dave mcbride Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 In every case, the talent for each time resided in defensive front sevens, QBs, and offensive lines. Running backs for every team were platooners -- NO, NE, the Colts, and the Bears. The Bills are set at QB and offensive line, will be improved on the D-line next year (they have 8 guys under contract, btw), and will probably improve their LB corps via the draft. They'll be just fine.
AKC Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 will be improved on the D-line next year I'm all ears?
dave mcbride Posted March 10, 2007 Author Posted March 10, 2007 I'm all ears? Triplett surely played better in the latter part of the season, Williams will be improved, and Hargrove will presumably have settled in. Moreover, McCargo will be healthy. I'm not saying they will be great, but they are unquestionably deep at DE and have the potential to possess a moderately decent DT rotation.
BillsVet Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Anyone comparing those four teams' running back situations is really a glass is half full type of person. IND: Rhodes and Addai. One avergage back along with a 1,000 yard rusher his rookie season. NO: McAllister and Bush: One powerful back with multiple 1,000 yard seasons and another electric rookie back who caught 85+ passes last season. CHI: T. Jones and Benson: Probably the worst "platoon" of the bunch. Nevertheless, Benson will be the starter and had flashes of talent while T. Jones carried the load for most of the season and ran for 1,000 yards. NE: Dillon and Maroney: Dillon aged, sure, but he still found the endzone 13 times and Maroney provided another hard runner for NE. Maroney will be the starter this coming season. Those four examples don't carry any comparison with the Bills current nor future situation. Taking into account their cap standing, they have one back on the roster with NFL experience (2 carries last season) and no decision yet in free agency. While FA is still ongoing, time is winding down and the better players are signing. This is a significant issue. Please don't make comparisons about platooning and refer to these four teams. They had superior talent and one more thing, all of them featured a first round draft pick they selected fairly recently. Benson, Bush, Addai, and Maroney all were 1st rounder in either 05 or 06. So, I presume you're one for selecting a first round RB this season?
billybob Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Triplett surely played better in the latter part of the season, Williams will be improved, and Hargrove will presumably have settled in. Moreover, McCargo will be healthy. I'm not saying they will be great, but they are unquestionably deep at DE and have the potential to possess a moderately decent DT rotation. in other words your hoping for the best
DrDawkinstein Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 in other words your hoping for the best i think thats all we CAN do right now... keep it posi!!
dave mcbride Posted March 10, 2007 Author Posted March 10, 2007 Anyone comparing those four teams' running back situations is really a glass is half full type of person. IND: Rhodes and Addai. One avergage back along with a 1,000 yard rusher his rookie season. NO: McAllister and Bush: One powerful back with multiple 1,000 yard seasons and another electric rookie back who caught 85+ passes last season. CHI: T. Jones and Benson: Probably the worst "platoon" of the bunch. Nevertheless, Benson will be the starter and had flashes of talent while T. Jones carried the load for most of the season and ran for 1,000 yards. NE: Dillon and Maroney: Dillon aged, sure, but he still found the endzone 13 times and Maroney provided another hard runner for NE. Maroney will be the starter this coming season. Those four examples don't carry any comparison with the Bills current nor future situation. Taking into account their cap standing, they have one back on the roster with NFL experience (2 carries last season) and no decision yet in free agency. While FA is still ongoing, time is winding down and the better players are signing. This is a significant issue. Please don't make comparisons about platooning and refer to these four teams. They had superior talent and one more thing, all of them featured a first round draft pick they selected fairly recently. Benson, Bush, Addai, and Maroney all were 1st rounder in either 05 or 06. So, I presume you're one for selecting a first round RB this season? everyone of these teams featured a high draft pick rookie at RB (or near rookie, like benson). Who's to say that the bills won't have such a player next year? I now expect that either the 12th or 44th pick will be used on a RB. Anthony Thomas remains a solid platoon guy.
Stussy109 Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 NO(2 1st rd RB's), NE (2 1st rd RB's), INDY (1 1st rd RB and an undrafted FA), Bears (2 1st rd RB's)... not to infamous if you ask me, all "top tier" guys
dave mcbride Posted March 10, 2007 Author Posted March 10, 2007 NO(2 1st rd RB's), NE (2 1st rd RB's), INDY (1 1st rd RB and an undrafted FA), Bears (2 1st rd RB's)... not to infamous if you ask me, all "top tier" guys all pretty much rookies - and the bills presumably will have a rookie RB next year. as for the older guys, mcallister was coming off of ACL surgery, dillon was in his tenth season coming off a poor year (3.5 ypc in 05), rhodes is rhodes (i.e., just a guy), and jones was a cast off from arizona who was just jettisoned by the bears (he's pretty good though, i must say).
scribo Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 I agree, Dave. A Lynch-A-Train combo would be just as effective as a Jones and Benson or Dillon and Maroney. Of course, I really don't think our defense is going to be as good at Chicago's or NE's was this past year. But I do feel that we can take a big step forward in 2007 with an aging vet and promising rookie hitting the right holes next season.
AKC Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Triplett surely played better in the latter part of the season, Williams will be improved, and Hargrove will presumably have settled in. Moreover, McCargo will be healthy. I'm not saying they will be great, but they are unquestionably deep at DE and have the potential to possess a moderately decent DT rotation. 28th against the run last year and a recycling of the JAGs in our Defensive interior is a point of optimism? Not for me- The scheme we play needs rotational guys like we have signed up right now, but it thrives if there is a monster among them. Since there are few of these premium 1 gappers in the league and likely only 1 in the draft, our prospects don't appear all that rosy to me. Nate's departure may not matter if we can't address the quality of our DT rotation in that first round- because who would bother passing against us? We'll get a whole lot of football next season watching an improving offense being put in impossible situations by a defense who can't stop any ground attack. McCargo looks like a very good athlete. Prior to his injury he was also playing too high to contribute against the run. It makes him too easy to block and too easy to knock off the ball, and his injury simply ended the development time he'll now have to put in this season to overcome those weaknesses. I'll go so far as to say that in '07 Lunchpail Kyle will once again outshine his draftmate. And that is not a good thing for the Buffalo Bills.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 28th against the run last year and a recycling of the JAGs in our Defensive interior is a point of optimism? Not for me- The scheme we play needs rotational guys like we have signed up right now, but it thrives if there is a monster among them. Since there are few of these premium 1 gappers in the league and likely only 1 in the draft, our prospects don't appear all that rosy to me. Nate's departure may not matter if we can't address the quality of our DT rotation in that first round- because who would bother passing against us? We'll get a whole lot of football next season watching an improving offense being put in impossible situations by a defense who can't stop any ground attack. McCargo looks like a very good athlete. Prior to his injury he was also playing too high to contribute against the run. It makes him too easy to block and too easy to knock off the ball, and his injury simply ended the development time he'll now have to put in this season to overcome those weaknesses. I'll go so far as to say that in '07 Lunchpail Kyle will once again outshine his draftmate. And that is not a good thing for the Buffalo Bills. I thought someone posted about another 1-gap guy who should be around for our 2nd pick. Justin Harrell or Tank Tyler I think( I definitely could be wrong). Any objections to taking them at #2 - provided we take a RB/CB in round #1? Edit: Consensus has us taking Quinn Pitcock from Ohio state at #2 Link Edit: Found him - DT - Paul Soliai - Utah I guess he is the only true 1 tech other than Okoye
ndirish1978 Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Draft Okoye. Sign Chris Brown, draft Bush in the 2nd.
BillsVet Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 everyone of these teams featured a high draft pick rookie at RB (or near rookie, like benson). Who's to say that the bills won't have such a player next year? I now expect that either the 12th or 44th pick will be used on a RB. Anthony Thomas remains a solid platoon guy. all pretty much rookies - and the bills presumably will have a rookie RB next year. as for the older guys, mcallister was coming off of ACL surgery, dillon was in his tenth season coming off a poor year (3.5 ypc in 05), rhodes is rhodes (i.e., just a guy), and jones was a cast off from arizona who was just jettisoned by the bears (he's pretty good though, i must say). We've painted ourselves into a corner at RB and the draft. I fully support the trading of McGahee, he wasn't going to make this team better on the field or locker room. However, I'd feel more comfortable by signing a veteran with something left in the tank sooner rather than later. Dillon doesn't fit that, but Chris Brown might. Despite signing a veteran, we're still going to spend a pick in the first or second on a RB. Rookies can indeed contribute, but I'd rather see someone at LB, CB, or DT on the defense than RB selected in the first or second. We're literally forced to use an early pick on RB. Of course we could make a trade and get another late 1st or 2nd, but it'll cost us dearly. It's true those four aformentioned teams (NE, IND, NO, CHI) have used higher picks at RB. But those teams were much further along at the defensive positions Buffalo is weak at. Our depth at CB, LB, and to a lesser extent DT is not good. I know NE and CHI were good defensively, but NO and IND were still better defensively than Buffalo was last season. Hence, the selections of Benson in 05, Bush, Maroney, and Addai in 06. They had enough defense to select a RB. As for Deuce McAllister, his play in the NFC playoffs speaks for itself in demonstrating he's an excellent power RB. Thomas Jones has been with a few teams and while he's not a premier back, he's above average. Dominic Rhodes I believe was SB XLI MVP and Corey Dillon became a good short yardage back last season in sharing time with Maroney. I don't like using a pick on a RB because that leaves the defense short on prospects. At RB, I'd like someone who has starting NFL experience not over 30 signed and perhaps another. If that means Anthony Thomas and Chris Brown, that's fine. But our version of the platoon is going to be far short of what other teams in the AFC and NFC title games put on the field. It's simply a poor comparison and short-sighted of the fact that our defensive lack of depth does not allow us to draft a RB.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 IND: Rhodes and Addai... NO: McAllister and Bush... CHI: T. Jones and Benson... NE: Dillon and Maroney... You should add Shaud Williams and Fred Jackson to that list. Hardly discernible from those contenders' pairings.
K-Gun10 Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 You should add Shaud Williams and Fred Jackson to that list. Hardly discernible from those contenders' pairings. Well theres something about Fred Jackson Marv likes him.
ThreeBillsDrive Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 We'll get a whole lot of football next season watching an improving offense being put in impossible situations by a defense who can't stop any ground attack. It will be painful watching a run defence in 2007 as porous as 2006. Indianopolis notwithstanding, if we allow teams to run all over us like they did last year, this team will have difficulty making the playoffs.
AKC Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 if we allow teams to run all over us like they did last year, this team will have difficulty making the playoffs. If we allow teams to run all over us like they did last year, this team will not be using the word "playoffs" after the 8th game.
AKC Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Sign Chris Brown It's easy to make the argument that he was the best fit for running behind our new OLine of the FA options available to us, and that Anthony Thomas would be a fit as the changeup back to him.
BillsVet Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Don't worry...the draft will fill all our needs. And I got everything I wanted for Christmas as a kid. There's a need for signing a capable NFL back. Brown's got a history of injuries and yeah that worries me. But ESPN Insider had this to say about the lack of running backs available and teams who still need them: Running backs in high by Matt Williamson Green Bay (1) and Tennessee (2) have what I will label as a "major need" at running back, meaning they need a starter. Prior to Wednesday, Cleveland would have also been one of the teams, but between Reuben Droughns, Jerome Harrison and newly acquired Jamal Lewis, it now has enough to get by and eliminate their running back needs. The Ravens also would have been one of those teams, but trading for Willis McGahee is a clear upgrade at the running back position over Lewis, whose production and explosiveness has steadily declined due to an awful lot of wear and tear and the constant battling of injuries. McGahee desperately needed a change of scenery, and he will join fellow Miami alumni Ray Lewis and Ed Reed and should instantly feel comfortable in his new surroundings. On the field, he is an excellent fit in the Ravens' run-first, downhill attack and should thrive in Baltimore. The Ravens got better today. McGahee's departure leaves Buffalo (3,4) with both a major and minor need at running back. They will be counted twice, once for each category. In addition to those three teams, there are eight other teams who ideally would like to add another back to help out for 2007. The Colts (5) have a solid young player in Joseph Addai, who has yet to establish that he can carry the load for an entire season. The Chiefs (6), Vikings (7) and Rams (8) all have a proven No. 1 back but little depth behind them, so all three would be wise to find a solid backup. The Falcons (9) have two solid running backs but lack the big power runner to fit their new offense. The Steelers (10) re-signed Najeh Davenport, but he isn't good enough to be the second back behind Willie Parker. Brandon Jacobs looks like a keeper for the Giants (11), but he runs very high, will take plenty of big hits and is unproven as a true workhorse. They need someone with wiggle and pass catching ability to complement the bigger and more physical Jacobs. Brian Westbrook is an outstanding football player but lacks size. The Eagles (12) surely will add a bigger runner to back him up and lighten his load. That's 12 teams that probably would like to add a running back to their roster in a somewhat prominent role. Now, how will those 12 spots get filled and who is available to fill them? In my estimation, the only names who could be available, at a hefty price, are Chargers RB Michael Turner or one of the Redskins' two top running backs. Obtaining one of these players would be very costly. Neither the Chargers nor Redskins has to move one of their backs, and with Clinton Portis' injury, Washington may be in no position to move Portis or Ladell Betts. Meanwhile, Turner is a restricted free agent who has little leverage to force a deal out of San Diego. So, what does the draft offer in terms of backs who can come in and start from day one and handle the bulk of the carries? It appears just Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch are qualified for such duty, and they should be the only two runners taken in the first round of the draft. Let's assume they both go to one of the teams with a major need. That would leave one team left with a major hole and another nine with a minor need. There are probably a few of you out there saying, "What about Dominic Rhodes and Corey Dillon?" I wouldn't want either as my No. 1 back. Rhodes runs with fine aggression but isn't real big and would be a durability risk as a true lead runner. He looked great at times, particularly in the postseason, but he is not equipped to be a top dog. As for Dillon, his best days are behind him. He is tough and runs hard but isn't dynamic or a game changer. His role is best as a backup. Now back to the demand side of this equation. Not including Rhodes and Dillon, we were at one team with a major need and nine with minor needs. For argument's sake, let's just say that Rhodes or Dillon lands on that one team with the remaining major need. If that were to happen, I would switch the needs to none with major needs and 10 with minor needs. How can those eleven teams find a suitable runner to give a respectable number of carries to? Correll Buckhalter, Chris Brown, Ron Dayne and maybe T.J. Duckett could all be suitable backups to bring a physical presence to a team's running game and spell a true No. 1 back like Steven Jackson or Larry Johnson. There are some other veterans out there who have had success, but none I would put a lot of stock into as a player to have 5-10 carries per game. It is not far fetched to say that each of these four backs along with Rhodes and Dillon sign before draft day with one of those 11 teams with a need at the position. That would leave six clubs in the market for a running back on draft day, with Peterson and Lynch already being factored in and unavailable. These teams with a minor need are not going to spend a first round pick on the position, but they could be in the market for a runner on the first day of the draft. There are six remaining first-day running backs who could make the team that drafts them happy. For teams in the market for bruisers to relieve their workhorse, Penn State's Tony Hunt, Louisville's Michael Bush and Rutgers' Brian Leonard all fit that bill. For a team like the Giants who need someone with more shiftiness, Florida State's Lorenzo Booker could be a real nice fit. Then there are three others -- Auburn's Kenny Irons, Ohio State's Antonio Pittman and Nebraska's Brandon Jackson who have some versatility and offer a little of both power and flash. So, what does this all mean to the running back market? There looks like there are enough suitable running backs overall, but there is a bit of a shortage of true starters. Those teams with minor needs could find some excellent values and may afford to be patient but still must not push their luck too much. Still, it is a buyers market now for running backs. Granted I don't know who Matt Williamson is, but I'd say there's some weight to this opinion.
Recommended Posts