finn

My fear now is that the front office will think, "Hey, why re-sign Cordy Glenn when we have a nice prospect at left tackle in Henderson?" It could end up being fortuitous that Kujo is struggling if it makes the decision makers hesitate to thin out the line. But maybe I'm overreacting. I'm still depressed they let Jonas Jennings go...

Well, you go with what works. If your opponent adjusts to the up-tempo, you do slow it down. You don't keep going three over a quarter or more and hope things change. The fast-paced offense is precisely what this team does not need. Last year was absurd. A rookie quarterback, a shaky offensive line, young receivers...and Hackett installs a hurry up? Not much different this year. The hurry up worked for the Superbowl Bills because a) they were all veterans and new each other very well; and b) it took the league by surprise. Neither condition is in place this year. With an inexperienced offense and strong defense, you want a ball-control offense, maybe a fast pace at times under the right conditions. Hackett and Marrone are making a mistake.

It is depressing. I used to have a friend record games for me and send them in the mail, but that was years ago. I hear one can find games streaming online in real time (pirated), but I can't find them on game day. I do see replays of key plays on ESPN, but never whole games. Take it as a measure of my loyalty to the Bills that I've been following them very closely for decades while rarely watching more than two games a year (I'm in Pats* country). Maybe it is pathetic, clicking Refresh every five seconds, but there it is. Thanks for the kind and informed replies.

Is Nathaniel Hackett as poor a coordinator as he seems? I have to follow the Bills online and rarely see a game, but my impression is that he is way over his head, a small-time college coach basically faking it and hoping no one notices. Is it that bad? Yes, he had to deal with young quarterbacks, but I saw (or rather read) no flare, no surprises, no imagination. He reminded me of an offensive version of Dave Wannstedt. Was it that bad?

I'm happy about this group, too. But with EJ in only his second year, Watkins a rookie, Woods and Goodwin still developing and no chemistry yet between anyone, this will likely be just a growing year, with us talking "exciting potential!" again next year at this time. I have slightly higher hopes for the defense, but it's tempered by the new scheme Schwartz is bringing in. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with it, but it involves another pretty major change, which means a "growing year" there, too. Someday I'd like to see a coordinator have enough self esteem to come in and keep the same scheme if it works rather than changing it for the sake of being able to claim it's his if it works out, rather than his predecessor's. The team is damned if the scheme is very successful (and the coordinator leaves a la Pettine, with a brand new scheme brought in to confuse the players) AND if it's awful, because it's awful. What you want is a pretty good coordinator who stays four or five years. But of course that damns you, too, since pretty good is not the way to get to the playoffs. Sorry for the cynicism. Fourteen years is long, long time.

Well, I think such a big line has the potential to wear out defenses, but there's a reason that some of the best O-lines have been on the small side, like Denver's during the Elway era. When you go up against very quick defensive lineman like Kyle Williams, it's more important to be equally quick that powerful. Same goes for size: a 6-8 guy can be bullrushed by a strong 6-2 guy if he doesn't really bend his knees, which is hard to do consistently. This is why I was heartened by video of Cyrus K. recovering from such a bullrush after initially being pushed way back. A final reason bigger isn't necessarily better: the pulling game. Remember the Super Bowl Bills using the Redskins counter-trey? If you have mobile guards especially, you have a lot of options. In short, I'm more worried than pleased by Whaley's preference for big linemen. I just hope he isn't single minded about it, assuming bigger = effective, especially after the Colin Brown travesty last year and his first response: plugging in a player whom everyone agrees has been mediocre (Chris Williams) but is big.

Yeah, but it's not entirely true, is it? He was joking when he said he would be "pissed" if Watkins dropped a lot of balls, since he was a first-round draft pick, but he clearly wasn't entirely joking. Of course it matters where the players are coming from; players drafted early get every chance to succeed while later picks and free agents have to be extraordinary. Such cliches, such garbage the coaches and GM's routinely put out! Seantrel Henderson has "one shot." Right. Until he's cut and another team gives him "one shot." I don't think these people are deliberately lying; they're just not talented that way. A reporter sticks a microphone in your face and you find yourself spewing meaningless cliches. You have to judge them by results.

I wonder if one key reason they were set on Sammy was precisely because he does so much damage with short passes--remember that they were also trying to trade up for Carlos Hyde, a power runner. Maybe what's going on is that they know that E.J. needs time to develop, so they're trying to give him short-term help. Look at the O-linemen they're drafting: all power guys. Whether or not E.J. is the long-term answer, these moves will give him the best chance to succeed in the next two years. Look for a lot of eight men in a box.

Nice welcome to the board. It's his first post. What's wrong with you?

I do like the pick: character, skills, potential.... But--hello?--what about guard? I dearly hope OBD isn't assuming Chris Williams, the OED entry under "Mediocrity" is the answer at guard. Yankey, the top-rated guard in the draft according to some, sitting there and they pass? Unless they have this kid pegged for safety, I'm bummed they didn't go with the big body. My gut-level fear is that once again the front office thinks OG just isn't important, even with last year's horror show fresh in everyone's memory.

I agree. I think Whaley et al wake up sweating with images of Blount in their heads. I don't blame them. That was an appalling display; reminded me of the last Super Bowl against Dallas. Unfortunately, they may not be fretting about Gronk anymore and the new generation of tight ends and pass-catching running backs. Rivers, Spikes, this kid... pass coverage is not a strength with any of them (I really don't like Rivers--he and Chris Williams=other people's trash, imo). I realize it's tough to find every-down players, especially in the third round, but we might be talking about needing another Kiko this time next year. Until then (of course they're not done yet), at least the Bills will be more ready for the Blounts of the world.

I don't put deliberate deception past the Bills; Whaley watched as Buddy loudly made Cordy Glenn out to be a guard two years ago, so he knows the value of smoke and mirrors. But what is the value of pretending to interested in moving up? Making rivals give up too much to land a player they assume we're interested in? That's sounds like a stretch. Am I missing something? If not, I'm inclined to believe the reports, especially since if they are working on moving up, it would leak out. By the way, I'm with those who want to stay put or trade down in this deep draft. Someone pointed out that the Bills are starting depth players in several positions, including guard (yes), safety, right tackle and defensive end and we need quality depth practically everywhere. Does anyone remember the Bills during the Butler era having like three or four second round picks? I always thought that would be a plausible draft strategy, at least in a deep draft like this one: keep trading down, down, down until you amass five or six second round picks. You can miss on two and you're still better off than most of the first-round teams.

I think you're right, but I've always been impressed by how savvy many (I want to say most) Bills fans are. For example, they know that an O-line takes time to build, in terms of both chemistry and individual player development. They're even pretty patient with quarterbacks. Fitzpatrick, Edwards, Losman, Rob Johnson... all of them got time to show if they had it or not. (Ironically, it was Flutie, arguably the player who could have taken us farthest, who got yanked prematurely.) I realize we're talking about a pretty nebulous quantity: the wisdom of the fans in aggregate. It's a bit silly. In terms of the draft, JR in Pittsburgh nailed it: OBD might have fared better by selecting the board consensus just to avoid the impulse to get cute. (Sometimes I groan aloud when I think of Maybin.) No one has mentioned examples of the Bills--or anyone else--making a surprise selection (that is, a lot higher than expected) and being correct.

I had the same thought, which is why I think the "collective wisdom" idea applies only to the first round. Still, you look at the Bills history of second round picks and you're not encouraged: for every Kiko it seems there are two Torrell Troupes.

Yes, I expected snark. So easy, so useless. My point is that potential first round picks are examined so thoroughly by so many experts whose informed opinion the average fan has access to that fan consensus has value, especially in a community, like this, where fans are unusually dialed in. Again, I'm talking about first-round picks only. My guess is that if franchises with a poor record drafting in the first round, like the Bills, may not perform as well as boards like this over time. There's a reason that virtually all players picked in the first round are expected to go in the first round, if not in the final order: a consensus has emerged that fans are in sync with. I'm not suggesting the Bills retire its scouts, or that consensus can't be dead wrong. I'm merely pointing out that they could do--and possibly have done--worse that follow the collective advice here.

I wonder if, collectively, this board might do a better job drafting than the Bills front office, at least in picking first round players. I'm thinking of especially the slam-dunk picks (to this forum) that the Bills brain trust passed over to get cute, picking Whitner instead of Ngata, for instance, Maybin instead of Orakpo, T.J. Graham instead of Russell Wilson. It wasn't just in hindsight that the Wall got it right but in real time, or so I recall from the cries of anguish here. But think also of the times when the consensus here seemed to be trading down (yes, I know, you need partners) when the Bills picked a "wtf?" player instead of trading down for better value: McKelvin, for instance, and Losman. We don't always have consensus, of course, but often we do agree the choice comes down to a handful of players. For example, this year it looks like Ebron, Evans or Matthews, provided one of the top-five players doesn't fall to us. It's certainly NOT Ha-Ha Dix. Anyway, I wanted to get a sense of the board: have we collectively--not individually, either way--done a better job identifying the best picks over the years than the Bills front office? Or does it just seem that way?

Obviously, it's too early to tell, really. But what are the odds that he will be very good? Could happen but unlikely, since most qb's don't make it. My guess, fwiw, is that he'll be like J.P. Losman: just good enough to get people to make excuses for him for three or four mediocre seasons before it's obvious he'll never be very good. If I were GM, I would draft a quarterback in round one or two this year. The stakes are too high not to hedge their bets.

The consensus on this board is that the Mike Williams signing was a good one. Low risk, what do we have to lose, etc. I disagree. I also don't like some of the other signings and departures this off season. Marv Levy disappointed us when he came back as GM, in part because he seemed to have forgotten the principles that helped build the championship years. Some of the key ones: Build through the draft, keep your own players and, especially, draft for character. The Superbowl Bills weren't just talented; they were tough. That famous resilience wasn't an accident: it was the result of the team's drafting and coaching philosophy. Talent is everywhere in the NFL. What's rare is team chemistry, the kind that brings out the best in the more marginal players (like Ray Benchley and Don Beebe), keeps the marquee players from becoming prima donnas and helps the team find the grit needed to win tough games and come back from tough losses. No risk? Nothing to lose? You build your team with slackers, losers, criminals and there's no risk? No problem with the headlines about the latest charges, denials, accusations? No risk of locker room strife, sniping, feuds? No chance that the hardest-working Bills won't resent the work habits of perpetual underachievers like Keith Rivers and Chris Williams? Yes, you can point to examples of shady characters who make good, and slackers making good with a change of scene. But the exceptions prove the rule that character DOES matter over time. These signings are cheap, and I don't mean money wise. They're the moves of a loser franchise trying to do it the easy way.

Corey Graham: a Buffalo native, FWIW.

Must be December.... By the way, am I the only one who can't bear to watch the playoffs with the Bills out of them yet again?

Oh, give me a break. This is chat forum, for god's sake, not ESPN. We all need a resume to express an opinion? Or, surprise, do your standards suddenly go sky-high when you disagree with the opinion? What's more, GunnerBill (make that BuffaloBarbarian) might be right about the Bills needing another quarterback. The list of rationales for poor play ("he just needs more time to develop"; "he needs more weapons"; "his protection was lousy"; "he just needs a quarterback coach") all may have merit, but after 14 years--more like 30--they're getting old. If Manuel turns out to be yet another Losman/Edwards/Johnson/Fitzpatrick, et al., then another three or four years is wasted. Do we really want to be debating quarterback prospects (and never the top ones, never in a top year) in 2018? I favor drafting Matt Hundley out of UCLA. He was considered a top-ten pick before he was injured, so he would be a good value in the second or third round. Because he needs time to heal, he won't be an immediate threat to Manuel, but if Manuel turns out to be another bust (but a good guy!) or injury prone, then Hundley will be there, all the more ready to play after a year in the system. If Manuel is adequate then we have a Frank Reich in Hundley. Drafting, especially quarterbacks, is not easy. I don't blame the front office as much as many posters here for drafting poor (in hindsight) QBs, but I DO blame them for not drafting more QBs. Is the prospect of a QB controversy so horrendous that it's worth risking another four years of talking draft in December? Is that speedy wide receiver or cornerback so essential that we don't take a flier on a Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick? Manuel may be fine, but he also may suck, and I'd like to see the Bills in the playoffs before I'm a grandfather. Do I get to say this, Todd? Or should I get 30 years of NFL experience first and get back to you?

Carwell Gardner. He had his moments, but he was never as good as I expected.

Thanks for the replies. Sorry about the inaccuracies. Yes, some key things are different now, as "fanhood" pointed out, especially Wilson no longer intervening. Again, I'm optimistic. I always preferred the 3-4, since the Super Bowl days. Paup on one end at LB, Bruce on the other side, produced some of the most satisfying plays I remember ever seeing. I like the two new big WR's a lot, Duke Williams, Alonzo, the kicker... It looks like a very good draft. Insofar as it's fun to predict, I would say all these moves will turn out well. But I am pessimistic about Manuel. My sense is that this is the 2007 draft all over again: backups at best down the line. And I wanted Nix to take a guard. We've been down this O-line path before: keep plugging in journeymen, and pretty soon you have a mediocre line and the dominoes start falling. (Admin's: what's wrong with the subject?)

I can't help feeling optimistic about the Bills every year. Like a guy on his second marriage, being a Bills fan is an exercise of hope over experience. Still, even I can see the same depressing patterns going way back. Exciting new coach enters, promising a new era, more aggressive, attacking football (no one promises passivity and meekness), and he promptly changes the scheme, always changing the scheme. If we have a 3-4, he goes with 4-3; got a 4-3? Well, back to a 3-4. Short passing game? We'll open things up. Opened up already? We'll move the chains, use short passes to set up the long game. Exciting changes afoot, fans! I had mixed feelings about Marv Levy, but I admired how he chose the scheme to fit the personnel, not the other way around. I think it was Dick Jauron who cut Pat Williams in his prime (switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4, of course), which promptly dropped the Bills number two- or three-ranked defense to among the worst in the league. Wannstedt was an awful coordinator, a real has-been. But his move to a 4-3 made sense given his players' weaknesses (i.e., linebacker) and strengths, with Kyle Williams and Dareus at tackle and Mario at end; Carrington did nicely at tackle, too. (Too bad Wanny pretty much mailed it in after this change.) Now Marrone wants to change--you guessed it--back to a 3-4. Why? Let me guess: for an attacking defense? Another Levy principle: Retain your own players. Others here have lamented the list of players cut since he left, including Antoine Winfield, Pat Williams, Paul Posluszny, Jason Peters and Nate Clements. Now Levitre's gone and maybe Byrd. When the front office does manage to draft well, they decline to pay the players when their contracts are up. Then they draft a replacement, and we get all excited. I'm fully aware that they couldn't retain everyone, ridiculous salaries, small market, etc. But, c'mon. You have the best safety in football. Pay the man. It's always two steps forward, two steps back. Let me mention one more pattern: drafting for potential instead of production, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. E.J. Manuel may be great. Who knows? But am I the only one who is thinking of Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Daunte Culpepper (yes, they're all black)--big, athletic, fast, cannon arms, etc? I felt ill when I heard Nix stressing repeatedly that Manuel is "tall." That kind of myopia is what led him to pass on Russell Wilson. Why draft an talented AND productive quarterback when you can draft one that is merely talented (but tall!)? Same with speed over production: neither T.J. Graham nor Marquise Goodwin were particularly productive in college (Goodwin didn't even start--in college!), but both are speedsters. Fine, maybe they can contribute on the odd end-around. But does that justify picking them in the THIRD round, when you want a starter? When you're looking at swapping your Pro Bowl guard for a journeyman, the third on the line? It's like the little kid comes out in Nix. "Oooh, he's fast! He's tall!" To close my rant, I am still optimistic, still excited, still pumped--and still reading this board every day, as I have been for twenty years. We're a pathetic bunch, aren't we? But we do enjoy ourselves. Go Bills!