DT from Tennessee

[Koufax]

Other than the maniacs on this board screaming for OL- what evidence is there that the Bills will focus on offense more than defense in this draft?

 

Even if the Bills take an OL, the Bills need significant upgrade at DT and LB and also CB if Nate is not resigned.

 

Fletcher is as good as gone- so they are probably 2 LBs short.

The one advantage of the cover 2 is that it requires smaller faster LBs which are not in as much demand for other teams- so you can get them later, eg Keith Ellison.

 

Maniacs? I hope you mean our maniacal interest in improving this team and not that our O-Line somehow magically became anything other than our #1 priority. I'd like a DT and LB help, so I'm not suggesting that we pick seven O-Linemen, but we need to upgrade this position a lot, and also could consider a pass catching TE (although not necessary) RB/FB help, and a bigger possession receiver. Having Youboty an McCargo as aquisitions effectively, and getting Crowell back, changes the D needs from how they seemed on the field the last month of the season. Not that the D is perfect or should be ignored, but I think this off season will be 50% or more offense.

[Pyrite Gal]

Other than the maniacs on this board screaming for OL- what evidence is there that the Bills will focus on offense more than defense in this draft?

 

Even if the Bills take an OL, the Bills need significant upgrade at DT and LB and also CB if Nate is not resigned.

 

Fletcher is as good as gone- so they are probably 2 LBs short.

The one advantage of the cover 2 is that it requires smaller faster LBs which are not in as much demand for other teams- so you can get them later, eg Keith Ellison.

 

There is no real evidence whether the Bills will concentrate on O or D with this draft and there will not be any real evidence until after the Combine when the Bills coaches get a real chance to interview and meet the likely draftees, many of them for the first time.

 

If there is one thing that this team has shown can either veto a talented player from being taken or raise a potentially suspect player higher on their charts than the NFL it is character issues and the braintrusts assessment of a players' character.

 

As my post attempts to clearly state that while there is no conclusion which can be drawn that this will be an offense oriented draft, I think it is reasonable to think of that as the default if only because the 06 draft was so heavily weighted toward defensive help. Jauron is a D guy by playing and training and this bias was reflected in all the first day choices being defenders and in fact no offensive guys being taken until the OT Butler in the 5th.

 

I think it is reasonable to state that the default is on the O because among the central tenets which Marv has stated is that the the key to the game boils down to running and stopping the run. They had troubles in both areas this year so both are valid considerations, however he also has talked about the draft as a great source for future talent. While he has also seemed to be more invested in a best player available approach rather than a need approach, it would seem that we devoted the last draft to loading up on the D side so there will certainly be a demand from Fairchild and the O types that it is their turn.

 

While this is in no way guranteed because if a potential 1st round defensive player falls to the 3rd (Youbouty is probably an example of this) we likely would take him and Bills fans will wail if they do not. However, the demands of Fairchild that it is his turn will not fall on depth ears and it seems a quite reasonable assumption that the default which can be easily brushed aside by reality is that its the Os turn.

 

The real default is take the BPA. This view would not only speak against a focus on OL, but also would speak against a focus on DT.

 

The next default though would seem to be its the offenses turn or the team may well get in real trouble down the line and it will be taken by some as an admission of bad choosing if the Bills belly up to the DL bar again (in fact more than an overdedication to taking skill players or CBs, there is an argument that the Bills have devoted too much draft attention and then made poor choices in selecting DL players heavily in the draft since the great housecleaning and reloading after the Wade era. In that time we selected, Schobel, Kelsay, Denney, Edwards, and McCargo with first day choices and folks are cheesed we had to go after Kelsay so quickly after Denney. I think they made fairly good choices as Denney I think deserved to be resigned after a slow start and Kelsay likely will get extended when his contract ends and this was made necessary because GW (stupidly IMHO) tried to replicate his TN D here which needed a Jevon Kearse to really be great and he did this on the heels of losing Bruce to the cap, Wiley to FA, Big Ted to the cap, and Hansen to retirement from a 3-4.

 

The fact we are still striving for a quality seems to me to be because though we signed FA Triplett and drafted Anderson and McCargo high we balanced that by letting Sam Adams walk and losing Phat Pat to FA and letting Edwards walk.

 

IF a DT is the best player available we may well take him, but if we do the too many skill player talk will correctly be replaced by a question as to why we cannot get it right on the DL.

 

I aggree with you we have stopping the run problems that necessitate us getting some more talent there, but my guess is that unless the braintrust has given up on McCargo we likely would look to get a vet FA player who is a proven run stuffer but in the last couple of years of his playing days rather than look to the draft.

 

Its not a sure thing or a conclusion at all, but I think it is the default primarily because of the recent past DL focus.

[Chilly]

Wouldn't be too sure about that. Pitcock is the kind of high-motor player that is liable to unimpress during workouts, and Okam didn't have a great junior year and might stay in school.

 

As for Harrell -- too injury prone. He was out almost all of this season with a torn bicep and he missed various games the in past seasons with injuries as well.

 

Okam isn't the type of player thats going to get a ton of tackles. He's a guy that will push the opposing offensive line backwards, but don't look for him to cause a lot of sacks or pressure.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think Okam is the type of DT they are looking for in the cover-2.

[obie_wan]

There is no real evidence whether the Bills will concentrate on O or D with this draft and there will not be any real evidence until after the Combine when the Bills coaches get a real chance to interview and meet the likely draftees, many of them for the first time.

 

If there is one thing that this team has shown can either veto a talented player from being taken or raise a potentially suspect player higher on their charts than the NFL it is character issues and the braintrusts assessment of a players' character.

 

As my post attempts to clearly state that while there is no conclusion which can be drawn that this will be an offense oriented draft, I think it is reasonable to think of that as the default if only because the 06 draft was so heavily weighted toward defensive help. Jauron is a D guy by playing and training and this bias was reflected in all the first day choices being defenders and in fact no offensive guys being taken until the OT Butler in the 5th.

 

I think it is reasonable to state that the default is on the O because among the central tenets which Marv has stated is that the the key to the game boils down to running and stopping the run. They had troubles in both areas this year so both are valid considerations, however he also has talked about the draft as a great source for future talent. While he has also seemed to be more invested in a best player available approach rather than a need approach, it would seem that we devoted the last draft to loading up on the D side so there will certainly be a demand from Fairchild and the O types that it is their turn.

 

While this is in no way guranteed because if a potential 1st round defensive player falls to the 3rd (Youbouty is probably an example of this) we likely would take him and Bills fans will wail if they do not. However, the demands of Fairchild that it is his turn will not fall on depth ears and it seems a quite reasonable assumption that the default which can be easily brushed aside by reality is that its the Os turn.

 

The real default is take the BPA. This view would not only speak against a focus on OL, but also would speak against a focus on DT.

 

The next default though would seem to be its the offenses turn or the team may well get in real trouble down the line and it will be taken by some as an admission of bad choosing if the Bills belly up to the DL bar again (in fact more than an overdedication to taking skill players or CBs, there is an argument that the Bills have devoted too much draft attention and then made poor choices in selecting DL players heavily in the draft since the great housecleaning and reloading after the Wade era. In that time we selected, Schobel, Kelsay, Denney, Edwards, and McCargo with first day choices and folks are cheesed we had to go after Kelsay so quickly after Denney. I think they made fairly good choices as Denney I think deserved to be resigned after a slow start and Kelsay likely will get extended when his contract ends and this was made necessary because GW (stupidly IMHO) tried to replicate his TN D here which needed a Jevon Kearse to really be great and he did this on the heels of losing Bruce to the cap, Wiley to FA, Big Ted to the cap, and Hansen to retirement from a 3-4.

 

The fact we are still striving for a quality seems to me to be because though we signed FA Triplett and drafted Anderson and McCargo high we balanced that by letting Sam Adams walk and losing Phat Pat to FA and letting Edwards walk.

 

IF a DT is the best player available we may well take him, but if we do the too many skill player talk will correctly be replaced by a question as to why we cannot get it right on the DL.

 

I aggree with you we have stopping the run problems that necessitate us getting some more talent there, but my guess is that unless the braintrust has given up on McCargo we likely would look to get a vet FA player who is a proven run stuffer but in the last couple of years of his playing days rather than look to the draft.

 

Its not a sure thing or a conclusion at all, but I think it is the default primarily because of the recent past DL focus.

 

 

Contrary to the blather above, weakness lean towards 2 D players on day 1 and a likley OT/OG, which clearly is not heavily weighted to the O.

[Pyrite Gal]

Contrary to the blather above, weakness lean towards 2 D players on day 1 and a likley OT/OG, which clearly is not heavily weighted to the O.

 

Acrually the question is one of the old debate regarding approaching your draft lookig for the best player available or to fill particular needs. Another form of blather in addition to my posts is that actually in reality it does not strike me that this debate is a debate at all in reality as teams actually strike a balance and do both in most drafts.

 

The draft is actually a crap shoot in part because it is simply impossible to tell until moments before your pick who actually is really available as teams difference in ranking the BPA is pretty variable even with everyone sharing the same information.

 

I think the Bills needs will start with the concept of being able to run and to stop the run. This will mean a bias toward looking for DTs to shore up the middle where we were run on alot, but given the contractual uncertainties regarding F-B (even if we extend him his age and our lack of an MLB back-up on the depth chart and injury recovery issues for Crowell (our best back-up and TKO finding a solid potential star at MLB is probably our greatest D need.

 

On offense, our OL is probably best described as havimg potential but still in disarray. Butler seeing some PT in the Ravens game was interesting (anyone have a sense in how well he is judged at having played. We are still unsettled there and my guess is that if we identify a good one in the first round we will go for him.

[obie_wan]

Acrually the question is one of the old debate regarding approaching your draft lookig for the best player available or to fill particular needs. Another form of blather in addition to my posts is that actually in reality it does not strike me that this debate is a debate at all in reality as teams actually strike a balance and do both in most drafts.

 

The draft is actually a crap shoot in part because it is simply impossible to tell until moments before your pick who actually is really available as teams difference in ranking the BPA is pretty variable even with everyone sharing the same information.

 

I think the Bills needs will start with the concept of being able to run and to stop the run. This will mean a bias toward looking for DTs to shore up the middle where we were run on alot, but given the contractual uncertainties regarding F-B (even if we extend him his age and our lack of an MLB back-up on the depth chart and injury recovery issues for Crowell (our best back-up and TKO finding a solid potential star at MLB is probably our greatest D need.

 

On offense, our OL is probably best described as havimg potential but still in disarray. Butler seeing some PT in the Ravens game was interesting (anyone have a sense in how well he is judged at having played. We are still unsettled there and my guess is that if we identify a good one in the first round we will go for him.

 

we were run on a lot because our LBs did not fill the gaps. Fletcher and Ellison are too small and Spikes is injured. Run stopping will improve when our LBs make some tackles somewhere near the line of scrimmage.

[BADOLBILZ]

I don't know if you CAN make an assessment of McCargo given his limited playing time.

 

You might not be able to make an assessment, but when a big guy breaks a foot twice in three years, it's reason for concern. Big guys and brittle feet don't mix. IMO, when that happened it changed the whole outlook for McCargo. He may well become a good player, but now I think the Bills should go forward assuming he won't be healthy and hope for the best instead of planning around McCargo emerging like they assumed he would.