Scouts Inc. Fantasy O-Line rankings

[Sisyphean Bills]

Right. And to be clear, my intention was not to challenge you. I was interested in your take on the comments by offensive players. I'm very much hoping Turk will finally be the OC Jauron "gets right."

Never assumed otherwise, eball. And, thanks for the discussion. I hope Turk turns out to be a gem too. (Although, I'm not banking on TS being much better and I'm not even going to guarantee that it can't get worse. )

[krazykat]

More important than Jauron are his cooridnators.

 

Fewell has shown to be flexible and not absolutely married to a strict cover-2.

He should produce as long as the DT and LB plays to expectations -Straud needs to stay on the field.

 

The big question is whether the Turk will be strong enough to run a balanced offense and not get hamstrung by Jauron.

 

Jauron may set the tone, but he sure let Fairchild run his own show last year.

That's a really good point. Everyone knows that Jauron has nothing on O. So it hopefully will all come down to TC leaving the chips to fall as they may.

[krazykat]

I think the odds of Schonert succeeding are very good.

 

No there will not be a new head coach at the end of the season, and I personally am sick and tired of trying to explain why most of the fans who want a new coach are asking for disaster. The coaching carousel we have had in this town is responsible for more of our problems than people realize. Instability in the FO and with the coach are serious problems.

 

To address some of your other facially neutral and inherently pessimistic "questions," yes I do think that the O will be better, for a couple of reasons.

 

First, your doom and gloom "statistics" are completely wrong, and it is not up to the person challenging your statments to find proof that you are wrong. It's up to you to show why you are right. Basic discussion 101. However, I'll make your day.

 

Buffalo had the fifth highest rated Running Back in the NFL with ML having an 1100+ yard season. Fred Jackson didn't do to badly either for a backup. This is one of the better areas on the team and I do expect that it will improve this year. Also, we DO NOT have the same fullback as last year. Schonert EXPLICITLY stated that he WILL NOT USE THE H-Back this year. Buffalo will likely use either Darian Barnes, who is primarily a run blocker, or rookie Mike Viti at the FB position, who is a very good run blocker (some scouts had him rated higher than even Owen Schmidt) and also has decent hands out of the back field. Further, the O-Line about which you have been so quick to criticize, gave up the fewest sacks in franchise history last year, and was in the top seven in the league in that category. Further, with the addition of two tall and athletic wide receivers and a commitment to using a higher yield pass offense along with a faster tempo, should help the O get going next year.

 

I do think that the O will score more points. With LE being the focus of the passing game last year, it was easy for teams to shut us down. We had no legitimate passing targets in the redzone and it was easy for teams to then expect for us to run. I think that Hardy, who is very quick for a guy who is 6'6" tall, will cause serious mismatches on D. He doesn't have to catch 70 passes next year to be effective. He needs to catch 45 or 50. His asset to the team is in the red zone. With he and Steve Johnson, who is apparently very good and may get some time this year based on his camp performance, provide much needed height in the red zone. This allows Evans and Reed to more effectively run routes and shed CBs. I think TE will be better this year after having a year to learn the system and get familiar with the offense.

 

If nothing had ACTUALLY changed in the offseason, I would tend to agree that we would be in trouble, but things did change. We got a new OC who actually sounds like he might know what he is doing. Jauron has said that he will not allow such a conservative offense and that they have to open it up more. I believe they will do that. Also, the D is much improved and will keep us close in every game. We have a much more favorable schedule. We had the most difficult schedule last year in the NFL. This year we are in the middle tier. That should look favorably in the W column. I do think that Buffalo could win 9, 10, possibly 11 games this year. If the D is as good as I think they will be, and the O can score seven more points a game, that will be enough to win ten games.

 

Lastly, your TD argument about TE is BS. Trent had seven TD passes in ten games. I know that three of them were in one games, however, that is really a bad argument for two reasons. First, that assumes that NOTHING changes in the way he does things as a signal caller, that he makes NO improvement at all as a QB and that the offense is exactly the same as it was last year. All of those things are clearly not going to happen. Sorry that Loss-man isn't the QB anymore, but you need to get over it. Thus, while you "questions" were not necessarily negative, it was the way you presented them that suggested you are one of those Negative Nancy kind of fans who loves nothing more than to complain in their sarcastic way and just generally makes the rest of the hopeful people feel like sh-t. Your questions are appreciated, your underlying pessimism and disdain could be done without.

 

You make some interesting statements, but particularly given your statements about my "facially neutral and inherently pessimistic questions," along with your challenging my notion of what some statistics that I put out there mean, allow me to parry your thrust and make a jab of my own. I've deleted the specifically unaddressed portions of your post.

 

First of all let me say that if you're going to try to come across as someone that knows something, then it might be a good idea to get your facts straight first. I will go down your list in order.

 

You think that the odds of Schonert succeeding are very good. Bully for you. That and two bucks will get us all a cup of coffee. I'm just guessing here that you thought the same about Fairchild when we got him and even Jauron and bought into all the hype. Either way, your "thinking" doesn't mean squat.

 

If we go 5-11, then we may very well get a new head coach. I don't know of too many fans that would still be buying into Jauron's coaching ability after only one winning season amidst mostly horrible ones in nearly a decade of coaching. Except for you of course.

 

My statistics are not "wrong." You may not like them, but you cannot just take facts and dismiss them as if you're waving your sceptor and declaring that you, as king, are making facts null and void.

 

Buffalo had the fifth highest rated Running Back in the NFL with ML having an 1100+ yard season. Fred Jackson didn't do to badly either for a backup. This is one of the better areas on the team and I do expect that it will improve this year. Also, we DO NOT have the same fullback as last year. Schonert EXPLICITLY stated that he WILL NOT USE THE H-Back this year. Buffalo will likely use either Darian Barnes, who is primarily a run blocker, or rookie Mike Viti at the FB position, who is a very good run blocker (some scouts had him rated higher than even Owen Schmidt) and also has decent hands out of the back field. Further, the O-Line about which you have been so quick to criticize, gave up the fewest sacks in franchise history last year, and was in the top seven in the league in that category. Further, with the addition of two tall and athletic wide receivers and a commitment to using a higher yield pass offense along with a faster tempo, should help the O get going next year.

 

And yet, with that "fifth highest rated RB in the NFL," we couldn't score more offensive points than any other team in the league, and still, you continue to continue on about how good Edwards is. Most teams with the "5th Best RB in the NFL", which is your implication, no matter who their QB is, wouldn't score fewer offense TDs than all 31 other teams.

 

Barnes is a so-so FB. If he were more than we'd have all known him before he came to Buffalo. He's also no threat whatsoever from the backfield which will limit Edwards in that way. You then talk about the OL and rave about the sacks, or lack thereof that we gave up. So we have the 5th best RB, Edwards is really good, so is our OL, and yet, we couldn't even rank 31st in offensive TDs scored even though we should have better teams than most other NFL teams offensively speaking, especially teams like the Raiders, Niners, Chiefs, Rams, Falcons and a bunch of others even that don't have anything close to what we have according to you if you do a similar analysis for them.

 

As to Viti, just like Youboty, McCargo, and a whole bunch of other draftees, you have no idea what he will bring.

 

And if we're not using an H-Back, what good is Schouman? He's no true FB and if you think he can be a decent TE, good luck with that.

 

As to the sacks, you dare have the gumption to tell me that my stats are wrong and then skew such things in your favor? Yes, we may have given up the fewest sacks in team history last year, but we finished 13th in the league in attempts/sack. And where's your analysis of how many pass plays were three or five-step drops to help him avoid sacks? Did it help the team score? Obviously not. What if Fairchild had put him back there on 7-step drops like they did Losman the year before? Do you think he would have been sacked more often? How much more often? And oh, guess what, you tell us now that they're going to open up the passing game with deeper throws, right? So what are they going to do, three or five step drop it and heave the ball downfield for 50 yards while the receiver is only 25 yards downfield? And you think? The team did everything within its power last year to see to it that Edwards would not get sacked and yet, our offense sucked. You just can't ask questions from the angle that suggest that team can make it any easier for him and still be fair to the integrity of the argument, you can't.

 

I do think that the O will score more points. With LE being the focus of the passing game last year, it was easy for teams to shut us down. We had no legitimate passing targets in the redzone and it was easy for teams to then expect for us to run. I think that Hardy, who is very quick for a guy who is 6'6" tall, will cause serious mismatches on D. He doesn't have to catch 70 passes next year to be effective. He needs to catch 45 or 50. His asset to the team is in the red zone. With he and Steve Johnson, who is apparently very good and may get some time this year based on his camp performance, provide much needed height in the red zone. This allows Evans and Reed to more effectively run routes and shed CBs. I think TE will be better this year after having a year to learn the system and get familiar with the offense.

 

Gee, really! You honestly think that the team will score more offensive points than it did last year? You mean more than the pathetic and league worst 13.25 PPG that we put up last year? Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that will happen even if only by accident? You're really stepping out there.

 

You talk about Hardy, but since when do rookie WRs make such a big impact? Also, you talk about how he will help us in the red zone, but ignore the fact that we made fewer trips to the red zone than any team but the Niners, who still scored more TDs in the red zone by two in five less trips in there. So how does Hardy even help us get there? Everyone knows he's not going to stretch the field and that he isn't a solid route runner or anything much beyond a big body with hands. Just suppose that his hands and size simply aren't enough in the NFL, a perfectly valid supposition although another one that you will dismiss based on "your thinking."

 

Your statements on the TE play are absurd as the Bills haven't done anything with their TEs in years and they don't even have any talent there.

 

If nothing had ACTUALLY changed in the offseason, I would tend to agree that we would be in trouble, but things did change. We got a new OC who actually sounds like he might know what he is doing. Jauron has said that he will not allow such a conservative offense and that they have to open it up more. I believe they will do that. Also, the D is much improved and will keep us close in every game. We have a much more favorable schedule. We had the most difficult schedule last year in the NFL. This year we are in the middle tier. That should look favorably in the W column. I do think that Buffalo could win 9, 10, possibly 11 games this year. If the D is as good as I think they will be, and the O can score seven more points a game, that will be enough to win ten games.

 

First of all, we didn't "have the most difficult schedule last year." It was 18th, but I understand that you will file that under "wrong stats." At the beginning of the season, and based on '06 standings and rankings it was supposed to be tough. But the Fins and Jets were both far worse than expected, so was Denver, so was Baltimore, so was Cincy, so was Pittsburgh, and so was Philly. And the only reason we were 18th is because we played the Pats twice who were 32-0 skewing the rest. So really it was pretty much a very easy schedule after two games with the Pats. And talk about teams that can't get any worse, how about the Fins and Jets in our division? Or can they get worse while we can't in your mind now too. And you lecture me on wrong stats.

 

Hardly anything did change in the offseason regarding the offense. Other than for us swapping out an H-Back spot for a FB, although we really don't have any significant known FB talent, 10 of 11 starting spots otherwise on opening day will be the same.

 

Sure, we have Schonert, but he's never been an OC. His track record with QB coaching isn't even that good. It's not even average. So why all of a sudden is he gonna be good at this. He may be, but just like all the other moves this team makes, it's a shot in the dark, nothing more. And yeah, real novel to suggest using a FB. Boy, I've never heard of that before. Or throwing longer when last year a "deep throw" meant a pass on the fly of over 12 yards. Yeah, only someone having been in the NFL for 15 years floundering around in the same coaching role on a number of different teams being chased around by failure after failure and who's making millions can figure that out.

 

The D should be improved although there too, it can't really get much worse. So that's not exacly some sort of monster taking a career chance in predicting something like that. But it will have to get a whole lot better if the O doesn't jump from around last to near top 10. I don't see that happening from where we were. Stroud is the only impact player we signed on D besides rookies.

 

Your "thinking" that we can win 9. 10, or 11 games, particularly given how you slammed me, is meaningless.

 

Lastly, your TD argument about TE is BS. Trent had seven TD passes in ten games. I know that three of them were in one games, however, that is really a bad argument for two reasons. First, that assumes that NOTHING changes in the way he does things as a signal caller, that he makes NO improvement at all as a QB and that the offense is exactly the same as it was last year. All of those things are clearly not going to happen. Sorry that Loss-man isn't the QB anymore, but you need to get over it. Thus, while you "questions" were not necessarily negative, it was the way you presented them that suggested you are one of those Negative Nancy kind of fans who loves nothing more than to complain in their sarcastic way and just generally makes the rest of the hopeful people feel like sh-t. Your questions are appreciated, your underlying pessimism and disdain could be done without.

 

First of all, once again, get your facts straight. Edwards had 7 TDs and 4 of them were in the Miami game. I mean can you think of a worse defense in Miami team history than Miami's D last year? 2 more were against the Giants although he played miserably otherwise. 9 of 26 for 161 yards, threw for 3 INTs, got sacked three times in those 26 attempts and had a rating of 42.8. You must think that's good.

 

Otherwise in seven other starts he had one passing TD with all of this greatness that you say surrounds him. Even Heath Shuler wouldn't have played so poorly is what I'm thinking.

 

Yes, he may improve, but that's no given. There will also be a season's worth of film on him for our opponents and he played poorly down the final stretch too. So that won't assist him.

 

As to Losman, I'm not losing any sleep over "Losman not being our QB anymore" and there's nothing for me to "get over" per your implication. Sorry. What Losman is or isn't has nothing to do with Edwards. But I will be curious to see how good Edwards is at avoiding sacks when he's on 7-step drops more often this season.

 

As to your challenging of my questions, we could say the same for you. All you do is make excuses and openly dismiss facts that don't fit your desires. What I appreciate is a good discussion and you seem to come across as insisting that anyone that doesn't clearly see that this team is poised to post a winning season, likely make the playoffs, and jump up 20 spots in most offensive and defensive indicators, which will be necessary if we are to have that kind of season, all while ignoring everything that wasn't right about this team in the past including last season, and all predicated on Edwards in his second season, rookie WRs, an offensive coordinator that is in OJT status and one that hasn't even been able to hold down a job in the NFL each year are going to make all the difference.

 

I'm just not seeing it there chief! We weren't good last year and only managed to beat the worst teams in the league, four wins of which were against the Fins and Jets and I wouldn't wager a beer that we do that again.

 

If you're seeing "negativity" in simply asking questions, then it could be you. They're just questions. Meanwhile, every season here for years everyone just like you posts their opinions while ignoring the facts and tells us all how novice personnel and coaches are finally going to make all the difference and how the rookies are all going to become superstars, and yet it never happens. And here's the thing, at the end of the season all you'll do is make more excuses, defend more people brought into this organization that have little or no experience at all in their respective roles, and suggest that because we sucked before that it can't possibly get any worse.

 

Bully for you if you were right. We'll see for this season, but I don't see a lot of people that ranted and raved about Marv, and Fairchild, and Youboty, and Losman's being the next Favre, and McCargo, and Parrish, and McGahee, and Preston, etc. standing up and saying, man, was I about as wrong as I could have been. Instead, all you do is stand up and criticize anyone that is concerned about this team and who actually look beyond us beating a bunch of crap teams for the sum total of 7 wins and make excuses for everything that goes wrong under assumptions that most of the returning parts of the team are and were fine except for that parts that left. It gets a little old.

[krazykat]

Fairchild sucked. His playcalling cost us games last year;Denver and Dallas to name 2

Fairchild did suck, but who is considering how much of that was also aided by a lack of talent.

 

We don't know. Find out more this season.

[San-O]

As to the sacks, you dare have the gumption to tell me that my stats are wrong and then skew such things in your favor? Yes, we may have given up the fewest sacks in team history last year, but we finished 13th in the league in attempts/sack. And where's your analysis of how many pass plays were three or five-step drops to help him avoid sacks? Did it help the team score? Obviously not. What if Fairchild had put him back there on 7-step drops like they did Losman the year before? Do you think he would have been sacked more often? How much more often? And oh, guess what, you tell us now that they're going to open up the passing game with deeper throws, right? So what are they going to do, three or five step drop it and heave the ball downfield for 50 yards while the receiver is only 25 yards downfield? And you think? The team did everything within its power last year to see to it that Edwards would not get sacked and yet, our offense sucked. You just can't ask questions from the angle that suggest that team can make it any easier for him and still be fair to the integrity of the argument, you can't.

 

First of all, we didn't "have the most difficult schedule last year." It was 18th, but I understand that you will file that under "wrong stats." At the beginning of the season, and based on '06 standings and rankings it was supposed to be tough. But the Fins and Jets were both far worse than expected, so was Denver, so was Baltimore, so was Cincy, so was Pittsburgh, and so was Philly. And the only reason we were 18th is because we played the Pats twice who were 32-0 skewing the rest. So really it was pretty much a very easy schedule after two games with the Pats. And talk about teams that can't get any worse, how about the Fins and Jets in our division? Or can they get worse while we can't in your mind now too. And you lecture me on wrong stats.

 

 

 

As to your challenging of my questions, we could say the same for you. All you do is make excuses and openly dismiss facts that don't fit your desires. What I appreciate is a good discussion and you seem to come across as insisting that anyone that doesn't clearly see that this team is poised to post a winning season, likely make the playoffs, and jump up 20 spots in most offensive and defensive indicators, which will be necessary if we are to have that kind of season, all while ignoring everything that wasn't right about this team in the past including last season, and all predicated on Edwards in his second season, rookie WRs, an offensive coordinator that is in OJT status and one that hasn't even been able to hold down a job in the NFL each year are going to make all the difference.

 

I'm just not seeing it there chief! We weren't good last year and only managed to beat the worst teams in the league, four wins of which were against the Fins and Jets and I wouldn't wager a beer that we do that again.

 

If you're seeing "negativity" in simply asking questions, then it could be you. They're just questions. Meanwhile, every season here for years everyone just like you posts their opinions while ignoring the facts and tells us all how novice personnel and coaches are finally going to make all the difference and how the rookies are all going to become superstars, and yet it never happens. And here's the thing, at the end of the season all you'll do is make more excuses, defend more people brought into this organization that have little or no experience at all in their respective roles, and suggest that because we sucked before that it can't possibly get any worse.

 

Bully for you if you were right. We'll see for this season, but I don't see a lot of people that ranted and raved about Marv, and Fairchild, and Youboty, and Losman's being the next Favre, and McCargo, and Parrish, and McGahee, and Preston, etc. standing up and saying, man, was I about as wrong as I could have been. Instead, all you do is stand up and criticize anyone that is concerned about this team and who actually look beyond us beating a bunch of crap teams for the sum total of 7 wins and make excuses for everything that goes wrong under assumptions that most of the returning parts of the team are and were fine except for that parts that left. It gets a little old.

 

 

Very interesting post. A good read. Sometimes people don't like the realist approach.

 

Agree with most everything, except Hardy. I think we will cause problems for opposing D's, and if allowed

to, stretch the field a bit. He does have some speed. They can send Evans and Parrish deep and let Hardy

roam around under the main coverage?

[ax4782]

You make some interesting statements, but particularly given your statements about my "facially neutral and inherently pessimistic questions," along with your challenging my notion of what some statistics that I put out there mean, allow me to parry your thrust and make a jab of my own. I've deleted the specifically unaddressed portions of your post.

 

First of all let me say that if you're going to try to come across as someone that knows something, then it might be a good idea to get your facts straight first. I will go down your list in order.

 

You think that the odds of Schonert succeeding are very good. Bully for you. That and two bucks will get us all a cup of coffee. I'm just guessing here that you thought the same about Fairchild when we got him and even Jauron and bought into all the hype. Either way, your "thinking" doesn't mean squat.

 

If we go 5-11, then we may very well get a new head coach. I don't know of too many fans that would still be buying into Jauron's coaching ability after only one winning season amidst mostly horrible ones in nearly a decade of coaching. Except for you of course.

 

My statistics are not "wrong." You may not like them, but you cannot just take facts and dismiss them as if you're waving your sceptor and declaring that you, as king, are making facts null and void.

 

Buffalo had the fifth highest rated Running Back in the NFL with ML having an 1100+ yard season. Fred Jackson didn't do to badly either for a backup. This is one of the better areas on the team and I do expect that it will improve this year. Also, we DO NOT have the same fullback as last year. Schonert EXPLICITLY stated that he WILL NOT USE THE H-Back this year. Buffalo will likely use either Darian Barnes, who is primarily a run blocker, or rookie Mike Viti at the FB position, who is a very good run blocker (some scouts had him rated higher than even Owen Schmidt) and also has decent hands out of the back field. Further, the O-Line about which you have been so quick to criticize, gave up the fewest sacks in franchise history last year, and was in the top seven in the league in that category. Further, with the addition of two tall and athletic wide receivers and a commitment to using a higher yield pass offense along with a faster tempo, should help the O get going next year.

 

And yet, with that "fifth highest rated RB in the NFL," we couldn't score more offensive points than any other team in the league, and still, you continue to continue on about how good Edwards is. Most teams with the "5th Best RB in the NFL", which is your implication, no matter who their QB is, wouldn't score fewer offense TDs than all 31 other teams.

 

Barnes is a so-so FB. If he were more than we'd have all known him before he came to Buffalo. He's also no threat whatsoever from the backfield which will limit Edwards in that way. You then talk about the OL and rave about the sacks, or lack thereof that we gave up. So we have the 5th best RB, Edwards is really good, so is our OL, and yet, we couldn't even rank 31st in offensive TDs scored even though we should have better teams than most other NFL teams offensively speaking, especially teams like the Raiders, Niners, Chiefs, Rams, Falcons and a bunch of others even that don't have anything close to what we have according to you if you do a similar analysis for them.

 

As to Viti, just like Youboty, McCargo, and a whole bunch of other draftees, you have no idea what he will bring.

 

And if we're not using an H-Back, what good is Schouman? He's no true FB and if you think he can be a decent TE, good luck with that.

 

As to the sacks, you dare have the gumption to tell me that my stats are wrong and then skew such things in your favor? Yes, we may have given up the fewest sacks in team history last year, but we finished 13th in the league in attempts/sack. And where's your analysis of how many pass plays were three or five-step drops to help him avoid sacks? Did it help the team score? Obviously not. What if Fairchild had put him back there on 7-step drops like they did Losman the year before? Do you think he would have been sacked more often? How much more often? And oh, guess what, you tell us now that they're going to open up the passing game with deeper throws, right? So what are they going to do, three or five step drop it and heave the ball downfield for 50 yards while the receiver is only 25 yards downfield? And you think? The team did everything within its power last year to see to it that Edwards would not get sacked and yet, our offense sucked. You just can't ask questions from the angle that suggest that team can make it any easier for him and still be fair to the integrity of the argument, you can't.

 

I do think that the O will score more points. With LE being the focus of the passing game last year, it was easy for teams to shut us down. We had no legitimate passing targets in the redzone and it was easy for teams to then expect for us to run. I think that Hardy, who is very quick for a guy who is 6'6" tall, will cause serious mismatches on D. He doesn't have to catch 70 passes next year to be effective. He needs to catch 45 or 50. His asset to the team is in the red zone. With he and Steve Johnson, who is apparently very good and may get some time this year based on his camp performance, provide much needed height in the red zone. This allows Evans and Reed to more effectively run routes and shed CBs. I think TE will be better this year after having a year to learn the system and get familiar with the offense.

 

Gee, really! You honestly think that the team will score more offensive points than it did last year? You mean more than the pathetic and league worst 13.25 PPG that we put up last year? Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that will happen even if only by accident? You're really stepping out there.

 

You talk about Hardy, but since when do rookie WRs make such a big impact? Also, you talk about how he will help us in the red zone, but ignore the fact that we made fewer trips to the red zone than any team but the Niners, who still scored more TDs in the red zone by two in five less trips in there. So how does Hardy even help us get there? Everyone knows he's not going to stretch the field and that he isn't a solid route runner or anything much beyond a big body with hands. Just suppose that his hands and size simply aren't enough in the NFL, a perfectly valid supposition although another one that you will dismiss based on "your thinking."

 

Your statements on the TE play are absurd as the Bills haven't done anything with their TEs in years and they don't even have any talent there.

 

If nothing had ACTUALLY changed in the offseason, I would tend to agree that we would be in trouble, but things did change. We got a new OC who actually sounds like he might know what he is doing. Jauron has said that he will not allow such a conservative offense and that they have to open it up more. I believe they will do that. Also, the D is much improved and will keep us close in every game. We have a much more favorable schedule. We had the most difficult schedule last year in the NFL. This year we are in the middle tier. That should look favorably in the W column. I do think that Buffalo could win 9, 10, possibly 11 games this year. If the D is as good as I think they will be, and the O can score seven more points a game, that will be enough to win ten games.

 

First of all, we didn't "have the most difficult schedule last year." It was 18th, but I understand that you will file that under "wrong stats." At the beginning of the season, and based on '06 standings and rankings it was supposed to be tough. But the Fins and Jets were both far worse than expected, so was Denver, so was Baltimore, so was Cincy, so was Pittsburgh, and so was Philly. And the only reason we were 18th is because we played the Pats twice who were 32-0 skewing the rest. So really it was pretty much a very easy schedule after two games with the Pats. And talk about teams that can't get any worse, how about the Fins and Jets in our division? Or can they get worse while we can't in your mind now too. And you lecture me on wrong stats.

 

Hardly anything did change in the offseason regarding the offense. Other than for us swapping out an H-Back spot for a FB, although we really don't have any significant known FB talent, 10 of 11 starting spots otherwise on opening day will be the same.

 

Sure, we have Schonert, but he's never been an OC. His track record with QB coaching isn't even that good. It's not even average. So why all of a sudden is he gonna be good at this. He may be, but just like all the other moves this team makes, it's a shot in the dark, nothing more. And yeah, real novel to suggest using a FB. Boy, I've never heard of that before. Or throwing longer when last year a "deep throw" meant a pass on the fly of over 12 yards. Yeah, only someone having been in the NFL for 15 years floundering around in the same coaching role on a number of different teams being chased around by failure after failure and who's making millions can figure that out.

 

The D should be improved although there too, it can't really get much worse. So that's not exacly some sort of monster taking a career chance in predicting something like that. But it will have to get a whole lot better if the O doesn't jump from around last to near top 10. I don't see that happening from where we were. Stroud is the only impact player we signed on D besides rookies.

 

Your "thinking" that we can win 9. 10, or 11 games, particularly given how you slammed me, is meaningless.

 

Lastly, your TD argument about TE is BS. Trent had seven TD passes in ten games. I know that three of them were in one games, however, that is really a bad argument for two reasons. First, that assumes that NOTHING changes in the way he does things as a signal caller, that he makes NO improvement at all as a QB and that the offense is exactly the same as it was last year. All of those things are clearly not going to happen. Sorry that Loss-man isn't the QB anymore, but you need to get over it. Thus, while you "questions" were not necessarily negative, it was the way you presented them that suggested you are one of those Negative Nancy kind of fans who loves nothing more than to complain in their sarcastic way and just generally makes the rest of the hopeful people feel like sh-t. Your questions are appreciated, your underlying pessimism and disdain could be done without.

 

First of all, once again, get your facts straight. Edwards had 7 TDs and 4 of them were in the Miami game. I mean can you think of a worse defense in Miami team history than Miami's D last year? 2 more were against the Giants although he played miserably otherwise. 9 of 26 for 161 yards, threw for 3 INTs, got sacked three times in those 26 attempts and had a rating of 42.8. You must think that's good.

 

Otherwise in seven other starts he had one passing TD with all of this greatness that you say surrounds him. Even Heath Shuler wouldn't have played so poorly is what I'm thinking.

 

Yes, he may improve, but that's no given. There will also be a season's worth of film on him for our opponents and he played poorly down the final stretch too. So that won't assist him.

 

As to Losman, I'm not losing any sleep over "Losman not being our QB anymore" and there's nothing for me to "get over" per your implication. Sorry. What Losman is or isn't has nothing to do with Edwards. But I will be curious to see how good Edwards is at avoiding sacks when he's on 7-step drops more often this season.

 

As to your challenging of my questions, we could say the same for you. All you do is make excuses and openly dismiss facts that don't fit your desires. What I appreciate is a good discussion and you seem to come across as insisting that anyone that doesn't clearly see that this team is poised to post a winning season, likely make the playoffs, and jump up 20 spots in most offensive and defensive indicators, which will be necessary if we are to have that kind of season, all while ignoring everything that wasn't right about this team in the past including last season, and all predicated on Edwards in his second season, rookie WRs, an offensive coordinator that is in OJT status and one that hasn't even been able to hold down a job in the NFL each year are going to make all the difference.

 

I'm just not seeing it there chief! We weren't good last year and only managed to beat the worst teams in the league, four wins of which were against the Fins and Jets and I wouldn't wager a beer that we do that again.

 

If you're seeing "negativity" in simply asking questions, then it could be you. They're just questions. Meanwhile, every season here for years everyone just like you posts their opinions while ignoring the facts and tells us all how novice personnel and coaches are finally going to make all the difference and how the rookies are all going to become superstars, and yet it never happens. And here's the thing, at the end of the season all you'll do is make more excuses, defend more people brought into this organization that have little or no experience at all in their respective roles, and suggest that because we sucked before that it can't possibly get any worse.

 

Bully for you if you were right. We'll see for this season, but I don't see a lot of people that ranted and raved about Marv, and Fairchild, and Youboty, and Losman's being the next Favre, and McCargo, and Parrish, and McGahee, and Preston, etc. standing up and saying, man, was I about as wrong as I could have been. Instead, all you do is stand up and criticize anyone that is concerned about this team and who actually look beyond us beating a bunch of crap teams for the sum total of 7 wins and make excuses for everything that goes wrong under assumptions that most of the returning parts of the team are and were fine except for that parts that left. It gets a little old.

 

 

First, let me say thank you for actually posting facts that you rely on for making your argument. That makes it helpful for those who may disagree with you to get a basis for your thought process. Let me address your points in much the same fashion you did mine, although I will begin with your final paragraph's accusations first. First, if you want to accuse me of being a perenial optimist, you are on the wrong boat. I did not like the hiring of Fairchild, because I didn't think that this team was competent at that time of putting forward an offensive explosion like that of the 00' Rams. That was a bad call. That bad call was further proven by the fact that he was perhaps the worst playcaller in BB history. Second, he clearly hadn't learned anything from Martz because instead of opening up the playbook and throwing the ball more, he threw it less. But more on that fact later in the reply to your redzone ineptitude comments.

 

I haven't seen Youboty play at all so I have no opinion as to whether he will or will not pan out. Judging by the evidence I have right now, I am neutral and don't care whether he stays or goes. For a third round pick, I'd say right now he is a bad value, but we'll just have to wait and see what the FO does. I could really care less. The secondary is not a major concern for me at this point.

 

As for McCargo, if you are lumping him in with the "failure" category, I think most people here, based on his performance would disagree with you. I certainly would. He was by far the best DT on the field last year in that rotation. Most of the "experts" agree that he is going to have a break out year this season. I had the pleasure of watching McCargo play college ball our alma mater of North Carolina State, and I can honestly say that he made that line go. Without him in the middle Lawson and Williams would still have been very good, but not as good as billed. McCargo is a very solid DT who only has upside, and "Bully" for me on this one at the end of the season. McGahee was a crap pick, something I stated at the time and Preston has sucked, a fact which I have consistently stated, where relevant, on this board. So please, don't just lump me in with a bunch of people who don't know WTF is going.

 

As for the final statement you make in your last paragraph, I think it's great that the Bills beat the crap out of the teams that we are supposed. Those victories make me happy. It shows that we are not in the same league as teams languishing at the bottom. That shows progress. Teams like the Pats and Colts don't make the playoffs only beating teams they are supposed to. They start by winning the games they should. Buffalo didn't used to do that in the early part of the decade. They are beginning to do that and will have to continue doing that. I'm sorry that I'm happy we're winning games we're supposed to and seeing progress in that.

 

As to the second to last paragraph, I'm not defending anyone "who comes into the organization with little or no experience" and giving them a pass. I don't think that Jauron qualifies as a person who has no experience, so I'll leave him out of this. Perry Fewell doesn't qualify under that comment either. Thus, I have to assume that you are referring to Schonert. Well, if he ends up only leading an offense that scores a league low in TDs and the team fails to improve, I think he'll be gone. I'm not making excuses. The team must do better than .500 or I think that the coaching staff will be gone, but what I think will happen and what I think is the best thing for the team do not necessarily co-incide. I think that if the team goes 5-11 Jauron will be fired and should be. He has had three years to build the team he wants for the system he wants. It's the people that think he should be fired before this season even starts that I wish would sit down and be quiet. The coaching carousel, something you did not address, has been a serious hinderance on the team's ability to move forward and progress and start winning games. It needs to stop, and hopefully that will happen this year. If not, Buffalo needs to pick someone they can stick with after Jauron or we're in for five more years of losing.

 

As for TE, he played well enough for a rookie. I didn't expect him to play lights out last year. No rookie QB, with the exception of Big Ben, plays well their rookie season. Eli Manning was terrible, as was his brother in Indy. If you were expecting miracles out of a rookie, that was your fault. I had no expectations for Edwards when he entered the starting role last season. Overall, I think he played OK. However, in your eagerness to point out that it was 4 TDs against Miami, and not 3 as I thought, (my bad), you left out the most important point that I made, which is you seem to suggest that TE will not and has not improved at all since last season. That simply is not true. You also fail to acknowledge that TE did show a lot of positive qualities as a starter last year that JP lacked. Most importantly, he got rid of the ball rather than taking sacks, which will help him avoid that sacks you talked about, but we'll get there in a minute. Further, he made good decisions with the football. While he did not throw a lot of TDs, I think that had to do more with offensive philosophy than with his personal performance, but what I do think is important is the low number of TDs. I'm sure that you will say that is a bad predictor because we threw the ball so little last year, but the fact is, I think that shows good decision making skills on his part. Feel free to disagree, but I think Trent will be better this year. The fact that he is making a concerted effort to put on size, to go down to Florida and work with Evans outside of camp demonstrates leadership and smarts that will show up on the football field. Again, I'm sure you will say that those things are irrelevant, but from where I'm sitting, I don't think they are.

 

Now addressing the rest of your arguments. First, I never said that Tight End play was going to be better, I said that TE would be better. That being Trent Edwards. Sorry if the pnuemonic was confusing. However, you made a point about Schouman and his relevance. Royal is a blocking tight end. I'm sorry, he has hands of stone and should not be thrown the ball unless the situation is very dire. That being said, Schouman is not a bad pass catcher. In fact he has very decent hands and pretty good speed for a TE. No he's not Antonio Gates, but he is a better pass catching option than RR. I don't think that the Tight End play is going to improve much this year. I think that they did an adequate job blocking last season, though not great, and I expect more of the same.

 

As for the O-Line. Again, there is a competing stat line. You say they sucked because they were 13th in attempt/sack ration. I have a stat that says they had a franchise low in sacks given up. Who's right? Well, I look at the performance of the lineman last year as compared to the rest of their careers and see that most of them had better years, on average, than ever before. The fact is, the line is above average, with Fowler as the weak link. And the fact is, I don't know where people get this more seven step drop thing from. Schonert has explicitly stated that he will be using a five step drop maximum this year, intending to get the ball out faster and using the middle of the field more frequently. And, I don't know if you've ever played QB in any organized fashion, but I have. Let me tell you, if the line was as bad as you think they were, the difference between the time it takes to do a 5 and a 7 step drop would be irrelevant. In a 5 step drop the QB is expected to make a read and deliver the ball in about 3.4 seconds. With a seven step drop it goes up to a whopping 3.8 seconds. The only thing that is true in your retort is that likely with more pass attempts will come more chances for pressure. However, I could argue just as you did that the Bills gave up a plethora of sacks to the Giants in that one game, and thus their actual total should have been something lower, because the Giants had the unstoppable pass rushing juggernaut that stopped Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Much like TE played poorly because he had 4 TDs in the Dolphins game. That argument can cut both ways. The fact is that Peters is a Top-3 tackle in the NFL, and that he and Dockery were probably a Top-5 LT-LG combination last year. Walker played very well with the RG and C spots being the issue. So, please, stop saying how bad the O-Line was last year. They are at worst a slightly above average unit that will only be better after playing for a full year as a unit without having a sea change across the board. Again, that's one of those factors that you fail to take into account. O-Lines generally get better over time and with consistency. Based on that alone, and barring any contract issues with Peters, the line should only improve.

 

As for your comments on Schonert, all I can do is think he will do well because he hasn't been an OC for us yet. I'm sorry that I don't have a time machine and can't go forward and say, WOW he really was good. All I can do is make a guess based on what he has said, a point I made clear. The fact is, the offense he wants to implement is a much better fit for this team than the one Fairchild used. I don't know if you saw the Bengals in the mid to late eighties when Wyche was the HC for them. That offense was efficient and nasty for defenses to counter. He used a lot of motion, a lot of audibles and relied mostly on short (3-8 yds) and medium (9-19 yds) passes to move the offense. That was mostly due to Esiason being a smart QB with a solid arm and release, but who had trouble with 50+ yd attempts. It worked pretty well for them considering. Schonert has stated that he has made his playbook based on that system, which he played in as a QB, and has gotten advice from Wyche on how to implement that system in a way to be effective. I can't say for sure whether it will work or not, but it is a better fit for the team than what Fairchild wanted to run. It is also far less predictable than the offense under Fairchild. The fact is, at this point all one can actually do is speculate as to how TS will work out as an OC, but I think he is saying and doing things differently and in a better way than SF was.

 

Lastly, I never said that Hardy was going to be great. In fact, I expressly said I did NOT expect him to be great. What I do expect is that he will have something like 40-45 receptions and will take some of the pressure off of Lee. You kept saying that we had fewer redzone attempts than any other team (true) and that we scored fewer touchdowns in those attempts than any other team (also true). Yet, you failed to attribute that to anything other than the offense sucking and Trent sucking. I think it is a bit more complicated than that. More specifically, the lack of a legitimate threat in terms of throwing the ball in the redzone. Lee Evans was double teamed every time down there. See the Dallas game if you think that argument is flawed, particularly the Terrence Newman interception and return. Second, the TEs were terrible in the redzone and dropped a number of passes that should have been for TDs, with RR being the biggest case of butterfingers. Third, there was no one who could win the height battle on fade routes. Fourth, we rarely passed the ball in the redzone. Teams KNEW we were going to run if we got down there, and that is exactly what we did. We ran too many times and we got dominated. When a team knows what you are going to do, you can have as many blockers as you want, that D is going to snuff out the play. That's why we had so little success in the Redzone. We had a bad script drawn up by what turned out to be a bad OC from day one. Sorry, but I don't think that Trent had much to do with the fact that the team didn't throw much in the redzone or that we had an offense built on RUN-RUN-THEN WHEN YOU'RE DESPERATE ON 3rd and 9 THROW. You may not agree, but that's the way I'm calling it.

 

I don't expect Hardy to be great, just average with enough catches and enough of a threat in the endzone to make teams cheat off of Lee. And by the way, I don't know what you are saying about Hardy not being able to stretch Ds or run routes. Perhaps you should look at some of his game film from Indiana and from the OTAs here. He runs with 4.48 speed and runs very good routes over the middle. He's also one of the best leapers on fade routes I have seen, including Randy Moss. That's why I think he will help the team. And with the FB situation, I don't know that Viti will be any good, but from what I saw of his college game film, he is a beast, and will be a strong addition to the run game. I don't know why but I do think that the Bills will be better this year. You may not, but hey, it's all speculation at this point. You choose to think there is no reason for hope. I tend to think there is. Only Decemeber and January will bring the answer. If you're right, then we're all in for a long season and another shi--y outcome. If I'm right, we might be in the playoffs. Let me ask you a question, which result would you rather have?

[krazykat]

Very interesting post. A good read. Sometimes people don't like the realist approach.

 

Agree with most everything, except Hardy. I think we will cause problems for opposing D's, and if allowed

to, stretch the field a bit. He does have some speed. They can send Evans and Parrish deep and let Hardy

roam around under the main coverage?

Thanks, and you could be right about Hardy I suppose as players don't always match their profiles coming into the league. But from most sources I read something similar to what's on DraftCountdown;

 

Strengths:

Phenomenal size with a huge frame and long arms...A terrific natural athlete...Has big, reliable hands and can snatch the ball away from his body...A fantastic leaper with excellent ball skills...Knows how to use his body to shield defenders...Works well in traffic...Can do some damage after the catch...Has pretty good speed for a guy his size...A terror in the redzone...Was real productive...Still has some upside.

 

Weaknesses:

Isn't very quick or explosive and lacks a burst...May have trouble separating from pro corners...Has some character concerns...Will have to get stronger...Not much of a vertical or deep threat...Just a marginal blocker...Not a great route runner...Is not real physical or aggressive and may lack a football player's mentality...Still raw and will need to be developed...Inconsistent..Is more athlete than football player.

 

Sounds like his real value is in the shorter game in traffic where it's not real physical. Kind of a "nichy" WR. I wasn't happy or unhappy when we drafted him, but IMO Steve Johnson has a much better shot at becoming a solid all-around everyday type of WR. I'm excited to see what both bring, but knowing the slow rates at which WRs develop somewhat cautious about expecting too much this season.

[krazykat]

First, let me say thank you for actually posting facts that you rely on for making your argument. That makes it helpful for those who may disagree with you to get a basis for your thought process.

 

First, let me say thank you for actually posting facts that you rely on for making your argument.

 

You're welcome. Thank you!

 

To your points w/o printing your entire response:

 

My point on the players is that more has been expected than delivered, by a wide margin. We're on the same sheet regarding most. Youboty hasn't done anything for a reason, he's not good. As a trade up player into the 1st round, far more was expected from McCargo and he too has failed to deliver. From that you expect an every-day full-time starter, which he clearly isn't. And his play in NC aside, which I believe was overrated, he does anything but make this line go. So we can argue as to how good he is, but I will always default to a "show me" argument. What others here or elsewhere say is immaterial since most of them make this team tick from an empty promises marketing approach perennially.

 

As for the final statement you make in your last paragraph, I think it's great that the Bills beat the crap out of the teams that we are supposed.

 

We won, but I wouldn't say "beat the crap out of ..." We barely won four or five of those games. We dusted Miami once which can be filed under "Big Deal." Most of those games against scrub teams could have gone either way though and we won most in the last minutes and kept them in games until then.

 

We haven't beaten a decent team in years. The last time was NE to open up what, the 2003 season maybe. Otherwise we haven't beaten the Pats during the Brady era. The next best team that we've beaten is probably the Jags or Jets, neither of which were complete teams when we beat them and only marginal playoff teams. Either way, you can count on one hand the number of decent teams we've beaten since Donahoe arrived.

 

Your comments on if the team doesn't have a winning record then the coaching staff will be fired is different from your take before. Otherwise I will "bet you a beer" that we aren't even .500 much less post a winning season. We're already 0-2 w/ the Pats. The O/U for the Bills this year is 7.5 right now in Vegas. So after the "homer element" is removed in Buffalo, I think that's about right for wagering purposes, and IMO that's a shoe-in U.

 

For us to improve to the extent that you suggest, Edwards must improve massively. The play of the OL must improve massively. Lynch isn't going to deliver much more than he has. Oh sure, he may have 1,300 yards, but that extra 15 ypg ain't gonna do it. The rookie WRs have to make an impact more than Reed or Parrish have made and I don't see that happening as rookies. We'll have to run our O w/o a receiving FB since we don't have one and our TEs are all exceptionally marginal.

 

If we can do it all on D, great, but that's also a real reach. Meanwhile as I said, few teams will come to play us like the Ravens did, or the Jets, Fins did. Yes, the schedule isn't tough, but we did struggle against teams such as this last year despite any notions to the contrary. I don't see us as having much of a chance @ Jax or v. SD and the two games v. NE are foregone concluded losses. So if we go .500 the rest of the way, a very logical conclusion, then we will be 6-10.

 

As to Trent Edwards, we simply disagree. If you look at the play of some of the biggest 1st-roung busts of all time, you will notice little difference between his play and their play. You have to look at what he did most of the time, not just in one game. He had one good game all season, and that against the Dolphins. So I guess I just don't see why you and others say he either played well or improved. 8 of his 9 starts he sucked in and he rarely threw TDs or even moved the offense, in spite of having what you say is a solid OL and the 5th rated RB.

 

I guess I just don't understand how we can take a slate of games played by him, look at them all individually, agree that they all pretty much sucked by QB standards, and yet then aggregate them and come to the completely opposite conclusion that added up they really represented a good season. Not only did Edwards not throw any TDs in 2/3 of his starts, but the team also rarely scored many points either.

 

The offense once again returns essentially the same unit that couldn’t put up more than 17 points in 12 of 16 games, or even hit double-digit offensive scoring in 6 of 16 games, and one that put up only 9 total TDs, passing or rushing, in 9 games that Edwards started and with him under center. That’s one TD/game on average as an offensive unit with Edwards under center.

 

Meanwhile, seven of those 9 TDs came in two games, one in which Edwards played miserably otherwise, meaning that in 7 of 9 starts with him under center, the Bills put up only two total offensive TDs or not even one every third game. Many of those games were against poor defensive opponents as well. If one discounts just the Miami game, then in eight games that Edwards started the team put up 5 total offensive TDs. Even in the Miami game, Edwards only had 165 on less than 50% raising questions as to how good he was even in that game. Two TD drives were 11 and 28 yards meaning that the D/STs did the real work there. The other two TDs were passes of 28 and 70 yards. What does that mean? To me it means that he was 9 of 21 otherwise for a pathetic 67 yards. So say what you will, but I call that far more of a lucky or just fortunate game than anything even approaching phenominal QB play. Given the evidence, there's nothing to counter that notion.

 

Either way, is that what we're going to have to rely on this year for his "improvement" and his being good? I wouldn't want to have to lay much money on that occurring. We won't win any more games like that this year than last.

 

So say what you will about Edwards, the facts don't support it. I mean what now, he looked nice in Bills colors and ran over the sideline more "poised" than any other QB that would traditionally been hanging his head in shame or something. I'm not getting it. Sure, many rookies play poorly, but so few ever amount to anything either. So the odds are against what you say big time.

 

As for the O-Line. Again, there is a competing stat line. You say they sucked because they were 13th in attempt/sack ration. I have a stat that says they had a franchise low in sacks given up. Who's right? Well, I look at the performance of the lineman last year as compared to the rest of their careers and see that most of them had better years, on average, than ever before. The fact is, the line is above average, with Fowler as the weak link. And the fact is, I don't know where people get this more seven step drop thing from. Schonert has explicitly stated that he will be using a five step drop maximum this year, intending to get the ball out faster and using the middle of the field more frequently. And, I don't know if you've ever played QB in any organized fashion, but I have. Let me tell you, if the line was as bad as you think they were, the difference between the time it takes to do a 5 and a 7 step drop would be irrelevant. In a 5 step drop the QB is expected to make a read and deliver the ball in about 3.4 seconds. With a seven step drop it goes up to a whopping 3.8 seconds. The only thing that is true in your retort is that likely with more pass attempts will come more chances for pressure. However, I could argue just as you did that the Bills gave up a plethora of sacks to the Giants in that one game, and thus their actual total should have been something lower, because the Giants had the unstoppable pass rushing juggernaut that stopped Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Much like TE played poorly because he had 4 TDs in the Dolphins game. That argument can cut both ways. The fact is that Peters is a Top-3 tackle in the NFL, and that he and Dockery were probably a Top-5 LT-LG combination last year. Walker played very well with the RG and C spots being the issue. So, please, stop saying how bad the O-Line was last year. They are at worst a slightly above average unit that will only be better after playing for a full year as a unit without having a sea change across the board. Again, that's one of those factors that you fail to take into account. O-Lines generally get better over time and with consistency. Based on that alone, and barring any contract issues with Peters, the line should only improve.

 

First of all, I didn't say that we sucked b/c we were ranked 13th in Attempts/sack. What I said was that it sheds additional light on the debate statistically. Who's a safer driver, you, or the old bitty down the street who's never had an accident recently while you have say two tickets?

 

Well, perhaps you put 30K miles on your vehicle annually while she only leaves the house twice a week to drive to Tops putting on only 4K annually. Your tickets were in a bogus spot at the bottom of a hill where you were going 41 in a 30 and you have an expired registration otherwise, hardly major safety issues. She's swerving all over the lanes and misses stop signs, but she doesn't have any tickets or accidents, so statistically she's the better driver acccording to the state and the insurance companies. What I'm saying is that you have to consider everything. You merely laid out one stat, amidst the glaring lack of the Bills either being on the field much (less than any other team) and having built an offense directly around trying to help Edwards avoid sacks. The team stated as much at the beginning of last season. So dismiss it as you may, you're arguing against them.

 

Now, as to the rest of your argument, before you told me that we're going deep more often. Well that's what we did with JP in there. He wasn't a benefactor of a Fairchild system using 3/5 step drops frequently. So how will Edwards fare w/ more 5 and 7 step drops? We don't know although I have an inkling. You say we're going deep more often, but deep isn't usually from a 5-step drop, it's from a 7. So we need to marry the facts here. Either we're going deep more often, which means more 7-step drops, or we're not. I have no idea about your seconds thing, but half a second could easiliy translate to 5-10 yards which is huge for accuracy. If we're going to go deep, say 40+, then getting rid of the ball on 5-step drops regularly probably isn't going to cut it unless the team begins to develop some real chemistry in timing patterns, which I haven't seen to date other than w/ JP and Evans.

 

Otherwise you're missing my point on sacks entirely. Sacks are only one component of the game for analysis. We can have 0 sacks, but if we end up DFL again in all offensive categories, who cares? Do they tally up the sacks at the end of the game and determine who won based on that?

 

It's about scoring, and Edwards has shown absolutely no indication that he can score. He also couldn't in his Senior season against any team with a D that ranked among the top 75 or so, of what, like 110. I don't care if Edwards leaves the field after every game w/o a grass stain on his uniform, if he can't lead the team to move the ball then he isn't good. And again, even in the Miami and Giants games, where 6 of his 7 passing TDs in 9 starts came from, his games were poor otherwise and he "led" the team to a paltry 165 net passing yards in both games. Teams, QBs, simply don't get 6 TDs in two games averaging 165 net passing yards, and while it happens once or twice a season with help from the D/STs, you have to consider other things when assessing why that happened. Either way, you just can't count on it happening often.

 

Edwards is a lot closer to busting than he is to even becoming an average starter in this league. The OL is what it is. You continue to praise it, but the fact remains, that with Lynch and with all the other positives that you suggest are there, we were DFL or a cut above it in just about everything offensively related. You don't improve to middle of the stack from taht without some serious improvement and we have little reason to hope for that this season.

 

As to Schonert, if he is that good, then why haven't his QBs that he's coached done more. His production there has been below average. Also, you cannot look to who he played behind or coached under and draw conclusions. That's like saying that everyone that backed up Montana, Young, Elway, Marinio, Favre, Brady, or Manning should be very good too just on the merits of that. And why wasn't Fairchild better since he coached under a very good OC and offensive mind in Martz. He's also not coaching against Fairchild, he'll be tryig to outmaneuver opposing teams' DCs. I know you think that most of them aren't good, but how good is Schonert in relation in his first season in such a role? Pure crapsshoot IMO. I mean do you think that talent of those individuals has anything to do with it or what. That's silly. Schonert doesn't know what he's doing yet. He's never been in the role. I find it difficult to believe that he will be even an average OC this season. If not, then the improvement that you seek will not materialize. As to this team, it could probably run itself better without an OC than with Fairchild.

 

Lastly, I never said that Hardy was going to be great. In fact, I expressly said I did NOT expect him to be great. What I do expect is that he will have something like 40-45 receptions and will take some of the pressure off of Lee. You kept saying that we had fewer redzone attempts than any other team (true) and that we scored fewer touchdowns in those attempts than any other team (also true). Yet, you failed to attribute that to anything other than the offense sucking and Trent sucking. I think it is a bit more complicated than that. More specifically, the lack of a legitimate threat in terms of throwing the ball in the redzone. Lee Evans was double teamed every time down there. See the Dallas game if you think that argument is flawed, particularly the Terrence Newman interception and return. Second, the TEs were terrible in the redzone and dropped a number of passes that should have been for TDs, with RR being the biggest case of butterfingers. Third, there was no one who could win the height battle on fade routes. Fourth, we rarely passed the ball in the redzone. Teams KNEW we were going to run if we got down there, and that is exactly what we did. We ran too many times and we got dominated. When a team knows what you are going to do, you can have as many blockers as you want, that D is going to snuff out the play. That's why we had so little success in the Redzone. We had a bad script drawn up by what turned out to be a bad OC from day one. Sorry, but I don't think that Trent had much to do with the fact that the team didn't throw much in the redzone or that we had an offense built on RUN-RUN-THEN WHEN YOU'RE DESPERATE ON 3rd and 9 THROW. You may not agree, but that's the way I'm calling it.

 

We'll see, and he may very well catch 40+ balls. But you think that alone will push us from 32nd to what? 10th? Not gonna happen. We can add 5 TDs to that, the leading TD total for rookie WRs last year, and it won't make much of a difference all other things unchanged. In other words, Hardy will have to significantly outproduce Reed in yardage in order to make that much of a difference. 40-50 grabs ain't gonna do it there. This anaysis is also a little more complex as it's unlikely that the only factor in "what was wrong with the passing game" was the "lack of WRs to balance out Evans." To assume that Edwards had nothing to do with it is not smart.

 

I also think you don't understand just how bad we were offensively relative to the rest of the league. If we doubled our offensive production we would be slightly above average. And we're not going to double it. I also don't think that "Trent threw much in the red zone" because he was unreliable. The team tried to do what it could to score, but failed.

 

And by the way, you talk about how Edwards' play was hindered by the lack of WRs, of his 7 TD passes, 6 came with 2 or fewer WRs on the field. He only threw 1 with 3 WRs and none with 4. I don't think that says much for our OL at all.

 

I don't expect Hardy to be great, just average with enough catches and enough of a threat in the endzone to make teams cheat off of Lee. And by the way, I don't know what you are saying about Hardy not being able to stretch Ds or run routes. Perhaps you should look at some of his game film from Indiana and from the OTAs here. He runs with 4.48 speed and runs very good routes over the middle. He's also one of the best leapers on fade routes I have seen, including Randy Moss. That's why I think he will help the team. And with the FB situation, I don't know that Viti will be any good, but from what I saw of his college game film, he is a beast, and will be a strong addition to the run game. I don't know why but I do think that the Bills will be better this year. You may not, but hey, it's all speculation at this point. You choose to think there is no reason for hope. I tend to think there is. Only Decemeber and January will bring the answer. If you're right, then we're all in for a long season and another shi--y outcome. If I'm right, we might be in the playoffs. Let me ask you a question, which result would you rather have?

 

Just repeating what I've read. I'm no scout, but I can process information with the best of them. I posted what Draft Countdown had to say. NFL.com says this;

 

Not a sharp route runner, as he does take some soft angle cuts...Best on controlled or intermediate routes, as he lacks the timed speed to gobble up the cushion and get behind the speedy cornerbacks on deep routes (would be more effective if he shortened his stride coming out of his cuts)...Has had concentration problems, resulting in a fair share of dropped balls

 

So I don't know where you are coming up with the notion that he can "stretch a D" as most disagree with you. The dropped balls thing reared its head in OTAs too.

 

As to his play in college, did he light up any great defenses, or did all of this that you saw occur against lower half defensive competition? From what I can tell he didn't have any big games at all against any noteworthy defense. He had no good games against any team ranked among the top 35 in pass defense. Either way, that's really not that much of a factor as the NFL is completely different and exponentially more difficult. Some players play up and some play down. We won't know more until the season. But you can't look at what he did against Ball St., Northwestern, and Indiana St. in college and extrapolate to the pros. Ditto for Edwards who had a few good games against some of the worst competition in college in his Sr. season, but stunk the joint up against any average or better team. And spare me the "he didn't have any tools" nonsense. He wasn't good plain and simple.

 

And again, with this statement;

 

I don't know why but I do think that the Bills will be better this year. You may not, but hey, it's all speculation at this point. You choose to think there is no reason for hope.

 

you miss my point completely. Of course the Bills will be better. Statistically it's all but impossible that we cannot. You said it correctly, how can our O possibly get worse? What, scoring only 10 ppg. But it's going to take more than simple "improvement" to end up where you say and hope. If they can't improve in spades by midseason then Jauron should be let go then, not even at the end of the season and so should Schonert!

 

The question is by how much improvement. I say it will be marginally because NFL players, DCs, and DBs are a little smarter and more experienced than to let a simple rookie WR(s) beat them to the extent that any such difference will propel us to the playoffs. I don't think you realize how poor our offense was last season. I think you're looking well beyond the piece parts and forecasting things that have no basis. Once again, let's assume that Hardy catches 6 TDs, more than any rookie WR last season, then unless we get another dozen from elsewhere, and against teams against which we haven't even been able to log a sincle offensive TD, then I just don't see it happening.

 

The hill is a lot higher and steeper than you realize my friend.

 

If you're right, then we're all in for a long season and another shi--y outcome. If I'm right, we might be in the playoffs. Let me ask you a question, which result would you rather have?

 

Come on, obviously I'd rather see us go 12-4 and be able to dominate teams like we did during the Kelly/Polian era. But what I think makes absolutely no difference, which I'm not sure that many people understand as if we can wish or hope our way to success. What you and they think makes no difference either. This isn't like Monsters, Inc. where "hopes" provide energy for the team on the field. It doesn't matter if we sell the place out for season tickets either.

 

What matters is whether Edwards can play to move the offense, get protection from the line, whether Schonert will be sharper than his counterparts, how much Jauron's influence since he's not a good coach or definitely an unproven one tops impacts this team, how much the rookie WRs step up and by when, and how the D comes together and whether Spencer Johnson is just another backup type that will rotate in leaving us hungry for DT play, whether Stroud has fully recovered and becomes the force he once was, what Poz brings, how good McKelvin plays initially, etc.

 

To assume that every one of those factors comes together favorably is unwise. Also, to assume that just because a player is in his second season he will be better is also unwise. McGahee wasn't better in his second season here. We haven't had even average QB play in what, close to a decade now.

 

Meanwhile, teams, especially those in our division, have some familiarity with Edwards now and know what to expect and therefore what to plan for, at least inasmuch as his capabilities go regardless of how Schonert tries to use them.

 

But we're also starting at the bottom and it's extremely unusual for teams as pathetically bad as we were last year to leapfrog 20 teams in productivity to the extent that we make the playoffs or even post a winning record. And allow me to ask, would you rather have a team that ends up with a winning record but primarily because our schedule was chock full of easy teams? Or would you rather be a .500 team or even maybe a 7-9 team again, but one that proved that it can hang with the "big boys?" We went through that exercise in 2005 when everyone thought we were much better than we were because we beat a bunch of sorry teams under remarkably sorry circumstances. Yet everyone overreated then.

 

I just want to see solid football being played in Buffalo again. I'd rather have that and take our chances on ease of schedule than to see us slide into a winning season or playoffs only due to extremely fortuitous circumstances that have no basis for future results.

 

But your implication that I'd rather see us "have another long season with another shi--y outcome" is false. I'd rather address the reasons why we suck every year and correct them. But that clearly does not appear to be happening now, does it.

 

As to the offense, I find it difficult to believe that Hardy is going to make that much of a difference and here's why;

 

We will supposedly be running a lot more 2 RB sets with a FB for blocking for Lynch. That's what the team and Schonert say, so we should believe them. They also say that they plan on using the TE more although they have been saying that for years and never do. Could be Jauron too. Either way, we really don't have the type of TE that's going to make much of a difference there, and we will need one that blocks according to Schonert's "back to basics" (my term) strategy for the offense. He will need a blocking TE, not a light, flimsly receiving one. Royal is not great at anything but mediocre in everything. Schouman we don't know. Oft injured and unproven there. He was an injury concern leaving school and guess what, got hurt again. We know he's not a good blocker though, so his value is minimal in this scheme as anything besides a role player. So I wouldn't plunk down too much money that he even makes it past midseason again. He's clearly got major injury issues and if he were cut prior to the season it shouldn't surprise you.

 

So we will have two WRs lining up frequently, and if it's Evans and Hardy, I'm just not seeing it unless Lynch absolutely lights things up, but he was hindered from that last year becaues our line just isn't that good and not nearly as good as you think. Barnes is a decent although not exceptional blocker by any stretch, and teams will be stacking the line defending our run making things more difficult for our OL there. Since Hardy doesn't stretch the field, Evans is still the only player taking anyone deep. I don't think Edwards will have the time to get it to Evans much more than he or Losman ever have behind this line.

 

That's my take. Meanwhile I haven't heard any analsysis from you about defensive players stacking the box since we'll be using more 2 WR sets. I've only heard how Hardy will stretch the field which your on an island over. I expect a similar season from Lynch plus maybe another few TDs, and a miserable year from Edwards as he loses just as much from poor pass protection on deeper pass attempts as he gains from having Hardy as an additional big WR. Based on what I know and have seen about rookie WRs, I expect Hardy's strengths to be outmatched in his rookie season easily. He reminds me of Matt Jones when Jax drafted him. Very similar in skillsets. And Jones is huge and by all counts should have been a monster and done much more than he has, and I distinctly remember people here talking about how we should get him and how he would do what they're all expecting Hardy to do now. Anyway, he's been putting up what you say Hardy will, or hope for, and until last season when they finally put Garrard in there, a QB much better than Edwards on a variety of fronts, the Jags offense wasn't great and they had a better running game than we have and a better OL. Jones was drafted and rated higher than Hardy.

 

Either way, it sounds as if the sum total of it all depends entirely upon improvement of the pieces in place and Hardy. I will say not to underrated Johnson as in two or three seasons Hardy may be his backup. He's a much more versatile player and if we do improve by those amounts as you hope for, then I will say not that it's because Johnson came on and in no small way, along with Edwards. Johnson also put up some big games against top Ds at Kentucky.

[ax4782]

But your implication that I'd rather see us "have another long season with another shi--y outcome" is false. I'd rather address the reasons why we suck every year and correct them. But that clearly does not appear to be happening now, does it.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that you want us to have a shi--y season. I was saying that if you are right, then we are in for a long season with a shi--y outcome. Sorry if it came across as directed. My bad. However, I want to again address a couple of points because I think this debate is important. First, I don't agree that the team is not trying to address the serious needs that have caused us to be so bad over the past eight seasons. We haven't had a solid DT corps since Pat Williams and Ted Washington were here. I think the team did a nice job addressing that. From what I have seen of Stroud, there is no problem with his ankle and he appears ready to go. As for McCargo, I would look at the reports from those same websites you cited, and on ESPN. McCargo missed almost his entire rookie season with a foot injury and didn't play, so essentially last year was his rookie season. I watched him closely as he was one of my favorite players in college and we must have seen different things. When he did get playing time he was frequently in the backfield disrupting plays, which is exactly what a DT is supposed to do. I have to check the stats again but I think he actually had more tackles for loss than any of our other DTs and that's saying a lot for a rookie and guy who you say has underperformed. He's only really played for one season and a lot of commentators have said he looks like he is growing into a player that was a worth a first round pick. He had 29 tackles last year, and 20 of those were solo. Only Kyle Williams, and every game starter had more total tackles at the DT position than McCargo, and more than half of his 48 tackles were assisted. McCargo also had 2.5 sacks from the 3 Tech DT position, which for what was essentially a rookie DT is pretty good, considering there was no push at the 1 from Triplett. I think we can disagree about McCargo from a statistical stand point. He hasn't been Marcus Stroud yet, but I think he has shown a lot of promise, and with Stroud next him at the 1-Tech this season, I do see a lot of improvement from him from the outset.

 

As for Trent Edwards, we will continue to disagree. However, even for all of the problems you cited, I would point you to an article today on NFL.com by Vic Carrucio at the following link. http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=0...mp;confirm=true. Based on the article, and again of course you have to take it for what it is worth, it sounds to me like Edwards knew that he was going to have a bad year last year from a statistical stand point going in, something that perhaps fans were not expecting. Judging by the interviews he has had, including the one for this article he is talking the talk of a team leader, but also walking the walk. He is taking extra time to work with the WRs to get those timing routes down. He is traveling to FL and AZ to work with Evans and Robert Royal on passing, even when camp is out. The guy is trying to make an effort to get "massively better" as you put it. The fact is that when you look at Peyton Manning's rookie numbers, or Eli Manning's rookie numbers, or pretty much any rookie QB's numbers, they almost never look like they are going to lead to anything better. That's because they are rookies. You are right, that many times those numbers never improve. More often than not, unfortunately. But from what I can see he has shown the two most important characteristics in an NFL quarterback. He is showing that he is willing to put in the time required to get better and perform in this league, and he has shown the poise and composure necessary when making decisions on the field. You may disagree, but looking at the performances of Rookie QBs over the course of even the last fifteen years, I'd say there was one, Big Ben, that was good, and he hasn't performed nearly as well since then. The other starters in this league all had relatively putrid rookie seasons, but they put in the work and they improved to be average or better starting QBs. I don't think one can judge whether Edwards will be a good QB or not after his rookie season. Let's see how he performs this year before trying to make a judgement call.

 

As for Hardy, he did have good games against good teams. In 2007 he had big games against a number of big teams, including at least one that was better than top-35. Against Iowa he was 4-113-1, against Penn State he was 14-142-2, against Purdue he was 10-87-1. Penn State and Purdue were both better than top 35 last seasons, and he played very well against them. The Iowa game was on the road against a decent Iowa team in a tough environment. Hardy played well consistently last year, only having two games in 12 where he did not score a touchdown. He had 36 TDs in 33 total games for Indiana. That, to me, says that he played with consistency and played well consistently at Indiana. I agree with you on the fact that he doesn't run great LONG routes of 40+ yards. That isn't what we need him to do. We need him to do what both of your sources say he is best utilized for: short to intermediate routes over the middle where he can go up and get the football, and for fade routes and crossing routes in redzone situations. I think that he can catch forty balls and score six or seven TDs this season. And with how many close games we were in last year, even against some better teams, that would have made the difference. One TD against Denver, One TD against Dallas, and one more TD against either the Eagles or the Browns and we would have made the playoffs at 10-6.

 

Finally, I would love to have a team that was consistently good and was always beating the best teams and going 12-4 or 13-3 every season. However, this team isn't there YET. I think we are on our way there. I think that winning builds confidence. NE hasn't had a team filled with stars. They have a lot of above average guys who work hard, and a coaching staff that gave them a little bit of help by filming other teams' defensive signals and knowing what they were going to do during the game. However, Buffalo is now starting to get a team filled with better players. They have paid a lot of money to improve both the O-Line and the D-Line and basically the entire D. I think that there will be more changes on offense after this season, but I think that the Bills are at a make or break year. If they have a winning season, good things are in the future. If it is not what we are hoping for, then there will be more changes and I think a longer time to wait before we ever get better. Again, only time will tell, but the team is saying the right things, and I think that the coaches are doing the right things. I have been pleased with the direction the team has been moving over the last two or three years, and I hope they continue.

[Fan in Chicago]

Egads. Never thought I would say this about any poster but ax4782 and krazykat individually put Pyrite Gal to shame regarding length of posts.

[obie_wan]

Egads. Never thought I would say this about any poster but ax4782 and krazykat individually put Pyrite Gal to shame regarding length of posts.

 

However, both of these posts contain bona fide info instead of stream of consciousness blubbering with no real focus

[C.Biscuit97]

However, both of these posts contain bona fide info instead of stream of consciousness blubbering with no real focus

 

 

As opposed to a poster make 3,000 posts about the Bills not drafting enough linemen.

[VOR]

As opposed to a poster make 3,000 posts about the Bills not drafting enough linemen.

[obie_wan]

As opposed to a poster make 3,000 posts about the Bills not drafting enough linemen.

 

yeah - but they are not very long posts

[Sisyphean Bills]

Nice post, kat. Say, are you a UK fan?

[Adam]

However, both of these posts contain bona fide info instead of stream of consciousness blubbering with no real focus

I agree Obie- I prefer streams of unconsious blubbering!

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Weaknesses:

Isn't very quick or explosive and lacks a burst...May have trouble separating from pro corners...Has some character concerns...Will have to get stronger...Not much of a vertical or deep threat...Just a marginal blocker...Not a great route runner...Is not real physical or aggressive and may lack a football player's mentality...Still raw and will need to be developed...Inconsistent..Is more athlete than football player.

 

Thats kind of a weird observation on their part considering he had more career TD's then games and that he had over 100 yards rec. in 6 games in 2007. I wouldn't classify him as inconsistent. In fact he scored in all but 9 games in his 3 years at In.

 

Just weird that they would say that.

[eball]

The unspoken problem with the run game is that Lynch runs to the wrong hole making the line look bad

You say "unspoken" -- where are you getting that from? Is it your own observation or do you have a "source" of inside info?

[krazykat]

Nice post, kat. Say, are you a UK fan?

 

Thanks! No, just noticed how late Steve Johnson was drafted considering he had a heck of a year and played very well in some big visibile games.

 

 

Thats kind of a weird observation on their part considering he had more career TD's then games and that he had over 100 yards rec. in 6 games in 2007. I wouldn't classify him as inconsistent. In fact he scored in all but 9 games in his 3 years at In.

 

Just weird that they would say that.

See, once again, you are looking at the high level stats and not how he did in individual games. But naturally, having done your homework you noticed that he rarely if ever has very good games against top passing defenses or even top defenses in general, right?

 

To me that matters since the NFL isn't exactly laden with players from Ball St., Indiana St., Western Michigan, and Akron. To you it may not. But the better indication is how will he play against NFL caliber competition, but if he didn't play well vs. top 30 college Ds then why will he excel against NFL caliber Ds and DBs?

 

I'm not saying he won't, he may very well. But I'm not sold and I'd expect a player like Johnson to do a lot more because he's proven that he can do it against that top competition and especially in the big games.

 

You and others talk as if collegiate performance translates to NFL effectiveness automatically when you should know better and probably do but are just ignoring what you know.

 

Either way, if players struggle against the best in college, what basis is there for more hope in the NFL?

[Fan in Chicago]

However, both of these posts contain bona fide info instead of stream of consciousness blubbering with no real focus

Undoubtedly. In fact, if there was a vote, I would love to pin this thread for future reference about how a topic is supposed to be debated. I would prefer a more succinct version of the debate but very well done by both.