Albany,n.y. Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 We will have McCargo coming off this injured year. We spent a 1st rounder on him & won't be looking to draft another DT early because that player will also have to take time to develop. Instead, in order to help the run defense I expect Marv to bring in a veteran wide body to add to the DT rotation. He'll be someone who has shown good character & will be willing to be a mentor to McCargo & Williams as they continue to grow. It will also show that we are serious about winning now. Our most likely 1st day picks will be a LB or 2 and something I hope Marv realizes we desperately need-a pass catching TE (Everett should be preparing for life in the real world). After reading Marv's book, defense is what he believes in & will once again be focused upon in this draft.
Boatdrinks Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 We will have McCargo coming off this injured year. We spent a 1st rounder on him & won't be looking to draft another DT early because that player will also have to take time to develop. Instead, in order to help the run defense I expect Marv to bring in a veteran wide body to add to the DT rotation. He'll be someone who has shown good character & will be willing to be a mentor to McCargo & Williams as they continue to grow. It will also show that we are serious about winning now. Our most likely 1st day picks will be a LB or 2 and something I hope Marv realizes we desperately need-a pass catching TE (Everett should be preparing for life in the real world). After reading Marv's book, defense is what he believes in & will once again be focused upon in this draft. Truthfully, free agency will determine the Bills course of action in the draft. A FA signing at DT plus whatever happens with the Clements situation primarily. Any of the Bears FA DT's (yes including Tank Johnson. Jauron and Fewell's connection to the Bears may allow them to convince Marv to sign him) plus keeping Nate or signing A. Samuel would enable the Bills to have a quality draft. Otherwise we may be looking at a 1st round DB yet again. Hope for a solid FA effort by Marv and Ralph's checkbook.
Ozymandius Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 I agree. I get the sense that the Bills will pursue a DT in free agency. I'm more interested in the KIND of DT they pursue, though. Did this past season change their minds about big DTs? Will they consider a widebody like Terdell Sands?
tennesseeboy Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Next year is the year to go to the playoffs and McCargo didn't show he had what it took before his injury. Our biggest weakness is the inability to stop the run (has been for some time). There will probably be the best DT available at 12 in Okoye. We can get to the playoffs with our tight ends and linebackers (if we keep LF for another year.. Okoye fixes the "London Fletcher" problem in that HE stops them at the line of scrimmage. Our receivers are fine, Royal is a good enough tight end. The only person I would take OTHER than a DT is an offensive lineman. Going for a wide receiver, tight end or running back as a first pick would be silly.
John from Riverside Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Sorry....just cant agree with this one... Unless we seriously shore up our DT situation in free agency....there will most definately be a day 1 DT drafted.... Probably with our first pick......
Kelly the Dog Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 You may be right. But there is a remote possibly that it may have something to do with who is available in free agency, who they like on film in free agency, who makes a stop here, who they go after, who decides to sign or not sign, who comes out in the draft, who plays well in the college bowl games, who does well in the combines and individual workouts, who looks like a good fit and character guy in the interviews and investigations, who the scouts and player personnel guys like or dislike, who drafts before us, and what trades are offered. I'm just sayin' there's that chance.
Dibs Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 ....Did this past season change their minds about big DTs?..... I can't see any reason why they would have changed their minds.....though I'm not counting it out. Basically we were under-manned this season at DT. Triplett, Rookie(1st rounder), Rookie & Anderson....with Rookie(1st) getting injured in game 6. DJ & Marv are smart guys.....they had to have expected severe growing pains at the DT position(both this season & next). It looks to me(from early information) that there is a good amount of 'good' DT prospects in the draft this season. Since none of the FAs are "WOW!!! " I'd rather draft a guy who....though he may become a bust......may also become a super-star......over a FA who can simply get the job done.
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I can't see any reason why they would have changed their minds.....though I'm not counting it out.Basically we were under-manned this season at DT. Triplett, Rookie(1st rounder), Rookie & Anderson....with Rookie(1st) getting injured in game 6. DJ & Marv are smart guys.....they had to have expected severe growing pains at the DT position(both this season & next). It looks to me(from early information) that there is a good amount of 'good' DT prospects in the draft this season. Since none of the FAs are "WOW!!! " I'd rather draft a guy who....though he may become a bust......may also become a super-star......over a FA who can simply get the job done. I know you disagree but I would like the stud AND the best DT available in free agency that will agree to play in Buffalo. I am not sold on Williams being much more than a back up ( I know he's young and can develop) and Anderson needs to go (preferrably to Miami). That leaves Tripplett, McCargo, Williams, a first OR second round pick and a veteran. And hopefully we have to make the "painful" decision that our 2006 fifth round pick is not good enough to make the team. That would be a good "tough" decision.
Dr. Fong Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Going for a wide receiver, tight end or running back as a first pick would be silly. Not if their names are Johnson or Peterson it wouldn't.
Dibs Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I know you disagree but I would like the stud AND the best DT available in free agency..... Hey, I don't disagree at all.....it just means we have 5 DTs on the active roster rather than 4.....which the more I look at it, the more it makes sense. Since the Tampa 2 is a high rotation DT system....why not keep 5 on the roster for even more rotational benifits? Also it would mean that if the rookie(& McCargo) become busts, we would have an extra guy who can at least get the job done.
Koufax Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 We need to add a DT somewhere this off season. I think where we take him depends on how we go about upgrading our other positions (OG and potentially CB/MLB) and who is available. It could be a low profile free agent to be #4 in the rotation behind Larry, McCargo, and Kyle, or it could be the #12 pick to be our #1 in the rotation above all three of those guys. I personally would rather it be somewhere in between, maybe a good #3 guy ahead of Kyle with a 3rd or 4th round pick, because I think that when the rubber meets the road, OG (or two) and replacements for Nate/London if they leave are more important than tackles, especially with McCargo coming back and Kyle getting a year stronger, and those guys learning to work together better in the system.
CFLstyle Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I think that if we can get a big MLB that's fast and is great in run support, such as Patrick Willis, then we'll be fine with who we have rotating K.Williams, Hargrove, Tripplett, and McCargo. Everyone blames the defensive line for our problems against the run but is there any possibility that Fletcher had a large influence on that? He's undersized and it seems that all of his tackles were made after the running back had gone 4 or 5 yards, he was never really able to get in and stuff a running back. Don't know a lot about the cover 2 but aren't our DTs supposed to be small and fast? Dick knows how to run the cover 2 and maybe he's right in letting Fletcher walk, getting a bigger buy at the ILB position, and sticking with the fast DTs who can get to the quarterback up the middle. If we really needed a run stuffing DT then we would have taken Ngata last year. Just looking at it from a different perspective.
CosmicBills Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 A DT will be brought in to replace Tim Anderson who is clearly on his way out the door. That is the only thing we know for sure. Whether its a FA or a first round pick is yet to be seen. But remember this. The Bills added FOUR DTs this year, two by trade. They traded up to get McCargo (who cannot be called a bust -- yet), took KW in the fifth round, signed Larry to a decent sized deal then, in mid season, traded to bring in AH who plays both DE and DT. That is a lot of draft picks used up on DTs. YOUNG DTs who the Bills most likely think higher of than many of us. It would not surprise me at all if the front office was thinking something like, "McCargo was hurt, he needs more time. Williams developed nicely and will only get better. And Hargrove is the type of player that fits our system." Meaning, they might want to stand with these young guys for now and don't see as big a hole in the DL as the fans do. That might be a mistake, it might not. Time will tell. But clearly, for the roster sake, a DT will be added to replace Anderson. I'm just not certain it will be a big FA signing or a flashy draft pick. So be prepared.
Dibs Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 ....That is a lot of draft picks used up on DTs..... Well yeah, but with Anderson gone it is a total DT roster replacement. Not one DT will remain from last season. How can you replace 5 players without spending(either money or picks)?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 A DT will be brought in to replace Tim Anderson who is clearly on his way out the door. That is the only thing we know for sure. Whether its a FA or a first round pick is yet to be seen. But remember this. The Bills added FOUR DTs this year, two by trade. They traded up to get McCargo (who cannot be called a bust -- yet), took KW in the fifth round, signed Larry to a decent sized deal then, in mid season, traded to bring in AH who plays both DE and DT. That is a lot of draft picks used up on DTs. YOUNG DTs who the Bills most likely think higher of than many of us. It would not surprise me at all if the front office was thinking something like, "McCargo was hurt, he needs more time. Williams developed nicely and will only get better. And Hargrove is the type of player that fits our system." Meaning, they might want to stand with these young guys for now and don't see as big a hole in the DL as the fans do. That might be a mistake, it might not. Time will tell. But clearly, for the roster sake, a DT will be added to replace Anderson. I'm just not certain it will be a big FA signing or a flashy draft pick. So be prepared. I consider, and assume that the Bills consider, Hargrove to be a DE much more than a DT. He's only 272 pounds at 6' 3" and is a natural end more than tackle. Especially since we may lose Kelsay. I would imagine that we either get a starter type DT in FA or in the first two rounds of the draft. Of course, they will surely take the best player available, and we may not be able to sign a starter DT in FA.
CosmicBills Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Well yeah, but with Anderson gone it is a total DT roster replacement. Not one DT will remain from last season. How can you replace 5 players without spending(either money or picks)? No, I understand that. I'm just saying it would not surprise me if the Bills were a bit gunshy about spending another high draft pick (or two) or even breaking the bank for a FA when the results of their work last year can't really be determined yet. The players they got are still too young (or too green) to be fully evaluated. They have no idea what they have with McCargo and Hargrove (who is a FA I expect back). They have a better idea about Williams, but he can only get better. And Triplett was a let down (I think privately the front office would admit that) -- but he is still a solid DT, even if he's unspectacular. I guess that's my point.
Saint Doug Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I have a question about Terdell Sands v. Ian Scott. Everyone seems to be blowin their load to get Scott, but I don't see the fascination with him. Is it because he plays for the Bears? I know "stats don't tell everything," but look at them in comparison: Sands: TOT SOLO AST SACK INT FF 2006 41 30 11 1.0 1 0 Scott: TOT SOLO AST SACK INT FF 2006 23 16 7 0.0 0 1 Sands is 27 yo and weighs 335 lbs and Scott is 25 yo and weighs 302. Could it be that people don't think Marv will go after a wide-body (Sands) and would want someone that would fit more into the Tampa 2 (Scott)?
Dibs Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Could it be that people don't think Marv will go after a wide-body (Sands) and would want someone that would fit more into the Tampa 2 (Scott)? For me, that is exactly the case. Until I hear that Marv & Co. are looking at a bigger DT I'm assuming they are simply out of consideration for us. Mind you, as far as I'm aware Scott is a solid/good player.....not a 'playmaker'. That's OK & all......but personally I'd like to see this D with a 'top' DT, ala Tommie Harris. Fingers crossed McCargopants will pan out.
The Jokeman Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I have a question about Terdell Sands v. Ian Scott. Everyone seems to be blowin their load to get Scott, but I don't see the fascination with him. Is it because he plays for the Bears? I know "stats don't tell everything," but look at them in comparison: A more telling stat is the Bears ranking far better in rush defense 6th then the Raiders 25th. Of course one could argue the Bears LB core far better then the Raiders but to me I like that Scott would know the defense and could easily replace and be an upgrade to Tim Anderson.
Recommended Posts