late round draft value

[Pyrite Gal]

Having watched Bryant Johnson last season (he was on my fantasy team) i have to say,be thankfull we didnt sign him.It is true that he runs like the wind,but he has hands of steel.The highlights you saw of him catching touchdowns,were after about his 3rd or fourth dropped ball.His recieving ability reminded me of Micheal Gaines recieving abilities .The Bills made the right call by passing on him.

The theory that good CBs and good WRs are always (or even usually) easy to find simply ignore the reality that even if finding them is easier than finding good OL players, finding good players at any position is never so easy that a team should always list toward using FA always to fill one position and a team should always use the draft to fill out some other position.

 

The variations are extreme enough that in a particular year a team might reasonably choose to fill their CB/WR needs through the draft and their OL needs through FA.

[Ramius]

Almost completely devoid of talent? ML/DJ inherited a team with Evans, Reed, Parrish, Peters, McGahee, Schobel, Kelsay, Denney, Clements, Fletcher-Baker, Spikes, Greer, McGee, Lindell, and Moorman. This was not a total rebuild a la Miami or Atlanta. ML/DJ made it more difficult for themselves.

 

Of course they've drafted well. Most of their picks in rounds 1-5 have had to start by virtue of their incessant shedding of players. How many of those late picks will be average to good starters in two years? We know Ellison, Pennington, and K. Williams won't be as all of them have been replaced two years after being drafted.

 

I see you are fond of the tom donahoe method of running a team. sign lots of big name over the hill players with no real team direction.

 

Ask yourself this...after 2005, was that 5-11 team anywhere near making a super bowl run? no it wasnt. the team was in shambles, and by the time the team was ready to make a run, fletcher, milloy, etc, all the guys we "shedded" would have been over the hill and we would have needed their replacements, thus further delaying the development of the team. The Bills chose to take 2 steps back so they could take 3 forward in the future and actually build a team, not just a bunch of names. The only player you can make a case for is clements, and we've been over this enough times to plainly see it was a wiser move to not pay him the insane asking price and pay the OL instead.

 

You continually bash the 3006 drat for the players being so terrible, but then why is it that all those bad players who were "forced to start" managed to compile a better record than the 2005 "name" team? ITs because they were plain and simply better.

[obie_wan]

Hardy doesnt need to draw double teams. He simply needs to take some pressure off of Evans. Coverages arent as simple as just "single coverage" and "double coverage", but i am not shocked that a sh-- for brains poster like yourself cannot understand this.

 

With Evans and no other threat, you can double the safety and corner on Lee, and the other safety can roll towards evans side of the field, effectively closing down that side of the field. Reed doesnt provide the receiving threat from the outside. If hardy can beat the single coverage and make a few catches, that will prevent the 2nd safety from shading towards Lee. Keeping both safeties back not only frees up Lee, it opens up the shorter passes to Reed/Parrish, and frees up lynch with more room to run.

 

However, I'd would like to know how your plan of drafting a backup OL in rounds 1 and 2 would have freed up Lee Evans.

 

From your other post, you expect Hardy to be effective if he puts 40 / 600 @ 15 yards per catch.

 

1. Hard to see how catching 40 balls is so much better than Reed's 51 catches or Parrishes 35 catches last year. Unless hardy has a Colston like year, he will do nothing between the 20s to draw any more coverage than Reed and Parrish did last year.

 

2. Although you claim hardy just needs to show up to help out Evans, you have him averaging 15 yards/ catch -- which is what Evans averaged as the big play deep threat.

 

Hardy could be the second coming of Jerry Rice, but if Peters gets hurt - nobody wil be catching very many passes.

[Pyrite Gal]

Hardy doesnt need to draw double teams. He simply needs to take some pressure off of Evans. Coverages arent as simple as just "single coverage" and "double coverage", but i am not shocked that a sh-- for brains poster like yourself cannot understand this.

 

With Evans and no other threat, you can double the safety and corner on Lee, and the other safety can roll towards evans side of the field, effectively closing down that side of the field. Reed doesnt provide the receiving threat from the outside. If hardy can beat the single coverage and make a few catches, that will prevent the 2nd safety from shading towards Lee. Keeping both safeties back not only frees up Lee, it opens up the shorter passes to Reed/Parrish, and frees up lynch with more room to run.

 

However, I'd would like to know how your plan of drafting a backup OL in rounds 1 and 2 would have freed up Lee Evans.

The thing I like most about the Hardy pick is that when he teams up with Evans, an opponent is pretty much forced to put their fastest DB on Evans (or more likely double him because he is so extremely fast and has a proven ability to make the difficult long ball catch that necessitates putting a good coverage guy on him). However, Hardy is so extremely tall with a record of production in college, if a teams best cover DB is also their fastest guy, it means that Hardy will be able to utilize his extreme height against an opponents second best cover guy and likely a shorter player.

 

Most teams are going to have to make a difficult choice about where they are going to present a weakness which the Bills might exploit.

 

Add into this, that if we go 3WRs, that Parrish now presents a threat which also is freaky fast and explosive as a runner.

 

I think most teams are gonna find it very difficult to match up well against the Bills in 3 WR sets. They are going to have to make difficult choices in any case about the implications of needing to match up against a very fast Evans and a very fast Parrish. If the outcome of allocations designed to combat this threat now leaves them with a remnant choice of putting a shorter player to jump ball with Hardy it will be rough for the opponent and present a potential exploitable weakness for the Bills.

 

If the player tall enough to match up well with Hardy also happens to force the opponent to put a not their fastest or better cover guy on Evans or Parrish this could be fun.

 

Likely, compared to the lost a step and can be single covered Price, opponents will be forced into zones rather than the tighter man-to-man coverage. Even better, I suspect we will see more one RB sets or even empty backfields from the Bills this year as if they can get Reed into the mix he already has demonstrated in his rookie year that he has the talent to savage zone coverage with precise route running. This could be a lot of fun.

[obie_wan]

The theory that good CBs and good WRs are always (or even usually) easy to find simply ignore the reality that even if finding them is easier than finding good OL players, finding good players at any position is never so easy that a team should always list toward using FA always to fill one position and a team should always use the draft to fill out some other position.

 

The variations are extreme enough that in a particular year a team might reasonably choose to fill their CB/WR needs through the draft and their OL needs through FA.

 

 

and for 2008, the Bills did neither to maintain the OL.

 

Yet they spent 2 picks on WRs and 3 pcikson CBs plus added free agents.

 

Maybe a little attention to the OL on a continuing basis would prevent the meltdowns they have experienced which required panic free agent signings.

[BillsVet]

I see you are fond of the tom donahoe method of running a team. sign lots of big name over the hill players with no real team direction.

 

Ask yourself this...after 2005, was that 5-11 team anywhere near making a super bowl run? no it wasnt. the team was in shambles, and by the time the team was ready to make a run, fletcher, milloy, etc, all the guys we "shedded" would have been over the hill and we would have needed their replacements, thus further delaying the development of the team. The Bills chose to take 2 steps back so they could take 3 forward in the future and actually build a team, not just a bunch of names. The only player you can make a case for is clements, and we've been over this enough times to plainly see it was a wiser move to not pay him the insane asking price and pay the OL instead.

 

You continually bash the 3006 drat for the players being so terrible, but then why is it that all those bad players who were "forced to start" managed to compile a better record than the 2005 "name" team? ITs because they were plain and simply better.

 

Was that 5-11 record in 2005 a product of being devoid of talent or poor coaching.? Meathead was completely stupid, and yet the season before was 9-7. How then can you describe that it was talent which was the reason for their 2005 losses?

 

The 2006 draft, in time, will prove to be about two players, neither of whom have established themselves into above-average players, but may very will. I'm speaking of Whitner and McCargo. The others, Youboty, Simpson, K. Williams, Ellison, Merz, and Pennington are or will not be starting quality. Butler could very well be a good starter, but it's hard judging guard play.

 

All in all, there was no massive rebuild that needed to happen. The improvement from 5-11 to 7-9 should have occurred, with the talent on the roster. I'd say 2005 was underperforming due to bad coaching.

[K-9]

From your other post, you expect Hardy to be effective if he puts 40 / 600 @ 15 yards per catch.

 

1. Hard to see how catching 40 balls is so much better than Reed's 51 catches or Parrishes 35 catches last year. Unless hardy has a Colston like year, he will do nothing between the 20s to draw any more coverage than Reed and Parrish did last year.

 

2. Although you claim hardy just needs to show up to help out Evans, you have him averaging 15 yards/ catch -- which is what Evans averaged as the big play deep threat.

 

Hardy could be the second coming of Jerry Rice, but if Peters gets hurt - nobody wil be catching very many passes.

 

I don't want to get int he middle of a good ruckus but I just can't let blatant misunderstanding of Reed's and Parrish's (dis) abilities at wideout go without comment. Their catch numbers aside, their unsuitability to play outside is evident to anyone who watches how other teams defend us. Their limitations allow teams to devote resources to Evans. It ain't about the number of catches they got, it's about the number of times teams were HURT by them thus causing them to adjust their coverages. NEVER happened last year. Hardy could catch HALF the passes Reed/Parrish caught and STILL be more effective at loosening coverage and opening the middle of the field more IF (and it's a HUGE if) he proves to HURT teams when he DOES make those catches. It's qualilty over quantity.

 

Point two is that it will allow Reed/Parrish to play their more natural slot positions, which they are IDEALLY suited for, thus further opening the field for Evans, Hardy, and whoever plays TE.

 

Of course Peters going down would hurt just as the vast majority of teams would be hurt losing a starting LT. But that's a lesser RISK than the potential REWARD of a more open offense that Hardy seemingly has the potential to provide.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[obie_wan]

I don't want to get int he middle of a good ruckus but I just can't let blatant misunderstanding of Reed's and Parrish's (dis) abilities at wideout go without comment. Their catch numbers aside, their unsuitability to play outside is evident to anyone who watches how other teams defend us. Their limitations allow teams to devote resources to Evans. It ain't about the number of catches they got, it's about the number of times teams were HURT by them thus causing them to adjust their coverages. NEVER happened last year. Hardy could catch HALF the passes Reed/Parrish caught and STILL be more effective at loosening coverage and opening the middle of the field more IF (and it's a HUGE if) he proves to HURT teams when he DOES make those catches. It's qualilty over quantity.

 

Point two is that it will allow Reed/Parrish to play their more natural slot positions, which they are IDEALLY suited for, thus further opening the field for Evans, Hardy, and whoever plays TE.

 

Of course Peters going down would hurt just as the vast majority of teams would be hurt losing a starting LT. But that's a lesser RISK than the potential REWARD of a more open offense that Hardy seemingly has the potential to provide.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

No matter how tall Hardy is, unless he actually makes big plays down the field, he will not take any more focus off Evans than Reed or Parrish.

 

AS you say, Reed or Parrish in the slot, will probably do more to help Evans than Hardy will in 2008.

 

Even better would be a TE that can be a threat going down the seam.

 

As to Peters getting hurt, most teams may not have a stud as a backup, but they have options that provide more hope than an UDFA turnstyle who will rquire a a lot of help.

[Flbillsfan#1]

From your other post, you expect Hardy to be effective if he puts 40 / 600 @ 15 yards per catch.

 

1. Hard to see how catching 40 balls is so much better than Reed's 51 catches or Parrishes 35 catches last year. Unless hardy has a Colston like year, he will do nothing between the 20s to draw any more coverage than Reed and Parrish did last year.

 

2. Although you claim hardy just needs to show up to help out Evans, you have him averaging 15 yards/ catch -- which is what Evans averaged as the big play deep threat.

 

Hardy could be the second coming of Jerry Rice, but if Peters gets hurt - nobody wil be catching very many passes.

I for one am not worried about Peters getting hurt........ Now Trent Edwards that's another story.

[Flbillsfan#1]

No matter how tall Hardy is, unless he actually makes big plays down the field, he will not take any more focus off Evans than Reed or Parrish.

 

AS you say, Reed or Parrish in the slot, will probably do more to help Evans than Hardy will in 2008.

 

Even better would be a TE that can be a threat going down the seam.

 

As to Peters getting hurt, most teams may not have a stud as a backup, but they have options that provide more hope than an UDFA turnstyle who will rquire a a lot of help.

I think where Hardy will make a BIG difference is in the red zone, he will be able to out jump DB's for the TD's

[2003Contenders]

From your other post, you expect Hardy to be effective if he puts 40 / 600 @ 15 yards per catch.

 

1. Hard to see how catching 40 balls is so much better than Reed's 51 catches or Parrishes 35 catches last year. Unless hardy has a Colston like year, he will do nothing between the 20s to draw any more coverage than Reed and Parrish did last year.

 

2. Although you claim hardy just needs to show up to help out Evans, you have him averaging 15 yards/ catch -- which is what Evans averaged as the big play deep threat.

 

Hardy could be the second coming of Jerry Rice, but if Peters gets hurt - nobody wil be catching very many passes.

 

 

I would expect more from you that this, obie_wan.

 

While it is true that we have no way of knowing how well Hardy will translate to the NFL, the fact remains that he was drafted to provide us with more of a redzone presence. So, while it may be true that this projected 40 catches may not dwarf the 51/35 you cited from Reed and Parrish respectively last year, the reality is that much depends upon the manner in which Hardy is used. For example, how many TDs did Reed and Parrish score last season? Since I expect Hardy's primary focus to be in the red zone in his rookie season, there is a good chance that 20-25% of his catches could result in TDs.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Hardy's size alone will not keep defenses from shading toward Evans. He'll have to prove he's dangerous, and not just in the RZ. Unless he's consistently embarrassing opponents the length of the field, teams aren't going to respect a player because he's taller. It may work initially, but not long term. Eventually he's going to have to make some plays. That's putting a lot of pressure on a rookie WR to take the focus from an established star. Hardly the scenario an offensive coordinator wants when trying to spark an anemic offense.

"Hey James, we're gonna need you to outleap cornerbacks in the endzone all season long, which is a major strength of your game and something you're naturally suited for, and we're also going to need you to catch a deep ball about once every 2-3 games, just enough for teams to respect you as a downfield threat."

 

Is that really putting SO MUCH pressure on the kid? Why is that "hardly a scenario an offensive coordinator wants?"

[BillsVet]

"Hey James, we're gonna need you to outleap cornerbacks in the endzone all season long, which is a major strength of your game and something you're naturally suited for, and we're also going to need you to catch a deep ball about once every 2-3 games, just enough for teams to respect you as a downfield threat."

 

Is that really putting SO MUCH pressure on the kid? Why is that "hardly a scenario an offensive coordinator wants?"

 

Way to oversimplify things there. If it was that easy, Dwayne Jarrett would have caught about 60 passes and scored a few times. (cue Colston reference)

 

With few exceptions, rookie wide receivers struggle to adjust to different coverages, and more physical corners. Rookie WR's rarely even make the difference you seem to think they can, given the right scheme. In the pros, the CB's also have much better speed, and recover quicker than the college types. That, and the playbook doesn't have a play called "go up and get it."

 

I'd also point out that Hardy is depending on a young QB, who I believe will be a very good starter, but cannot be expected to be Brady-esque with less than a season's worth of starts in the NFL.

 

I referred to the OC because he's a rookie play caller as well, who now has a 2nd year QB, experienced downfield WR in Evans, and another rookie (Hardy) to involve in the offense. That, and the lack of a dependable pass catching TE.

[Dibs]

.....Maybe a little attention to the OL on a continuing basis would prevent the meltdowns they have experienced which required panic free agent signings......

Now this I agree with.....

If MW had worked out at RT we wouldn't have needed to bring in Walker.

If Preston had worked out a OG we wouldn't have needed to bring in Dockery.

It would have been advisable(IMO) over the years to have spent 2-3 times what we did on high round OLmen.

 

The thing is though that we have 3 solid starters on the OL now & maybe Butler will show himself to be a keeper. Unless we suffer a career threatening injury we will not be in any form of 'panic' mode for a good 5 years now. This is a good thing.

 

Maybe the FO wants to see what we've got in terms of an OL unit(improved cohesion, improved QB & RB & WR, improved play from Butler) before investing in a high pick(Albert....he was the only real option wasn't he?).....The FO did this in 06 & came out not squandering a 1st round pick on LT.

 

Maybe the FO has determined that they want an upgrade at C but the 08 draft didn't provide them with a suitable candidate. Rather than draft a C who they project to be of a bit better than Fowler level they want to wait for someone better. I have no idea but perhaps there are more/better prospects coming up in the 09 draft.

 

Maybe the FO have the incumbent backups rated at a higher level than the actual fans do.

 

Maybe the FO decided to place a greater importance on 'completing' one side of the ball(defense) over depth for the OL.

 

Maybe the contract situations for the secondary(primarily Greer) compared to the OL made things a little more pressing since a team does need 3 quality CBs & assuming Greer leaves then we only would have had McGee left.

 

Simply......maybe the FO know what they are doing & even though there are always many different strategies one can implement, it invariably is the situation where there is no 'correct' strategy. If we had gone OL in the 1st & 4th I guarantee there would be a large number of fans crying out that we have no 'good' starter at CB.....that our depth is porous.....that our pass D was terrible & we've done nothing to fix it.

I would have ended up saying the same things to them......"Until the current FO shows that they have no plan they have earned the right to expect some sort of trust from the fans."

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Way to oversimplify things there. If it was that easy, Dwayne Jarrett would have caught about 60 passes and scored a few times. (cue Colston reference)

 

With few exceptions, rookie wide receivers struggle to adjust to different coverages, and more physical corners. Rookie WR's rarely even make the difference you seem to think they can, given the right scheme. In the pros, the CB's also have much better speed, and recover quicker than the college types. That, and the playbook doesn't have a play called "go up and get it."

 

I'd also point out that Hardy is depending on a young QB, who I believe will be a very good starter, but cannot be expected to be Brady-esque with less than a season's worth of starts in the NFL.

 

I referred to the OC because he's a rookie play caller as well, who now has a 2nd year QB, experienced downfield WR in Evans, and another rookie (Hardy) to involve in the offense. That, and the lack of a dependable pass catching TE.

When did I say Hardy would catch anywhere near 60 passes? I merely suggested there's plenty reason to expect him to be 1) a HUGE asset in the red zone, and 2) enough of a threat down the field that between he and Roscoe, teams can't say to themselves, "If we take away #83, we take away their passing game."

 

If he's not a bust, I feel confident he can provide both of those things this season. He's much faster than Jarrett, so he should have an easier time getting seperation downfield.

 

The point is he doesn't need to have a huge statistical season to take the pressure off Evans. He can catch 35-40 passes, but if those come in a way that scares teams, they're going to pay attention to him. And thats all it takes to give Evans the space he needs.

[Pyrite Gal]

and for 2008, the Bills did neither to maintain the OL.

 

Yet they spent 2 picks on WRs and 3 pcikson CBs plus added free agents.

 

Maybe a little attention to the OL on a continuing basis would prevent the meltdowns they have experienced which required panic free agent signings.

I was certain;y disappointed to see the Bills go for a CB with their first pick and end up with 3 CBs overall,

 

However, though I was disappointed with the overall position selections, this does note add for me at all in judging this a failed or even disappointing draft.

 

The quality of the draft IMHO has little to do with my thoughts about what positions we need to fill and is far more determined by the quality of the individual players chosen.

 

I agree with the conventional wisdom that it is very difficult to draw a real or rational conclusion about the quality of an individual player until we see probably at least 3 years of play. I know we Mericans want our candy now and are happy to draw "final" conclusions on too little evidence. However, my feelings about position value has most to do with the scheme I think we should run which has nothing to do with the reality of the scheme my Bills really do decide to run.

 

I was disappointed with the McKelvin pick as I judge (probably incorrectly as I do not know how the Bills will employ the Cover 2 scheme we use) that we should have been able to run an adequate version of the Cover 2 with mcGee, Greer, Youbouty, James, and a second day CB pick or another FA. I then wanted us to trade down the #11 if we could to get two WR picks as I think we are too dependent on our #2 pick WR (whomever it is as the draft is really a crapshoot) working out.

 

Despite my disappointment with the McKelvin choice, I am intelligent enough about life to know I am not in charge and to know that the Bills braintrust has forgotten more than I can remember about football.

 

Does this disqualify me from stating my own harebrained opinions on TSW? No.

 

One of the rules is that us fans do not have to be rationale. I feel that folks have a right to state even the all too typical fact-free opinion on TSW, landsakes I feel free to go forward with my own too long rants.

 

I feel that mcKelvin was almost certainly an elite player on the Bills board (which i define as a player with enough talent to merit a top 10 pick) and when he dropped to 11 the Bills choice was clear.

 

While i am a "need" proponent when it comes to the 1st round. Its hard for me to begrudge the Bills for going for the BPa, particularly when they have the BPA as an elite player who fell to them at #11.

 

This pick then forced the Bills to make a need choice with the #2 and I like the mutant they got. Which I like.

 

Round 3 they went BPA again though again I was disappointed as I was hoping for another WR in case Hardy get hurt or does not pan out. However, its hard for me to dis strengthening the line even if it is the D.

 

The key question regarding this pick or any pick regarding your feelings of disappointment is which specific OL player do you think we should have picked.

 

If you have a specific complaint your rant is worthwhile potentially.

 

If you do not have a specific player or pick they should have made, your rant is more than kosher on TSW (not that my opinion matters) but without a specific counter pick suggestion your rant is just a rant.

[Kelly the Dog]

You do realize that the Simms the left handed QB only started during Fat Mike's last season.

 

Major Applewhite, the career passing leader started the previous years when Fat Mike wasn't considered good enough to play LT.

 

The "blind side for a left handed QB" nonsense was a media creation started by Teflon Tom to justify the pick after panicking when Detroit took Joey H.

 

Fat Mike proved conclusively he couldn;t play the right side, let alone the harder left tackle slot.

Wrong, as usual. Fat Mike played on the right because he started there as Texas already had an upper classman Leonard Davis on the left when Applewhite was there. Davis was the second overall pick in the NFL draft. Davis was #2 in 2001 and Fat Mike #4 in 2002.

[obie_wan]

Wrong, as usual. Fat Mike played on the right because he started there as Texas already had an upper classman Leonard Davis on the left when Applewhite was there. Davis was the second overall pick in the NFL draft. Davis was #2 in 2001 and Fat Mike #4 in 2002.

by the time the Bills picked Fat Mike, DAvis had already proven that he could not play LT for the lowly Cards (his college position).

 

Yet the Bills were confidant that Fat Mike could make the switch at the NFL level when the Longhorns did not bother moving him over in his senior year?

 

Simms may have been left handed, but the best pass rushers still play RDE.

 

Fat Mike was no better than a RT and was a waste at #4 when they could have had McKinney to play LT.

[Kelly the Dog]

by the time the Bills picked Fat Mike, DAvis had already proven that he could not play LT for the lowly Cards (his college position).

 

Yet the Bills were confidant that Fat Mike could make the switch at the NFL level when the Longhorns did not bother moving him over in his senior year?

 

Simms may have been left handed, but the best pass rushers still play RDE.

 

Fat Mike was no better than a RT and was a waste at #4 when they could have had McKinney to play LT.

That's not the point. Clearly Mike Williams turned out to be a bad pick. I was only pointing out you were just making stuff up about where Williams played in college.

[obie_wan]

That's not the point. Clearly Mike Williams turned out to be a bad pick. I was only pointing out you were just making stuff up about where Williams played in college.

 

What's made up?

 

Fat Mike never played LT in college - yet Teflon Tom knew better that he could convert him to LT.

 

 

 

the best OL plays LT because the best pass rushers come from the left side.

 

Hence you put your best OL on the left side to take on the more agile and better pass rushers.

 

RDEs don't much care which arm the QB throws with.

 

Fat Mike did not play LT because he did not beat out Davis when Applewhite was there and the couches did not move him to LT after Davis left.