Do the Bills now have the worst defense in NFL?

[Dawgg]

Thinking even more about it, what if the 22 million for Nate went to extending JP or Evans? Honestly, I would take either (especially Evans) over Clements.

 

Sure, they certainly decided that they would rather devote their financial resources to other areas. With that being said, they still should have franchised him and sent him to the highest bidder, netting the team additional compensation.

 

As for this team being "stronger" it will be very difficult given the losses on defense. Our secondary is extremely raw and young and will have some growing pains to overcome. What are your thoughts on the Langston Walker signing? Personally, not a big fan.

[cåblelady]

I guess that makes me #3....

I'm Peerless' #1 fan.....so that makes you #4.

[Bill from NYC]

Sure, they certainly decided that they would rather devote their financial resources to other areas. With that being said, they still should have franchised him and sent him to the highest bidder, netting the team additional compensation.

 

As for this team being "stronger" it will be very difficult given the losses on defense. Our secondary is extremely raw and young and will have some growing pains to overcome. What are your thoughts on the Langston Walker signing? Personally, not a big fan.

 

I have not seen enough of Walker to offer a pertinent opinion, but I sense that the staff is not that high on Pennington. At the press conference, Marv was complaining about keeping the TE back to block. Pennington WAS getting a lot of help.

The 25 million sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't. We just saw 4 Guards sign huge contracts, and OTs traditionally earn more. Hopefully, at least 1 of our young blockers will be able to play.

 

I know that losing Clements and Fletcher is not pleasant. BADOL is also correct that both of them are playmakers. That said, I think that we will be watching a different type of football team next season, and I hope that they can get some good defenders on draft day.

[Coach Tuesday]

Dawgg is 100% correct that it was costly not to at least franchise Nate. New England DEFINITELY would have done it, because they are far less concerned about whether players respect the organization. Then again, they are able to continually attract free agents despite treating their players like crap because they can promise a great shot at a ring. Marv made a decision to promote integrity at the expense of getting something in return for Nate. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of that decision, but I'm sure that Marv made it with quite a bit of thought, that just seems to be how he operates. I'm assuming that a good number of players and, more importantly, AGENTS, took notice of Marv's decision to keep his word. I stick by my theory that Todd France, who is both Nate's and Dockery's agent, repaid Marv for keeping his promise by brining Dockery to Buffalo first. So maybe the decision paid off in a way we'll never really know.

 

RE: Walker - remember, he can play guard too. Can probably fill in on every position on the line except center if needed. McNally likes versatile linemen. And, also, paying $25 mil over 5 years for a starting RT is LAST YEAR'S price, so they still got a good deal if he is a serviceable starter. The fact that they may have been competing against themselves is a different story...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

the Bills D is among bottom feeders but not the worst. SF (even with Nate), Arizona, Detroit, Oakland, and Houston are in worse shape than us

 

Actually, Oakland's D is pretty good. Their OFFENSE sucks, tho.

[R. Rich]

Actually, Oakland's D is pretty good.

 

 

Is that you, Joseph, w/ the insight? Check you out!

 

 

 

Their OFFENSE sucks, tho.

 

 

Now that's more your speed.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Is that you, Joseph, w/ the insight? Check you out!

Now that's more your speed.

 

 

Bite me, Goliath!

[tennesseeboy]

Little early to make a judgment. On first glance we might lose three (Clements, Fletcher and maybe Spikes) starters? Pm tje ptjer. we can get some OLB's through free agency, trade...and Crowell should be quite good. On the Spikes side there is a balancing of coming off the injury and salary and we might keep him. If we draft Okoye we will have addressed our biggest defensive problem, the run game and strengthening the middle of the d line (or if we draft Branch.) Barring that...if we draft Willis we strengthen, in my opinion, the MLB spot (and not I am a Fletcher fan). Strong front seven and the Cover 2 defense, we can survive the Clements loss with existing personnel and have a better defense this coming year than last year. In any event I gaurantee the defense will NOT be the worst in the NFL and might be pretty darn good.

[stuckincincy]

I’m not quite ready to throw the Bill’s D into the ditch.

 

Losing Clement’s physical skills hurts, as does losing Fletcher’s heart. Over and done with.

 

Folks have mentioned that the Cover 2 was less-used as last season wore on, and that Nate’s talents were put to better use. And statements that Terrance McGee regressed.

 

It would seem that a usually-vital CB commodity – speed - isn’t of the same value in cover 2 zone playing, as also so in other zone pass schemes. But it must help – who plays the same defensive alignment play after play?

 

The need for a decent pass rush with a zone is there – but it’s there for all coverage plans.

 

I think that the team will end up with adequate – at least as far as physical talent goes – replacements.

 

I am concerned with the loss of 2 pairs of canny, veteran eyes - three pair since it seems TKO’s days here are numbered.

 

There’s a lot of player movement yet to happen; perhaps the team will acquire a couple of wizened vets who won’t wow us with gaudy speed, but have the smarts to get to the right place in good fashion with decent tackling angles.

 

I would like them to obtain an off-the-bench LB that has good blitz skills. I’m not one who likes to see a dogged reliance on blitzing, but the players that can do that and keep on the field all the time are quite valuable – the Merrimans and Wares recently; the Joey Porters and Adalius Thomases, etc. But a part-timer – one of the so-called “tweeners” perhaps, that have a gift of cracking through the OL is a useful force when occasions merit.

 

I’d add that the very good special team play promises to continue. That translates to favorable field position, and that helps an offense and really helps any defense.

 

Just my 2 cents. Hostilities may now resume...

Edited March 5, 2007 by stuckincincy

[Gordio]

Please stop criticizing management.

 

This board is meant for everyone to gush about every move the Bills make, no matter how dumb it may have been.

 

My favorite is the annual "We're going to the playoffs!" predictions around this time of year... what are we... 0-7 now?

 

 

Your an idiot, & you are clearly no bills fan. For the last 10 years people have been complaining the bills neglect the oline. Well they finally bring in a blue chip lineman in Dockery(& that is exactly what he is) & young up & comer like Walker & you still have to complain. Try to get this thru your thick skull, we have been losing with Clements & Fletcher for the last 5 yrs, time to change it up & go in a different direction. Fletcher is on the wrong side of 30 & Clements is not a top 5 CB & some would argue he is not a top 10 CB. He will never live up to the contract he just signed.

[dave mcbride]

It seems that many people are missing the forest for the trees. Since 1996, the Bills have had an inconsistent and mostly bad offense. Going back to the Super Bowl years, the defense has had ups and downs despite always fielding an at least fairly solid (and often very strong) secondary. The reason for the Bills' offensive inconsistency is transparently simple -- a perrennially weak offensive line that simply can't put together good drives and dominate. Also, if you think about it, the good years the Bills have had on defense -- 1995-2000, 2003-2004 -- coincide exactly with the years that they started powerful front sevens. The additions of Ted Washington, Bryce Paup in the mid-90s and Sam Adams and Spikes (in 03 and 04, that is) had a helluva a lot more to do with Bills defensive productivity than their secondary play. Indeed, in their down years, the defenses were stocked with high draft picks (and good players) in the secondary - 1990-94; 2001-02; 2005-06. Yet they were still basically bottom feeders who were pretty much dominated on a consistent basis.

 

The point is, the Bills' good offensive years coincided with good offensive line play, and their good defensive years coincided with good front seven talent and play.

 

Call me crazy, but devoting money and draft picks to the offensive and defensive lines makes perfect sense. The Bills will not collapse by replacing a good corner with an average one. Indeed, if the front seven improves, their defense will very likely be better next year than it was this year. I expect them to draft a DT and LB in either the first two rounds or two of the first three rounds. Given their very deep reservoir of solid-to-good defensive ends, a decent penetrator in Triplett, (hopefully) an improved McCargo, a blue chip DT draft pick, and an early round MLB, they should be just fine.

 

Just as an aside, the Patriots have done well all of these years because they prioritize the front seven on defense. Same with the Steelers, who haven't had a better than average cornerback since Rod Woodson.

[tennesseeboy]

If we should go into next season with Porter, Willis, Crowell, we would have a pretty big improvement overall in linebackers. If McCargo picks up the slack at DT and Thomas or Youbooty fills in for Nate (remember a high quality front 7 in a cover 2 and you don't NEED a shut down corner like Clements...we'll be MUCH better than average as a defense.

 

If we get Okoye...it might be a finger crossing situation to pick up an inside linebacker...but we'd have a killer defensive line.

[Kelly the Dog]

It seems that many people are missing the forest for the trees. Since 1996, the Bills have had an inconsistent and mostly bad offense. Going back to the Super Bowl years, the defense has had ups and downs despite always fielding an at least fairly solid (and often very strong) secondary. The reason for the Bills' offensive inconsistency is transparently simple -- a perrennially weak offensive line that simply can't put together good drives and dominate. Also, if you think about it, the good years the Bills have had on defense -- 1995-2000, 2003-2004 -- coincide exactly with the years that they started powerful front sevens. The additions of Ted Washington, Bryce Paup in the mid-90s and Sam Adams and Spikes (in 03 and 04, that is) had a helluva a lot more to do with Bills defensive productivity than their secondary play. Indeed, in their down years, the defenses were stocked with high draft picks (and good players) in the secondary - 1990-94; 2001-02; 2005-06. Yet they were still basically bottom feeders who were pretty much dominated on a consistent basis.

 

The point is, the Bills' good offensive years coincided with good offensive line play, and their good defensive years coincided with good front seven talent and play.

 

Call me crazy, but devoting money and draft picks to the offensive and defensive lines makes perfect sense. The Bills will not collapse by replacing a good corner with an average one. Indeed, if the front seven improves, their defense will very likely be better next year than it was this year. I expect them to draft a DT and LB in either the first two rounds or two of the first three rounds. Given their very deep reservoir of solid-to-good defensive ends, a decent penetrator in Triplett, (hopefully) an improved McCargo, a blue chip DT draft pick, and an early round MLB, they should be just fine.

 

Just as an aside, the Patriots have done well all of these years because they prioritize the front seven on defense. Same with the Steelers, who haven't had a better than average cornerback since Rod Woodson.

While I agree with the thesis of your post and I am happy with the signings, I think that in two of the three Patsie SB wins, their highest paid player was Ty Law (it could have been only one), and he was surely a major factor on their team. The Steelers best player and leader is their safety.

[dave mcbride]

While I agree with the thesis of your post and I am happy with the signings, I think that in two of the three Patsie SB wins, their highest paid player was Ty Law (it could have been only one), and he was surely a major factor on their team. The Steelers best player and leader is their safety.

 

Point taken about Polamalu, but all the same they have been a front-seven driven team for many a year. They had a great defense in 01 (I think they were #1 overall), but I can't remember one player who played in the secondary for them.

 

Re Law, yeah, he's still a great player (better than Clements, in my opinion), but they've won without him three years going (he was injured pretty early on in 04), enjoying an overall regular season record of 36-12 and a post season record of 6-2 (42-14).

[Fan in San Diego]

It seems that many people are missing the forest for the trees. Since 1996, the Bills have had an inconsistent and mostly bad offense. Going back to the Super Bowl years, the defense has had ups and downs despite always fielding an at least fairly solid (and often very strong) secondary. The reason for the Bills' offensive inconsistency is transparently simple -- a perrennially weak offensive line that simply can't put together good drives and dominate. Also, if you think about it, the good years the Bills have had on defense -- 1995-2000, 2003-2004 -- coincide exactly with the years that they started powerful front sevens. The additions of Ted Washington, Bryce Paup in the mid-90s and Sam Adams and Spikes (in 03 and 04, that is) had a helluva a lot more to do with Bills defensive productivity than their secondary play. Indeed, in their down years, the defenses were stocked with high draft picks (and good players) in the secondary - 1990-94; 2001-02; 2005-06. Yet they were still basically bottom feeders who were pretty much dominated on a consistent basis.

 

The point is, the Bills' good offensive years coincided with good offensive line play, and their good defensive years coincided with good front seven talent and play.

 

Call me crazy, but devoting money and draft picks to the offensive and defensive lines makes perfect sense. The Bills will not collapse by replacing a good corner with an average one. Indeed, if the front seven improves, their defense will very likely be better next year than it was this year. I expect them to draft a DT and LB in either the first two rounds or two of the first three rounds. Given their very deep reservoir of solid-to-good defensive ends, a decent penetrator in Triplett, (hopefully) an improved McCargo, a blue chip DT draft pick, and an early round MLB, they should be just fine.

 

Just as an aside, the Patriots have done well all of these years because they prioritize the front seven on defense. Same with the Steelers, who haven't had a better than average cornerback since Rod Woodson.

 

Good post. I have to agree with your logic. Two top picks that produce at DT and LB could be the trick needed to shore up this average defense and take pressure off of the CB position. Not to mention that if the offense can sustain long drives that keeps the defense even fresher.

[MDH]

It seems that many people are missing the forest for the trees. Since 1996, the Bills have had an inconsistent and mostly bad offense. Going back to the Super Bowl years, the defense has had ups and downs despite always fielding an at least fairly solid (and often very strong) secondary. The reason for the Bills' offensive inconsistency is transparently simple -- a perrennially weak offensive line that simply can't put together good drives and dominate. Also, if you think about it, the good years the Bills have had on defense -- 1995-2000, 2003-2004 -- coincide exactly with the years that they started powerful front sevens. The additions of Ted Washington, Bryce Paup in the mid-90s and Sam Adams and Spikes (in 03 and 04, that is) had a helluva a lot more to do with Bills defensive productivity than their secondary play. Indeed, in their down years, the defenses were stocked with high draft picks (and good players) in the secondary - 1990-94; 2001-02; 2005-06. Yet they were still basically bottom feeders who were pretty much dominated on a consistent basis.

 

The point is, the Bills' good offensive years coincided with good offensive line play, and their good defensive years coincided with good front seven talent and play.

 

Call me crazy, but devoting money and draft picks to the offensive and defensive lines makes perfect sense. The Bills will not collapse by replacing a good corner with an average one. Indeed, if the front seven improves, their defense will very likely be better next year than it was this year. I expect them to draft a DT and LB in either the first two rounds or two of the first three rounds. Given their very deep reservoir of solid-to-good defensive ends, a decent penetrator in Triplett, (hopefully) an improved McCargo, a blue chip DT draft pick, and an early round MLB, they should be just fine.

 

Just as an aside, the Patriots have done well all of these years because they prioritize the front seven on defense. Same with the Steelers, who haven't had a better than average cornerback since Rod Woodson.

 

 

In general I agree with you but if this is the case why let Fletcher walk only to have to replace him with a high draft pick? Why let Milloy walk to replace him with a top 10 safety? Milloy, while not great, was certainly serviceable and if the front 7 was upgraded would have been good enough. The Bills used, what, 5 draft picks last year on the secondary, one on the DL and one on the OL? That might not be exact, but it's not far off. It wouldn't surprise me if the Bills grabbed a CB with pick #1 this year. Overall, that doesn't sound like the plan you plot out.

 

I'll agree that the OL appears to have gotten better but the front 7 on D is much worse than it was 2-3 years ago and now, minus Clements, so is the secondary. Again, I don't disagree that in the long term the Bills could be better off getting rid of Clements (for salary purposes) and Fletch (do to age and below average run stopping) and moving on but people are kidding themselves if they think this D won't be worse next year. They will be just as bad against the run and much worse against the pass. Imo, we're looking at a bottom 5-7 D here even if they use a few high round picks on DT and MLB. The only way this doesn’t happen is if Whitner blossoms into a game changing safety, McCargo comes on like gangbusters in year 2, Youboty (or a draft pick) is instantly a fine CB and whoever they draft at MLB doesn't take long to get accustomed to the NFL. All of that could happen, but the odds are very slim. I'd love to see the Bills grab Harper to play CB as that would help the team next year tremendously and allow them to concentrate on the front seven in the draft.

 

My main beef with this entire thing is the fact that the Bills went to the cover 2 in the first place. They pretty much forced this D on personnel that wasn’t suited for it. Why use a cover 2 when you have a top man-to-man CB in Clements? Why use a cover 2 when you don’t have a MLB or DTs that are suited for it in the middle? Why use a cover 2 when you don’t have the Safeties to play it? So what do they do? They cut the only good/decent DT they had, cut the SS, cut the FS and let the MLB and #1CB walk away via FA after 1 year in the D. The only things the Bills had on D that suited the cover 2 were the DEs. Yet, we wonder why the D is horrid? It’s going to take years to draft all the people this D needs to be successful after the overhaul moving to the D caused. My only hope is that once we get the pieces in place for it Marv doesn’t step down as GM (he is 80+) and the new GM brings in a new coaching staff that gets rid of the cover 2 and begins to bring in personnel for the new D scheme.

[stuckincincy]

In general I agree with you but if this is the case why let Fletcher walk only to have to replace him with a high draft pick?

 

It seems that this new CBA has skyrocketed player costs for those players well-positioned to take advantage of it. So clubs make cuts to defray.

 

After the dust settles and owners' jaws get back into normal position, I think '08 ticket prices will zoom up. There aren't many businesses that don't try to pass increased costs to the purchasher.

[Lv-Bills]

In general I agree with you but if this is the case why let Fletcher walk only to have to replace him with a high draft pick? Why let Milloy walk to replace him with a top 10 safety? Milloy, while not great, was certainly serviceable and if the front 7 was upgraded would have been good enough. The Bills used, what, 5 draft picks last year on the secondary, one on the DL and one on the OL? That might not be exact, but it's not far off. It wouldn't surprise me if the Bills grabbed a CB with pick #1 this year. Overall, that doesn't sound like the plan you plot out.

 

I'll agree that the OL appears to have gotten better but the front 7 on D is much worse than it was 2-3 years ago and now, minus Clements, so is the secondary. Again, I don't disagree that in the long term the Bills could be better off getting rid of Clements (for salary purposes) and Fletch (do to age and below average run stopping) and moving on but people are kidding themselves if they think this D won't be worse next year. They will be just as bad against the run and much worse against the pass. Imo, we're looking at a bottom 5-7 D here even if they use a few high round picks on DT and MLB. The only way this doesn’t happen is if Whitner blossoms into a game changing safety, McCargo comes on like gangbusters in year 2, Youboty (or a draft pick) is instantly a fine CB and whoever they draft at MLB doesn't take long to get accustomed to the NFL. All of that could happen, but the odds are very slim. I'd love to see the Bills grab Harper to play CB as that would help the team next year tremendously and allow them to concentrate on the front seven in the draft.

 

My main beef with this entire thing is the fact that the Bills went to the cover 2 in the first place. They pretty much forced this D on personnel that wasn’t suited for it. Why use a cover 2 when you have a top man-to-man CB in Clements? Why use a cover 2 when you don’t have a MLB or DTs that are suited for it in the middle? Why use a cover 2 when you don’t have the Safeties to play it? So what do they do? They cut the only good/decent DT they had, cut the SS, cut the FS and let the MLB and #1CB walk away via FA after 1 year in the D. The only things the Bills had on D that suited the cover 2 were the DEs. Yet, we wonder why the D is horrid? It’s going to take years to draft all the people this D needs to be successful after the overhaul moving to the D caused. My only hope is that once we get the pieces in place for it Marv doesn’t step down as GM (he is 80+) and the new GM brings in a new coaching staff that gets rid of the cover 2 and begins to bring in personnel for the new D scheme.

Nice. Well put!

[Pyrite Gal]

If we should go into next season with Porter, Willis, Crowell, we would have a pretty big improvement overall in linebackers.

 

I really doubt this is the case.The MLB role is a critical one in the hybrid Cover 2 we run where the MLB is simply called upon to both play run plays with DT like aggression and effectiveness filling the gap but also play passes with the fleetness and nimbleness of a safety.

 

It will be great if our MLB is good enough to tackle well at the LOS (I think Willis has shown he can), do great pass coverage (Willis has shown in the combine he has the speed but given his struggles in the senior bowl with pass coverage, there is a pretty open question how long it will take him to convert this great raw speed into even adequate coverage) and most of all this rookie will need to read plays like a vet not to get fooled by opposing OCs and vets into taking a first step forward when actually it is a disguised pass play or take a first step back when actually it is a disguised run play.

 

If we have to go with a rookie as our MLB starter, I think he will eventually learn if the player is Willis and he likely (the luck of injuries allowing) be our starting MLB for years. However, it strikes me as little more than whistling in the dark not to realize that our MLBs likely take a step back in productivity initially while Willis learns to be a vet playing MLB for us.

 

Perhaps, if he was a top 10 rated talent we could at least hope he can produce immediately as our starting MLB, but according to some pundits we might even be able to trade down into the 30s and still get Willis so I have yet to see a case made beyond hopeful and wishful thinking that next year is likely more than a potentially painful learning curve for us while opposing OCs debate which of several options will they choose from as the attempt to undress a rookie MLB in our Cover 2.

[Kelly the Dog]

I really doubt this is the case.The MLB role is a critical one in the hybrid Cover 2 we run where the MLB is simply called upon to both play run plays with DT like aggression and effectiveness filling the gap but also play passes with the fleetness and nimbleness of a safety.

 

It will be great if our MLB is good enough to tackle well at the LOS (I think Willis has shown he can), do great pass coverage (Willis has shown in the combine he has the speed but given his struggles in the senior bowl with pass coverage, there is a pretty open question how long it will take him to convert this great raw speed into even adequate coverage) and most of all this rookie will need to read plays like a vet not to get fooled by opposing OCs and vets into taking a first step forward when actually it is a disguised pass play or take a first step back when actually it is a disguised run play.

 

If we have to go with a rookie as our MLB starter, I think he will eventually learn if the player is Willis and he likely (the luck of injuries allowing) be our starting MLB for years. However, it strikes me as little more than whistling in the dark not to realize that our MLBs likely take a step back in productivity initially while Willis learns to be a vet playing MLB for us.

 

Perhaps, if he was a top 10 rated talent we could at least hope he can produce immediately as our starting MLB, but according to some pundits we might even be able to trade down into the 30s and still get Willis so I have yet to see a case made beyond hopeful and wishful thinking that next year is likely more than a potentially painful learning curve for us while opposing OCs debate which of several options will they choose from as the attempt to undress a rookie MLB in our Cover 2.

On the Bills official site they just updated the depth chart and they have Crowell as the MLB. Granted, if they sign a MLB or draft one high that may change, but I think the idea all along was the Fletch was getting long in the tooth, didn't make enough plays at the LOS and would command a salary that he wasn't worth at his age. And to then make Crowell the MLB in this scheme.