Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Everyone seems to think we can just move Crowell to MLB or to strong side LB. This is wrong. He and Ellison are both weak side LB. The strong side LB must cover the TE. I am not convinced that Crowell will successfull at MLB or strong side. Ellison is clearly too small to play anything other than weak side.

Posted

i dont see why crowell wouldnt be able to play strong. hes got tyhe size and speed to contend with 90% of te's, thge other 10% are elite. id be comfortable with:

ellison willis crowell

Posted

a. i think this entire thing is just posturing for when we ask Spikes to take a pay cut

 

b. if Spikes was "fast enough" last year, Crowell could take his job easily.

 

c. no way do we put Willis outside.

Posted

We don't need a SLB. We also don't need a MLB. We're going to go with the Crowell and Ellison as the two backers in the 5-2 defense.

 

Nah, seriously. They'll draft a LB and expect him to step into start if Spikes is cut. If Spikes goes, you're top LB's are:

 

Crowell

Ellison or

Rookie

Haggan/Wire/Stamer/Later picks or UDFA's

 

Not something that gets me excited when we go up against NE, NYJ, et al. Teams will be circling Buffalo on the schedules, especially the RB's.

Posted
a. i think this entire thing is just psturing for when we ask Spikes to take a pay cut

 

b. if Spikes was "fast enough" last year, Crowell could take his job easily.

 

c. no way do we put Willis outside.

 

Not that I have a crystal ball, but I argued with people not so long ago that there wasn't much chance for McGahee to be on the Bills in 07. I feel very strongly that the same is the case for Spikes. The Bills have a) announced that he's on the trading block, b) wondered publicly about whether he's capable of coming back, and c) lamented the fact that they don't have attacking (as opposed to run-and-chase) LBs on their roster. Put 1 and 1 and 1 together, and you get ... an unceremonious exit before opening day.

Posted

I keep hearing about pursuing versus attacking LB's. My question is, how much of the LB's success depends on the DT's holding O lineman at the LOS? If they can't do that, LB's will be making a lot of tackles down-field. Ergo, attacking LB's become the pursuing version after the snap.

 

You take away Tommie Harris and Tank Johnson and Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs don't seem as great as they are.

Posted
I keep hearing about pursuing versus attacking LB's. My question is, how much of the LB's success depends on the DT's holding O lineman at the LOS? If they can't do that, LB's will be making a lot of tackles down-field. Ergo, attacking LB's become the pursuing version after the snap.

 

You take away Tommie Harris and Tank Johnson and Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs don't seem as great as they are.

 

Spikes' game has always been his exceptional pass defense, not his ability to wreak havoc behind the LOS. Unless he fully recovers, he's not going to be great at coverage, and he's going to be even less effective at the other stuff. I'm not saying he can't come back -- it just doesn't look good, from what the team is saying.

Posted
Not that I have a crystal ball, but I argued with people not so long ago that there wasn't much chance for McGahee to be on the Bills in 07. I feel very strongly that the same is the case for Spikes. The Bills have a) announced that he's on the trading block, b) wondered publicly about whether he's capable of coming back, and c) lamented the fact that they don't have attacking (as opposed to run-and-chase) LBs on their roster. Put 1 and 1 and 1 together, and you get ... an unceremonious exit before opening day.

 

i dont doubt that he'll be gone too. and im sure that if we got a good answer, we'd trade him right now. i just meant that this latest news, while probably true, at least serves in giving us some ammo if and when we ask him to re-negotiate. right before we trade him.

×
×
  • Create New...