2020 Our Year For Sure

I agree with you. We cannot lose London Fletcher-Baker and try to replace him with either a rookie or a low-profile free agent (although Crowell is still an interesting option). One thing I don't agree with is the way you group Clements and Fletcher together. It will be far easier to replace Clements than Fletcher, mostly because of what they're asked to do in this defense. I think the best way to go about this is to franchise tag Fletch and draft his replacement somewhere in the first 4 rounds.

If we draft a CB in the 1st round, I give up on this team. ...for at least 10 minutes.

Actually corner is the only position that doesn't require at least an above average player, and I guess also possibly the sam linebacker. Defensive ends are important because of the emphasis the cover 2 puts on generating a pass rush with only the front 4, which is why I think we should let go of the solid-but-unspectacular Chris Kelsay and replace him with an early draft pick. Defensive tackles are possibly the most important position in the scheme, and that's well-documented in this forum, so I don't feel that I need to elaborate other than to point out the following: the 2 highly successful cover 2 defenses in the past have had the DT position manned by Warren Sapp/Anthony MacFarland, and a rotation of Tommie Harris/Tank Johnson/Ian Scott. As for MLB, I don't know if you've read any of Pyrite Gal's many posts on the topic, but I think that poster does a good job in representing the importance of the mike linebacker. He needs to be able to "tackle like a DT but cover like a safety." This is particularly important in the tampa 2 version of the cover 2, where the mike is asked to drop back deep on passing plays to relieve the safeties of a portion of their downfield responsibilities, allowing them to better cover the typical 'soft zones' in a traditional cover 2. This means that its imperative that the MLB not only be adequate, but excel in the areas of speed, coverage skills, and play recognition. I would strongly disagree with anyone who may have said we can replace London Fletcher with a mediocre player, a viewpoint you mentioned you've seen advocated. Also, the weakside linebacker should be a playmaker, capable of covering alot of ground in a hurry and making the tackle on plays to his side. The cover 2 also puts an emphasis on the performance of the safeties (see: last year's draft). They're the last line of defense and are asked to cover quite a bit of territory down the field. They must be both smart and decisive, a fine line to walk. The importance of the safeties in the cover 2 is the reason why Donte Whitner isn't a reach at #8 if he proves to be a legit player. That leaves only cornerback, a position that is asked to cover WRs for 10-15 yards before releasing them to the safeties, and then turning their attention to short passes on their side of the field. I don't see why we need Nate Clements to do that. Sure, he'd be a nice luxury to have, but I think there are just more important things for the Bills to be using their resources on. Figure out what you're doing with the linebackers, improve your run defense, get a better pass rush...and I see no reason why the Bills can't have a strong defense without the presence of a standout cornerback.

Agreed. I saw someone in one thread or another in the last few days say we must re-sign Nate Clements because of the "gaping hole" he would leave behind in our secondary. Can a cover 2 team ever really have a "gaping hole" at the cornerback position? Even if we lost both Clements and Kiwaukee (still think we'll re-sign him), the void we'd have would be more like a small hole in the dam that we could fill with a piece of chewing gum. Or Ashton Youboty, of course.

How do we jump from the article saying we're considering addressing cornerback in the draft, to addressing cornerback in the 1st round? As far as I'm concerned, with our cover 2 scheme, we could bring in a 4th or 5th rounder and have him compete with Youboty and Kiwaukee. Nowhere in the article do they specify a 1st round pick.

Good post, and I find myself in agreement with much of it, other than Duke Preston being a viable starter at Guard. In my mind, he was the weak link, and I'd rather start Gandy than Preston. I especially agree with not re-signing Nate Clements, and instead pursuing a LB, OG or DT in free agency. You hit that right on the button, right down to what positions we should be looking at. The reason I'm replying is that I've got a question for you...you said if Patrick Willis came in as a rookie starter, he'd be overwhelmed and would naturally make rookie mistakes as he learns the system, which makes sense. I wonder, if we drafted a first-day MLB and designated London Fletcher-Baker as our franchise player, and then let Fletch walk next offseason...could we expect the draftee to come in and have a reasonable chance to limit his mistakes in the tampa 2, due to his experience as a rookie sitting behind Fletch on the depth chart and soaking it all in?

This post has some valid points that I originally thought may have completely nullified in one post many of my opinions on both our draft and our defensive scheme. One question that was raised in my mind: is there really a distinction between the nose tackle and under tackle in the cover 2, as I had previously thought was the case? Or am I applying a concept of the Gregg-O/Jerry Gray defense to a completely different scheme? It took me awhile to find the answer to this question...funny story, actually. It wasn't a question of our personnel, it was a question of the inner-workings of our tampa 2 scheme. So I set out to find out whether we have 2 seperate DT positions as I had thought, or if we simply had two interchangeable DTs performing identical functions. After typing some terms into Google, reading several articles about the cover 2, following external links from wikipedia, clicking around on various pro football sites, typing some more stuff into Google...my search of nearly an hour took me full circle. I don't know how I didn't realize that the best resource on the net is the Stadium Wall Archive right here on TSW. Eventually, Google connected me to a TSW thread from May '06, a good deal of time before I even joined the forum. Within the thread (started by stuckincincy, entitled 'What is "three technique?"') is a post from the user gonzo1105 that supplies the answer: So yes, there are two seperate DT positions. The 1-technique (nose tackle) should be somewhat bigger and stronger than the 3-technique tackle. But as you asked, Dibs, just how much bigger? We have to keep in mind that its important even for the nose tackle to maintain speed and quickness, moreso than in other schemes. I'd estimate that the nose tackle should be in the 300-315 pound range. I think Kyle Williams (295 lbs. currently) with a bit of added muscle would fit the bill. One reason to be cautious though is the question of how much muscle you're willing to add to his 6-1 frame at the risk of potentially losing quickness. Another good question Dibs raised is whether or not Alan Branch (6-6, 323) fits into the cover 2 mold. This prompted the reading of a few of his scouting reports, and for the most part they were repeating a couple of points I found interesting. As you said, one thing the scouts say is that he "lacks explosiveness". But other statements that showed up in multiple reports were along the lines of "very athletic for his size" and "can play end in a 3-4". Perhaps Branch doesn't fit the requirements for the cover 2 nose tackle position at the moment, but I wonder, if he dropped a few pounds...could he? I won't pretend to know either way, but I'll trust that Marv and Coach Jauron will will be prepared should he be on the board at #12. To answer your question Dibs, yes, I believe that anyone who believes the Bills should go after a mountain of a man similar to Pat Williams thinks such because they don't really grasp what type of players we need in this defensive scheme. However, because of his rare quickness for a player his size, I suspect Alan Branch could potentially be molded into a very successful 1-technique DT in the tampa 2. But I'd still stay away from Amobi Okoye or any other smaller defensive tackle unless we want to see John McCargo attempt to move to the nose tackle spot. I don't want to make that move at this point, so I'm still thinking DE at #12 ideally.

Keeping in mind our youth at the defensive tackle position and the fact that last season we were running arguably the league's most unique defensive system for the first time...and that we will be getting a stronger Takeo Spikes on the field than we had at any point last season (other than the first play from scrimmage)...and the fact that there are solid nose tackles that can be obtained in free agency to replace Tim Anderson in the rotation...why can't our run defense improve next year without addressing the DT position in the first 2 rounds of the draft?

In my mind, this is true of both Okoye and Pitcock. The exception is Alan Branch, because I think he has the size, strength and athleticism necessary to play on the nose in the cover 2. If he fell to us and we didn't grab him, I'd certainly feel justified in second-guessing that decision, even if they took a player at one of the positions I've been advocating. When I say I'm not thinking DT in the first round, I'm operating under the assumption that Branch is off the board when we go on the clock. On a side note, I agree with most of the post this selection was quoted from, including the part where you stress not 'targeting' WR, but keeping an open mind to the position should circumstance dictate that its the right pick. This is along the same lines as what I'm thinking.

I'll respond with a post of mine (admittedly somewhat lengthy) made earlier in this thread, begging that you keep in mind that while Dwayne Jarrett at #12 isn't my first option, I still see no reason why he should be considered a bad pick:

That question is stupider (is that a word?) when you turn it around this way because Willis McGahee is already on the Bills. Therefore, there must be a reason why you think Jones is better than him if you're going to make the trade. If you don't want to make the trade you don't need a reason why Willis is better, because if they're both the same then that is reason enough to not make the trade. If anyone can follow that...

I agree, there was a big difference in our play calling. I'd say we were pretty conservative up to and including week 10 @IND (week 9 was GB, for point of reference), and we opened it up starting week 11 @HOU. However, the numbers don't appear to support your case. Here are Price's stats split after week 10. first 9 games 27 catches, 3 catches/game 231 yards, 25.6 yards/game last 7 games 22 catches, 3.1 catches/game 171 yards, 24.4 yards/game stats are from here The idea that we should add to his numbers to make up for conservative early-season play calling doesn't make sense as there is no evidence it affected his stats. They remain the same throughout the season. And in my opinion, season averages of 3 catches for 25.1 yards don't reach what this offense needs from it's number 2 reciever, particularly when the TE and FB are both primarily blockers.

At this point I'm pretty neutral in the McGahee debate. He hasn't yet shown himself to be a consistent playmaker, yet some games he looks like he's back at the 'U. It isn't only the against the Jets, he had two touchdown runs in the Jaguars game that not too many backs would've had, including a 40+ yarder. But as I said, consistency has been a problem. I'm on the fence at this point, but am admittedly curious to see what he'd do behind a better interior offensive line. What I don't understand is why it isn't possible that when the O-line was reshuffled, their pass protection improved AND their run blocking suffered at the same time. Why can't those two performances be mutually exclusive? Why isn't it possible that an offensive line that included a right side with 1 year of NFL experience between 2 players combined couldn't have been better at dropping back and defending against an oncoming rusher than they were at aggressively attacking defenses and moving defenders off the line of scrimmage to open up holes? I'm not apologizing for Willis, but this is actually what I remember observing during the final stretch of the season.

I still haven't been given anything to help me understand where everyone is coming from with the character issues. So far I've got "he hangs out with Snoop Dogg" (don't see how that matters) and "he just screams off the field problems" ( a statement which just screams "please support me with something"). The one decent point made was from Dankenstein who said he's seen plenty of USC games and that Jarrett rarely passes up a chance to taunt and showboat. I'll point out that I've never seen Chad Johnson or Steve Smith pass up an opportunity to do the same, and I don't see them as players who have character issues or cause problems in the locker room. Smith's team was in the Super Bowl not too long ago and he represents our own Lee Evans at the height of his potential. Johnson certainly isn't the problem on his team, and if his teammates could stay out of prison and they could put together a decent defense and a healthy Carson Palmer in the same season, they'd be a playoff team. From later posts I gathered that Dankenstein just gets a bad vibe from the guy, and that's cool. But what brought about the extreme that the above posts (only one of which is his) went to?

Pat Williams is a Viking now, remember?

Is it the idea of taking a reciever in the 1st round that you all have a problem with, or is it Dwayne Jarrett personally? I don't follow college football all that closely, so I don't know too much about Jarrett other than the tremendous on-field ability and potential I've gathered from seeing him play a couple of times and from what I've read. Below is a post from another thread in which I explained, in my humble opinion, why I don't think Jarrett is such a bad option. If there's character issues, I wouldn't know about them, and maybe someone could give me the skinny on that. My humble opinions:

I'm all for improvement in the trenches, but I'm not sure how we'd apply that to the 12th overall pick. We all know we're set with Jason Peters, and I think most agree that Terrance Pennington has earned a starting role for next season. I think the board is about 50-50 on Fowler, but even if you don't like him, are you going to draft a center 12th overall? Or even a guard, undoubtedly our weakest O-line postion? I don't think thats the best way to help the team. As for the defensive line, many look at the fact that our run defense was quite weak last year, and so want to draft a defensive tackle, and the leading candidate seems to be Okoye. I don't like this because Okoye would in all likelihood be replacing Tim Anderson in our DT rotation, leaving Kyle Williams as our only nose tackle on the roster! This is why I'd rather see us address DT through free agency with a solid nose tackle, namely Ian Scott of Chicago, who has experience playing for Dick Jauron in the cover 2. This would allow John McCargo to remain in the pass rushing DT position as he returns from injury. With he and Kyle Williams having a year of experience in both this league and this system under their belts, I'd expect to see noticeable improvement out of the two of them. Particularly with Williams bulking up a bit, giving him a better chance at holding the line of scrimmage consistently. Add cover 2 vets Larry Tripplett and Ian Scott into the rotation at the under tackle and nose tackle positions respectively and I think we'd see considerable improvement in the run defense. Therefore, the only line position left on either side of the ball to consider in round 1 is DE, and this is the spot I'm most hoping the Bills address with the 12th pick, mainly because of the emphasis the cover 2 puts on generating a pass rush from the front 4. I'd let Chris Kelsay walk, and draft Gaines Adams if he's on the board. If not, I'd take Jamaal Anderson, who should be there. But what if, for any number of reasons, they don't want to go DE with that 12th pick? Why not Dwayne Jarrett, or a linebacker? Picking Dwayne Jarrett in the 1st isn't showing a lack of commitment to the lines, its showing a recognition that the draft is more than one round and he might be the player on the board who can help our team the most. Because for our offense to take the next step forward, we must give Losman a 2nd consistent target in the passing game. I'd still rather have a DE, but I've got no problem with Dwayne Jarrett or a linebacker. I wouldn't rule out a trade-down and a guard picked near the end of the 1st round, but whenever you talk about trading down, you have to remember it takes two to tango.

This is my fault in being too cavalier in my estimation of where the improvement in pass protection began to manifest. It took me going back and looking at the numbers to realize that mistake. It seems there were 2 weeks after the bye week (GB, @ IND) in which the pass protection was still inadequate. Maybe this is because the play-calling was still utlra-conservative (this would make sense because one could argue the pass protection and play-calling both changed the same week, beginning @ HOU), or maybe its because the line needed those 2 weeks to gel and adjust after the changes to the lineup the coaching staff made during the bye week. In any case, here are the adjusted numbers with the line being drawn after those 2 weeks: first 9 games 30 sacks....3.3/game 224 attempts.....1 sack every 7.5 attempts averages to 53 sacks in 16 games last 7 games 17 sacks....2.4/game 205 attempts.....1 sack every 12 attempts averages to 39 sacks in 16 games With my error eradicated, the point I'm trying to make comes through. In any case, statistics are a pretty rough way to measure something like pass protection, mostly because by using sacks alone you completely ignore how many passes were thrown under diress, whether the quarterback had a pocket to step into, coverage sacks, etc. In my opinion, the best way to see our line's improvement is the old fashioned eye ball test. Down the final stretch of the season, I remember again and again consciously noticing that JP was able to step back and get comfortable, and then step up and deliver a pass...on a pretty consistent basis. At least it was pretty close to as consistent as you can expect. I'm confident that if someone were to go back and watch those last 7 games looking for this, they would see my point clearer than I could ever show it with statistics. This is one reason why I'd like to see this team grab a big receiver at some point in the draft, but I'll save that for another post.

Thanks alot Astro, that last post is actually the one I'll have in front of me on the coffee table. I really hope Marv decides to grab a big reciever at some point, but I'm still thinking DE in the 1st.

This is the post I print out and put on the coffee table in front of the TV. Now all I need is links to scouting reports.

Those are my thoughts exactly, and I'm hoping for either Gaines Adams or Jamaal Anderson in the 1st round. I'd also think about a WR in the 2nd. Of course this doesn't address OG, but I'm holding out hope that we'll sign one of the high profile free agents.

My guess and hope is Ian Scott at DT (who was once coached by Dick Jauron), allowing us to select a DE, WR or MLB with the 12th pick in the draft. Scott would be a solid replacement for Tim Anderson, and should help our run defense. His acquisition would also allow John McCargo to stay at the pass rushing DT position.

When it supports your argument, you're willing to look at just the last 6 games, but there's no way you can look at the this team post-bye week and say we couldn't consistently protect the quarterback. Pass protection in the NFL just doesn't get much better than Losman had it from the bye week through week 16. Run blocking is another story, of course, and we're in agreement that the Guard position should be improved, but I find the idea that our pass protection needs improvement over the end of last season to be false.

Everyone say hello to broad, sweeping generalizations.

I don't expect the Bills to sign Clements because he's worth more to other teams than he is to the Bills, a cover 2 team. Something would seem wrong if a cover 2 team were willing to employ the league's highest paid cornerback.