Reconsidering Ryan Denney

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

This merely continuation of another thread which escaped my attention as my lovely wife an I did a little shopping amidst the0 degree day. Sorry to those who see this is a dead horse and suggest that if folks view this as a waste of time not reading it is a neat solution. However, I have a cut on this which did not seem to be explored much in the thread, an overarching analysis which has my usual on the one hand and on the other view which I think arguments which drive folks to the extremes often ignore even though they are the reality for most players.

 

At any rate:

 

1, Folks seem to have a problem with Denney because they expect a 2nd rounder to be a starter in order to contribute to the team.

 

I think this view ignores the reality of what the Bills' DL situation was in total and focuses too much on assigning some false value to specific play of a player and wheb he was selected in a particular which does not take in account draft talents vary for year to year as whole. If a draft is deep at a position then a player drafted later in one draft may be far more talented than a player drafted early in anothe draft where he was oneof the few players available at that position.

 

Denney was not taken in the second round because he was a "second round level" (as though this absolute assessment means anything in a draft market which is totally relative to the quality of that year) but because he was among the best DE players available at the time. Kelsay was also a second round player, but actually was the 8th or 9th DE taken in waht was viewed as an extremely talented DL draft.

 

This assignment of absolute value seems to ignore reality.

 

2. One of the big factors in the Denney pick was what was going with the Bills at DL ovarall and it should not be ignored.

 

The Bills had run a 3-4 D for years under Cottrell and the switch to GW/Gray brouhgt their system to Buffalo and its 4-3. Not only did this team need to find another starter on DL, but given that Wiley was gone to FA when we were in cap hell and could not keep him. Big Ted had a balloon payment in his contract which made him a cap casualty. Phil Hansen retired the next year after a great career. We had lost Bruce the year before as a cap casualty.

 

It totally misunderstands what the Bills were forced to do on DL to see it as some sign of weakeness or a change in plans because the Bills took another DE the next year. The switch in scheme from Cottrell to the TN model basically mandated that the Bills were going to have to go high at DE a couple of times in the draft unles they injury tries (Marcus Jones) or FAs worked out.

 

3. Denny's important contribution to the Bills is seen in our depth chart.

 

Many teams carry 4 DEs as part of their rotation. The Bills only carried three. I take from this that one we were really lucky because all it would take is one nick or sudden injury and this player deemed a bust by some would be starting with no back-up. Further, the tendency toward DL play in the NFL is toward rotation and quite frankly I judge the designation of the back-up here as no sign whatsoever as a designation that the player will not contribute.

 

4. You gotta factor in where a player plays and how he plays.

 

I for one am really impressed with the flexibitly shown by all three of our DEs. Since there were only three of them the way players are flipped around the line and the risk of injury means that simply because a player is designated an LDE he must also know and play RDE and vice-versa. The Bills did designate him the back-up but this move looks more to me like an expression of confidence in Kelsay deserving the starter designation than a decision of Denney being weak. In fact, it is quite easy to imagine that Krumrie may actually have judged Denney a more flexible player than Kelsay or that Kelsay would develop faster or better if he focused on a single side.

 

I think the thought that Denney us a bust or even a disappointment really misses the point.

 

Add to this also that Denney has unusual demographics with his height and long arm span which makes him a particularly important player when you run the zone blitz alot. Critical to this D scheme is the LBs not running pass protection at all because they are on the blitz. The run blits makes up for this by dropping the DE back in coverage, This simply requires a degree of athleticism uncommon in many DL players. it really accentuates the advantages of a big wingspan player like Cenney who enhances the zone by simply raising his arms.

 

I think part of his lack of sacks is that on the pass plays he is on, he often is not rushing the passer but playing short zone so Flether or Milloy can go for the sack. I think complaints about the stats of individual players in the Bills D actually ring fairly hollow because the team D stats were so good.

 

5. Consideration of the draft and assessment of when a player was taken or the team trading up to get him needs to be done with full consideration of what is necessary to build the team.

 

 

The Bills had to step up to get the best DE they could get not only due to the critical need created by the scheme switch, but the moves we had too and decided too make in the first two picks mandated stepping up for Denney.

 

I don't see the Bills doing anything other than picking MW with our 4th because OL improvement was such a need for this team and the other choice was really McKinnie. Even with the MW flameout las winter, his improvement this year still leaves him a better choice to me than the inconsistent McKinnie and his early holdout.

 

Add to that an unusal opportunity appered with our second pick as reed surprisingly dropped to round 2 (a draftee who clearly has disappointed his last two years but his first year was very good for a #3 WR rookie). Add to that the overall issue that by getting this WR heir apparent it gave TD the ability to trade PP for a 1st rounder who became Willis McGahee and even despite the Reed flameout i have no problem with this maneuver since WM is a star.

 

6. Denney has been problematic but is way far away from a bust.

 

My good feelings about the role he has played on this team are far from a wholesale endorsement of his play and role

 

- He was not even good enough to be an active player most of his rookie year and I found this to be a big disappointment from a player who was older, He apparently had basic technique problems with how he bent his knees on the attack and could easily lose leverage. Thankfully he has overcome this issue but this was a huge disappointment.

- He is a couple of years older than the average draftee because of a missionary trip at BYU. He would have been a good choice is this age allowed him to contribute immediately, but he is now moving toward 30 still early in his career and thus is burning daylight.

-DEE simply remains a weakness in this D at critical points because out pass rush can be handled one on one.

 

Still overall, I think the assessments of his role in the 2002 draft and on the Bills as a whole simply do not take into account the realities of team building and the football market,

 

I will not be surprised to see Denney given a reasonable raise and resigned when his contract comes up if he continues what has been a substantial improvement in his game from his initial inactivty to becoming a starter to sharing this critical position with Kelsay and Schobel.

 

In my mind, Alaska Darin has a far more accurate cut on this player than those who rant against Denney.

[Pete]

Good post as per usual FFS. I too think Ryan Denney gets criticized too much around here. I see progress in his play and think he will be a solid player for for years

[Simon]

Denney himself is all right but I'll neer like the pick because it was a wasted move necessitated by the egregious error of allowing Bryce Fisher to get away. I'll never understand we he cut a young player with a ton of upside on a cheap contract at a difficult position to fill, particularly at a time when we really really needed young players with tons of upside on cheap contracts at difficult positions to fill.

So far I view it as the 2nd biggest misake of TD's solid tenure.

Cya

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Denney himself is all right but I'll neer like the pick because it was a wasted move necessitated by the egregious error of allowing Bryce Fisher to get away. I'll never understand we he cut a young player with a ton of upside on a cheap contract at a difficult position to fill, particularly at a time when we really really needed young players with tons of upside on cheap contracts at difficult positions to fill.

So far I view it as the 2nd biggest misake of TD's solid tenure.

Cya

214520[/snapback]

 

I agree. Ther whole manner in which the DL situation has been handled in the post-Butler era makes little football sense to me.

 

My guess is that there are multiple factors which have led to multiple mistakes which even though some good moves and nice developments have worked out to allow us to have the #2 stat ranked D and to be among the league leaders in sacks, we still are suffering from limitations on the OL.

 

There have been bad moves in terms of individuals (giving up on Fisher), bad luck in how individuals have acted which I don't blame the GM for (Robertson showing some good stuff but drugging out), good ideas simply not working out despite good tries by all parties (attempts to play Marcus Jones back in to shape), and a big scheme mistake that I think was caused by an overestimation that TN suceeded due to GW's superior scheme when it really was having some superior players (Kearse, Bishop) which made it all work. In the end, I think moving to the 4-3 from the 3-4 at virtually the exact same time that the business was costing us Wiley, Big Ted, Hansen, and Bruce was a killer for us.

 

Giving up on Bryce Fisher who is not starting and starring sometimes elsewhere in this league is just a glaring error.

 

I think the folks who get their panties all up in a wad over Denney being a failure as shown by us having to draft Kelsay strike me as missing the player assessment point much as it was missed on Fisher.

 

I don't think it can be credibly argued that Denney is a great (or even very good player), but I easily think it can be argued that he is one of the best DEs on this team and plays a crucial and at least statistically beneficial role on this team. This is because facts are at worst he is the #3 DE on a team that is the #2 statistically ranked D in the NFL, but this team ONLY carries 3 DEs.

 

He plays a critical role and the team is far from perfect, but has simply produced in real life and Denney is a part of that.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Drafting Denney and letting Fisher go wasn't the wrong move. Fisher didn't do anything in his 1st 2 years in STL and only this past year had a decent season with 8.5 sacks. But he's not a run-stopper and the Bills would have ended up drafting Kelsay last year anyway, because Fisher likely would have been cut either after 2002 or 2003.

[Coach Tuesday]

Wasn't Fisher being used as a DT when we cut him? IMO he was misused by the coaching staff first and foremost, which led to him being misevaluated by TD and co. He's not a run-stopper, he's a pass-rushing DE who is best on 3rd down. Also, he hasn't been effective until this year. Certainly we'd like to have him, but I can't fault Donahoe for cutting and running when he did.

 

The problem with Denney, regardless of where he was drafted, is that he excels at nothing - not that that's any different from most players in the League, but the fact is he's easily replaceable and will be as soon as his rookie contract expires. The only thing preventing this would be if Denney starts making more of a contribution in some other area - i.e., he develops as a TE, special teamer, long-snapper, etc. Guys like him either find a way to contribute so that the team can't cut him, or they disappear when they qualify for the vet minimum.

[soljc]

Denney did play better, I'd hold onto him. Bannan, on the other hand.....

[Alaska Darin]

Denney did play better, I'd hold onto him.  Bannan, on the other hand.....

214664[/snapback]

What about him?

[Mark VI]

What about him?

214665[/snapback]

 

Not a fan of Bannon. Very short arms, meaning the OL can easily get the body on him and lock him up. Gets pushed out fairly easily and rarely ever penetrates the backfield or makes a stop at the line of scrimmage. I believe Tim Anderson will get his chance this year, making Bannons roster spot very iffy.

 

They threw him in at Guard last year. Maybe that's not a bad idea for his future, whether it's here or not.

[Alaska Darin]

Not a fan of Bannon. Very short arms, meaning the OL can easily get the body on him and lock him up. Gets pushed out fairly easily and rarely ever penetrates the backfield or makes a stop at the line of scrimmage. I believe Tim Anderson will get his chance this year, making Bannons roster spot very iffy.

 

They threw him in at Guard last year. Maybe that's not a bad idea for his future, whether it's here or not.

214672[/snapback]

I would think the same problems would rear their ugly head. To me, it looked like the only reason he was out there was his ability to hit things in space.

[soljc]

What about him?

214665[/snapback]

 

I'm not a fan. He won't play much if we resign Pat, so let's cut bait and try either another DE or fill it with an OL. Edwards and Anderson would be good depth behind Pat and Sam.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm not a fan.  He won't play much if we resign Pat, so let's cut bait and try either another DE or fill it with an OL.  Edwards and Anderson would be good depth behind Pat and Sam.

214676[/snapback]

I haven't seen anything from Anderson to this point to make me use the term "good depth" to describe him.

[soljc]

I haven't seen anything from Anderson to this point to make me use the term "good depth" to describe him.

214680[/snapback]

 

Fair enough, but Edwards is solid, and I'd rather go with Anderson over Bannan, wouldn't you?

[Alaska Darin]

Fair enough, but Edwards is solid, and I'd rather go with Anderson over Bannan, wouldn't you?

214696[/snapback]

If there is a better cheap veteran option out there, sure.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Fair enough, but Edwards is solid, and I'd rather go with Anderson over Bannan, wouldn't you?

214696[/snapback]

 

Despite a couple of good performances this past year from Edwards, I still see him as problematic. I think his career plays out this way to me:

 

2001- acquired in the third round and had about the worst performance of a Bll from this draft as he was not even productive enough to deserve activation on a team with huge deficits at DT and several later drafted players becoming starters and other drafted players becoming difference-makers (Clements, Schobel, Henry) for this team. Big time dud.

 

2002- stepped up a lot but stepping up a lot meant he not was merely inadequate as he was able to start at DT as experiments like Sean Moran didn't produce. On the good side at least he was not a bust completely.

 

2003- Thankfully replaced by the acqusition of Sam Adams who though some Bills loyalists complained he was a fat tub of goo, i replied who cared as even a fat tub of goo was an upgrade over Edwards. When Adams went down in the Jets game that year, Edwards failed to fill the gap as he also went down. Even Bannan had shown more initial progress than Edwards and even with Phat Pat holding his own DT remained an issue for us despite Edwards.

 

2004- The DT problem (and the uncertainties of FA) made it a useful thing to spend on Anderson. He has not impressed in his first year so problem is not solved, but amazingly Edwards has shown some good ability to step in and even get some big sacks in conjunction with a (brief fortunately) Adams meltdown. I'm happy about Edwards play (particularly with Anderson showing little so far and Bannan appearing to have more of a contribution to give on offense in the redzone rather than as a DT) but his play be more like that of Sean Moran that he has learned to be a productive reserve letting it all hang out briefly, but if you ever needed him to start consistently a back-up there is only heartbrek to be found.

 

If cheap keep him, but if Anderson develops evan a little or Bannan re-ermerges I am happy to call it day with Edwards.