BillnutinHouston Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 You mean another undersized high-motor DL?
Bills Fan888 Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Guess where we should draft? 876920[/snapback] Wide Reciever
SRQ_BillsFan Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 It's obvious...another injured HB! Travis was through, showed it today, Willis must be too.
bills44 Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 DT has to be a top priority. But it would help if players actually knew how to tackle and if the safeties took proper angles when they approached ball carriers...
Fan in San Diego Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 I agree ! This DL can't stop a good running team when the game is on the line.
MDH Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Obviously Fairchild needs to learn to tackle better.
Fan in San Diego Posted December 24, 2006 Posted December 24, 2006 Obviously Fairchild needs to learn to tackle better. 877211[/snapback] You know a team can address more than one problem in the offseason. They may get a beefier center, beefier DT's or get a better FB. Fairchild is just one component.
Mike formerly from Florida Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 You know a team can address more than one problem in the offseason. They may get a beefier center, beefier DT's or get a better FB. Fairchild is just one component. 877232[/snapback] The Bills are fine at linebacker especially if we sign London. We need to get a big fat lineman on both sides of the line: one a run-stopper, and the other a roadpaver. The Bills do not open enough holes for Willis. He gets a LOT of yards on his own. We need a speedy third down back who can catch and a tall receiver for the red zone.
jester43 Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 The Bills are fine at linebacker especially if we sign London. We need to get a big fat lineman on both sides of the line: one a run-stopper, and the other a roadpaver. The Bills do not open enough holes for Willis. He gets a LOT of yards on his own. We need a speedy third down back who can catch and a tall receiver for the red zone. 877321[/snapback] CMON. when are people going to realize that fletcher has always been a major liability against the run?? unless we roll the clock back to 2000 and bring back pat and ted, fletcher will never ever ever ever be good enough to take this team anywhere.
JCBoston Posted December 25, 2006 Author Posted December 25, 2006 CMON. when are people going to realize that fletcher has always been a major liability against the run?? unless we roll the clock back to 2000 and bring back pat and ted, fletcher will never ever ever ever be good enough to take this team anywhere. 877344[/snapback] DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER! Fletch is a great linebacker, but without DTs keeping him clean, he can't be a difference maker.
Zulu Cthulhu Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 The Bills are fine at linebacker especially if we sign London. We need to get a big fat lineman on both sides of the line: one a run-stopper, and the other a roadpaver. The Bills do not open enough holes for Willis. He gets a LOT of yards on his own. We need a speedy third down back who can catch and a tall receiver for the red zone. 877321[/snapback] Really? You aren't concerned about Spikes slowing down due to age and his recent injuries? You are really that confident in Ellison and Crowell, considering their mediocrity, especially in the Tampa 2? You think Fletch has a number of good years left in him? OK just making sure.
generaLee83 Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 You mean another undersized high-motor DL? 876946[/snapback] I'm right with you on this one sarcastic Bill, I'm so sick of hearing the phrase "smaller quick penetrating DT's" passed around. The whole DL could stand to put on 20 pounds a piece and their quickness would not be that monumentally affected. I'd love to have at least 1 DT that is pushing 325-350, someone that it requires 2 OL to move. It would make sense in my opinion in the cover 2 to have 1 big D-lineman that would occupy 2 O-lineman. Take away 2 O lineman and you have even matchups at ends and 1 DT. It's christmas though and all I wanted was an 8 win season and it's probably not going to happen, I'm going to go piss on my christmas tree now. Seriously, just kidding about the golden shower on the tree thing.
Bill from NYC Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 Guess where we should draft? 876920[/snapback] First round defensive back?
bluv Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 CMON. when are people going to realize that fletcher has always been a major liability against the run?? unless we roll the clock back to 2000 and bring back pat and ted, fletcher will never ever ever ever be good enough to take this team anywhere. 877344[/snapback] Every GOOD MLB needs the big guys up front to play GREAT. Ray Lewis play fell off until they put a big run stuffing DT in front of him. Urlacher play fell off big time when Big Ted and Traylor left in the same season. While these good MLB can still make game changing plays, they can not make many tackles for no gain if they aren't allowed to run free. We need that type of DT but he isn't available in this draft. I'm sure there will be better players available when we are up to bat in the draft.
billyshaw Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 our first priority should be to get this year's Haloti Ngata. Our second is probably an offensive guard, and I think our third might possibly be a linebacker. We're in pretty good shape. I think a nice draft couple of free agents and more than anything sign clements and we'll be very good next year.
BADOLBILZ Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 CMON. when are people going to realize that fletcher has always been a major liability against the run?? unless we roll the clock back to 2000 and bring back pat and ted, fletcher will never ever ever ever be good enough to take this team anywhere. 877344[/snapback] I agree, he tries hard, but he is not stout against the run. Getting a VERY good cover 2 MLB is not easy because he has to be strong at the point of attack, but also be very good in pass coverage. But Fletcher is a push over at the point, and while he does make some plays in the passing game, he is especially vulnerable to taller receivers and TE's because he is so short. He's at his best going sideline to sideline like he did when we had two big DT's. His greatest strength is durability, which keeps him on the field putting up numbers. But I think he can be replaced with Crowell or Spikes(given another offseason) without hurting the defense overall, and perhaps to the overall benefit of the defense. Honestly, if he stays, his position would not be a position of strength for the team so I find it difficult calling him a high priority worthy of a good long term contract. It could be worse, but he doesn't have a fraction of the impact that Nate Clements does on this defense when it is working as it's intended to. If they don't overpay to keep Clements if need be, and then turn around and sign Fletcher to anywhere near the deal he will think he's worth($4M-$6M per year) it will certainly be a case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. For those not enamored with Fletcher at LB, this has to be a concern because he apparently is a Ralph Wilson favorite.
Ozymandius Posted December 25, 2006 Posted December 25, 2006 I believe the Bills are too married to small-and-quick to get a big runstuffer in there. Look at the Colts. They've been getting gashed by the run for years but have they changed a thing? Nope. Tampa-2 enthusiasts don't tend to be flexible about their philosophy. We're going to end up drafting an athletic 295-lber like Glenn Dorsey or Brandon Mebane. It won't help the run defense much but it'll make us even more dangerous on passing attempts.
Recommended Posts