him a top 10 pick. Add to this that teams which did badly want help NOW and the fact he plays in the trenches cuts against him instead of picking a so-called skill position player (he is respected and put up the numbers but no one has him as being a can't miss line prospect like a Bruce or D'Brick (or even a Mike Williams for that matter). He well may drop to us unless he puts up some mutant #s at the Combine or folks are singularly impressed with his interviews.

I think the general feeling is that th Bills are going to put their two best STs on the field for the most part within the context of their rotation which is going to see every DL player whether a starter or a back-up seeing significant game time. There are differences in how the two DT positions are employed within our Cover 2 scheme, but each DT is going to have to learn how to play both positions anyway as we run various line stunts and other variations in an attempt to outwit the O. The depth chart positions and rankings are important but not something to get too caught up and certainly not something we will slavishly follow to the extent we are gonna sit down a better player in order to give a worse player the start because he is higher on the depth chart at the other DT position.

Good coaching can make good players better (if the scheme puts the players into the best position to make plays they can make) but I think it is rare that a scheme can make bad or inadequate players good. It seems to only take a week or two of tape analysis for am opponent to figure out how to exploit the weaknesses of bad players so I agree with the limitations of a scheme to be some miracle solution. However, the GW arrogance seemed to me to be rooted in him assessing his former players like Jenkins at SS or whathisname at LB (who got deked out of his jock by none other than Chad Pennington) actually had enough left in the gas tank that were anything other than bad players. GW's arrogance was in that assuming it was just his scheme which made his teams good when actually it was that his scheme was in fact good but mostly because it put great players like Blaine Bishop and Jevon Kearse in a good position to do what they could do. I think scheme matters alot, but while it is necessary it is not sufficient in and of itself. One needs the players who do well in a scheme. It actually is for that reason that I am concerned but not worried about the CB position if NC walks. From the scouting reports I have seen the Cover 2 scheme the Bills play is a good one that emphasizes and makes good use of Youbouty's skills (a big boy about NC size, rep as a very competitive player and good hand fighter, a bit of a ball hawk at OSU leading the team in INTs at some points and blocking a kick once) and minimizes his weaknesses (apparently not as good with his back to the QB and despite track star speed in running with WRs on deep routes). The feeling from many of the draft pundits seemed to be that he could use another year in school and this dropped this 1st round to the third, but ironically there was some word he could contribute immediately. Actually while I think missing training camp cost him in being able to contribute much this year, that he should at least be our nickel next year and is a possible candidate to actually fill in as #2.

Probably not, but it depends on what my strategy is for building a team capable of winning and I (and as best as I can tell) all of the TSW posters do not know what the Bills strategy likely is, so its hard to tell. Clearly, some folks have an idea of how they would build a winner such as the posts which advocate big spending on the OL and in particular building for the long term by drafting good prospects developing them and paying them the big bucks when they prove their worth. I actually agree this is the "right" to do it. However, I think TD did as well but given the cap constraints he found when he got here, TD's strategy was to make a couple of high stakes attempts at top-level draftees, but as the Bills cap issues did not allow them to spend much more on high level OL picks (as they had other fish to fry like trading a first day pick for a QB after the RJ/Flutie cap mismanagement and spending early choices on CBs like NC), TD attempted to solve the OL issue by drafting and training late picks and trying to catch lightening in a bottle with by getting talented but injured players like Farris or draft pick Sobieski. This strategy failed completely as MW proved to be a bad choice bust (and actually the leading alternative choice McKinnie would only have been a marginal improvement) and JJ proved to be injury prone. Further, the draft low and develop strategy also failed completely because OL position coach Vinklarek was not good enough and after he got canned replacement Ruel was about equally inexperienced. Finally, the alchemical effort to gety something out of folks like Farris or Sobierski proved to be a dry well. I think Marv also basically agrees with a strategy that would see us spending significant draft resources on OL players, but unfortunately after the TD failures at this strategy accompanying an unacceptably long drought in making the playoffs, the Bills simply have to many holes to fill and not enough time to draft and develop OL players as one should in a perfect world, we seem to be pursuing a strategy of using the acquisition of JMac (finally an adult in the position) to acquire "known" commodity FAs and develop late round picks and UDFAs to build the OL. Not preferable but like it or not its the reality. There have been hits and misses so far (Bennie Anderson and Tutan Reyes being the notable ones). However, the quite possible development of late choice Pennington, FA Fowler being able to start 16 (something he had never done before which he did last year while being adequate (no more than but no less than and given he beat the injury bug for at least one year this a good job so far by the braintrust, firt day pick Preston being adequate but we will see this year, and UDFA Peters turning into a big positive gives folks some reasonable hope of things working out. The big OL starter question is at LG IMHO, where Gandy is probably worth keeping because he is credible backup at various OL position (lots of experience and a guard's body with one good year and one bad year as a starting LT but a legit question whether he is the answer at starter anywhere. Still, there are possibilities at FA for an LG, possibly a draft choice but one would need to go high and there may be other needs depending upon the team-building strategy, and we have begun to get some back-ups with potential though this just means they have not proved anything yet (Merz actually got a start and Butler was well-regarded by the draft pundits). Overall, I think we draft to increase our depth and go FA to find a someone likely to contribute next year. Still, I think Marv's thinking starts with running and stopping the run and though we have used a lot of recent draft resources at DT, I suspect we go there again this draft. As far as Nate goes, I think our cap total is high enough that we can actually afford to pay him and still spend bucks else where to meet our needs. However, given our use of the Tampa 2 scheme, I simply do not see us spending the $ required to lock up NC on a CB whose skills of being able to sit on and jump routes or run with speedy WRs lend themselves more to our old D style. My sense is that our CBs will be asked to press cover WRs the first 10-15 yards and then let them go to the safeties or MLB playing the deep zone in our Cover 2 (which might be more accurately be called a Cover 3 actually). Rather than playing with his back to the QB and running with the WR, we want a CB who is a good handfighter and competive guy who will press cover. This description sounds a lot like what Yabouty brings to the game in terms of plusses and minuses and I suspect that particular after he returned belatedly but created enough trust in the staff for him to be used as a starter against NYJ (where he plated not brilliantly but well) and he got some PT in other games he can reasonably be expected to take the nickel slot and will be given a shot to be the #2 CB. I think the key for us to see what we plan to do with Nate is actually going to be found in how Kiwaukee Thomas is handled. If he goes then Youbouty is likely the nickel and we need another starter. If Thomas resigns then Youbouty is probably seen by us as NC's replacement and we likely let NC goes. The other wildcard in all of this of course is what happens wih F-B at MLB. The concept of us franchising him seemed silly to me when I first read it on TSW, but he shows no signs of slowing down in his production and I simply do not see us accepting taking a step back while a rookie like Willis as talented as he may be goes through learning how to make the more diverse than the norm reads our MLB is required to do as he is required to cover like a safety or tackle like a ST depending on what the O does on a particular play. I actually would have more confidence in DeGregorio being a productive MLB for us than in a rookie and it seems far more likely that if we go with an LB in the 1st we get Timmons or Poluszny and then shift Crowell to MLB. I like NC, but particularly since I do not think we will employ his full ability in our scheme, i do not see us spending Champ Bailey money on him.

whatever

Definitely I disagreed with a big percentage of the times Ruben was given the "honor" of Pro Bowl status (I disagreed with it if one takes it be a declaration of flawless or great play, but hey it was a free trip to Hawaii so it certainly wasn't anything to turn down lightly, I think his selection had more to do with some pretty dismal guard play by his competitors which made his election in this fame/popularity contest be a running joke if anything). However, as silly as his election was the overstatement the other way by you is about of equal silliness. Besides the selective contradiction of giving all the credit for anything Brown did well while saying he did lots of things poorly that somehow these vets has nothing to do with this and he managed to snooker everyone into giving honors even despite him being ineffective. The view that he has nothing to offer actually ignores what I think was his best years (honors of no honors). As part of the 2002 team Brown was the only player on the OL who had logged substantial or in fact any playing time at his position. First time LT Jonas Jennings moved to this role after a good rookie year at other positions. He played LG. Trey Teague was the C after coming from LT at Denver. Sullivan came in as a tackle but started at RG and he was next to the rookie Williams. Brown was clearly the leader of this unit as both the longest serving Bill and the only one not having to concentrate on learning a new position. Despite these limitations and blocking for a QB known affectionately as the Statue (because of the huge number of sacks he took) but despite all this the O was certainly an effective part of the team which led them to an improvement of the previous years 3-13 record to 8-8, Not only did they block for Henry gaining a ton of yards on the ground but allowed the oft sacked Bledsoe to gain the Pro Bowl from his perfromance as he an Moulds hit the century mark for receptions leading him to join Henry in the Pro Bowl and feeling Peerless got jobbed from a free trip to Hawaii from his 94 catches. There were obviously a bunch of things wrong as Teague got bowled over a lot, MW was a rookie on his way to being a bust, Sullivan was well on his way out of the league Jennings was in the beginning of his injury plagued career and a zillion other legitimate faults found of his peers/ Something must have been going eight here amidst all these errors given the measurable achievements in terms of improved W/L and honors received and I think Ruben is one of the very likely answers or do you want to claim that everything they did better or right that year can be attributed to something else (TD or GW perhaps). Ruben had and has his flaws but anyone rational also to have to also recognize the good things as well.

The Bills should not play Youbouty unless he proves to the coaches (on the field and in practice) that he can handle the assignment given to him (a statement of the obvious but some folks seem to refuse to want to take the obvious as a given in a post unless it is stated). However, the point that he was drafted is an interesting indicator of what he might do between the actual draft weekend and when the first pre-season practice begins, but when reality enters the equation the spot he was picked becomes trivia. For example, Ko Simpson was drafted on the second day does this mean the Bills should not start him because he wasn't drafted early enough, or John McCargo was drafted in the first round, does mean the Bills must start him and should have sat Williams even though he was playing better because Williams was drafted later. Perhaps I should take my own advice and assume that this is what you meant, but reality and what you said seem to be counter too each other so I am interested in clarification. A bit of the key to this not simply when people were drafted in a spot, but why they were drafted in that spot. Youbouty is said by many to have fallen to the 3rd round because he needed a year of seasoning and work before he was ready to contribute. If true he may be ready to go this season, his practice and play on the field will tell, In terms of assessing his play on the field last year, he missed camp and was inactive early, but again it is not the simply fact of him being unavailable but why that tells the tales. If he was recovering from injury that is one thing and raises legit questions about his body. If he were suspended that raises other legiot questions and brings in to play his mind or character. He was gone cause his single Mom died and he was the oldest kid in the family. I'd have real questions about his character if he abandoned his younger siblings an went off and played with his homies even despite his making the big bucks. As far as what we do know and can see it really is so far so good. He impressed the coaches enough with his play that he even broke into the starting line-up against the Jets due to an injury to an LB and Pennington's style of play which dictated us using an extra DB. He was not outstanding so we must see him start, but we logged a nice victory against the Jets and he was not a huge liability out there in his other games so to me he easily deserves a real shot at getting more PT and though it strikes me as unreasonable to expect or demand he starts as #2 CB, to hope he does is not an unreasonable thought even if unlikely. Where he was drafted is quickly approaching trivia in this consideration.

The CB priority is an interesting one. What seems to be the case with the way we employ the cover 2 is that the CB's basic responsibility are in the short zone and after a receiver goes 10-15 yards the CB is supposed to release this receiver and the safties and MLB have divide the field into and they have the deep cover. The CB has important press duty on the receiver on short routes or initially if the player goes deep, but the type of relatively soft coverage which has been a trademark of the Bills for a bunch of years is gone for the CBs as this type of zone coverage is the responsibility of the deep cover guys. Ironically this tighter CB coverage means more INTs for the deep cover guys as fewer balls are thrown the CBs way as the opposing QBs see these men are covered and looks elsewhere, leading not only to fewer INTs by the CBs not only from them making good plays but fewer poorly INTs off of poorly thrown balls as the receivers are closer in and the receiver is close by to interfere with the CB trying to catch the ball. In addition, to this the opposing teams needed to pass less against the Bills when the RBs could gain significant yardage against the Bills on run plays leaving shorter yardage on many third downs and giving run plays a better chance to pick up 3 or 4 yards when this use to be a definite passing down for opponents looking for that much distance. These factors were reflected in Fletch leading the team with 4 INTs while the CBs had fewer 3 Clements and McGee at O was beaten out by safety Simpson with 2. In many ways it is not surprising that the Bills do not want to give big bucks to Clements who often got INTs by hanging back, reading the QBs eyes and sitting on the route for a pickoff or in other cases using his zone coverage to range all over the field and swoop in for the pickoff. When one looks at the assessment of Youbouty, he actually stacks up as a player who is big boy who is a very competitive good hand fighter who seems built for press coverage. The major flaw in his game according to scouts was actually found when he is asked to play with his back to the QB running deep routes. What this adds up to is a question of how much faith the Bills coaches have in using this rookie as our #2 CB and also how much faith they have in our nickel. Given that they used Youbouty once as a starter and he turned in a good performance making reads on the crafty but weak armed Pennington and that they have shown a lot of faith in Thomas, my sense is that if they extend Thomas they may be quite comfortable letting MC walk and simply augmenting the CBs with a later draft pick and not going for a CB at one unless there is a very good one available.

There are two things to remember when thinking about choosing Okoye with out first pick: 1. It really would be an extra-ordinary person and virtually unheard of (if not completely unheard of) who really is able to physically and mentally play pro ball as an NFL starter at the age of 20. 2. Okoye has done some extraordinary unheard of things already as a football player and a person. People simply do not immigrate to this country from the third world, test amd be qualified for college at the age of 15, start playing division one football as a freshman and play all four years, etc. No one has been able to do the things we would be asking him to do if we drafted him with our #12, however, this is the story of his life and when Marv and the gang sit down with him and look over his physical, his eating habits. his history etc they should be very skeptical about whether he can do what we need. However, though his accomplishments should not eliminate doubt, how he interviews and carries himself could easily do that. If they feel good about this, given some good results choosing players last year, i have no problems with them taking a flyer with our 1st rounder for Okoye.

I agree we are thin at LB in particular if Fletcher says adios. However, as I do not see the draft offering us much help in 2007 from what is generally seen as a weak LB corps to choose from, i agree with the thought we take no LBs in this draft and instead look to FA for LB assistance. Your thoughts are a mere improvement simply as the leave behind the idea of the Bills taking Willis to start at MLB. The likely long learning curve for even a talented player to master the cover like a safety/tackle like a DT requirements of an MLB in our version of the Cover 2 would make the Bills fairly painful to watch play D for at least a season (if not more) if we draft a rookie (even a talented one) to play MLB for us.