Scouts Inc. Fantasy O-Line rankings

[dave mcbride]

Hey ax,

 

about Hardy, I guess I'm just saying that I have more hope for Steve Johnson who had good to outstanding games against LSU, the national champs and 9th ranked pass D, Mississippi State, the 7th ranked pass D, Vanderbilt, the 18th ranked pass D, Arkansas, the 23rd ranked pass D, and Georgia, the 36 ranked pass D, better than anyone that Hardy played, and the 2nd/3rd ranked team at the end of the season. He also helped light up FSU in his bowl game and was probably the biggest reason for the Wildcat's win.

 

So if someone said that I had to lay down a hundred bucks on one of the two having a better pro career and posting 1,000 yards next season, my money would go down on Johnson without a thought.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level. If you did, all those extremely productive Florida receivers over the years would be first ballot hall of famers, Josh Reed would be a superstar, Early Doucet would be something more than a middling prospect, and all of those guys from Ohio State feasting on mediocre Big 10 secondaries in the 1980s-90s (Galloway, Boston, Glenn, Cris Carter, and more) plus Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, etc. (not to mention Jerry Rice, Herman Moore, Jimmy Smith, Andre Reed, and Art Monk) wouldn't have made it past camp.

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

I wouldn't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level. If you did, all those extremely productive Florida receivers over the years would be first ballot hall of famers, Josh Reed would be a superstar, Early Doucet would be something more than a middling prospect, and all of those guys from Ohio State feasting on mediocre Big 10 secondaries in the 1980s-90s (Galloway, Boston, Glenn, Cris Carter, and more) plus Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, etc. (not to mention Jerry Rice, Herman Moore, Jimmy Smith, Andre Reed, and Art Monk) wouldn't have made it past camp.

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

Very well put. You said it all right here.

[C.Biscuit97]

I wouldn't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level. If you did, all those extremely productive Florida receivers over the years would be first ballot hall of famers, Josh Reed would be a superstar, Early Doucet would be something more than a middling prospect, and all of those guys from Ohio State feasting on mediocre Big 10 secondaries in the 1980s-90s (Galloway, Boston, Glenn, Cris Carter, and more) plus Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, etc. (not to mention Jerry Rice, Herman Moore, Jimmy Smith, Andre Reed, and Art Monk) wouldn't have made it past camp.

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

 

Yuo obviously don't get it. If you are good college, you will be good in the pros. It's that simple.

[krazykat]

I can see why you would do that. He may have been the steal of the draft. I was impressed with the film I saw of him and he has pretty good hands. He was getting a lot of time at the number three and four receiver spot in the OTAs and the coaches seemed to be really impressed with him. I would not be surprised if Hardy and Johnson were on the field together a lot this season. I think they both have the potential to be excellent receivers, though I can't say I don't agree with you somewhat. Johnson is going to be excellent, but if Hardy has route running problems, Johnson has more of them. That was the knock on him from almost everyone, though most had him going higher than the Seventh Round. Buffalo got a lucky break with the guy. We'll see. Personally, I think that both of them will have some impact on the offense, but I think Hardy, at least for the next couple of seasons will have the bigger role.

I won't disagree with that. But consider, Hardy's been playing football forever whereas Johnson has not. Both have similar weaknesses, but similar with similar speed. Johnson also didn't start every game, yet, the two posted very similar stats/performances, and again, clearly the competition that Johnson faced was far tougher, far.

 

Johnson's relatively new to the game of football, and with good coaching, a serious question mark with the Bills, his weaknesses can easily be overcome.

 

So here's what we have:

 

Two players with similar skill sets, strengths, and weaknesses, but one that's started, has enormous physical gifts, yet who has not outplayed the other who lags in experience substantially.

 

IMO we've seen what Hardy can do. Remember when guys like Matt Jones came out, they said the same and even much more about him, yet he hasn't impressed. Does that mean Hardy won't impress? Clearly not. But just because he's a big receiver, does not mean that he will. He's also not physical, which when I hear that about a 6'5"/220 lb. WR, I'm concerned.

 

Johnson also averaged over 17 ypc and 3 ypc more than Hardy suggesting that he's a better downfield player and can stretch the field if need be.

 

As to Johnson's 7th round status, if he were a Jr. and had stayed one more season and posted similar numbers, he'd have been a day-one pick easily. So that's mostly because of his lack of experience.

 

Truthfully, if one of the two works out to a solid #2 or reliable starter, we will be ahead of the curve statistically speaking. WR is a tough position to transition to and rookies rarely play well enough to make much of a difference all other things being equal. But having said that, IMO Johnson, even in only one season, has shown more in terms of performance against what will accurately reflect NFL defenses and passing defenses and big game experience. He also clearly has a lot more upside since he's somewhat new to the game which isn't always bad. But IMO Hardy's a known commodity that will have to rely on playing well against competition that he quite frankly hasn't seen and yet still performed not much better than Johnson.

 

I also still think that Hardy relied almost exclusively on his size in college, and again, not against competition that he will face in the pros. To me this means that he will have to do what he hasn't done yet against much stiffer competition, and based on my experiences watching football, that is significantly less likely to occur than Johnson doing it since he already has, or at least much more so than Hardy.

[krazykat]

I wouldn't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level. If you did, all those extremely productive Florida receivers over the years would be first ballot hall of famers, Josh Reed would be a superstar, Early Doucet would be something more than a middling prospect, and all of those guys from Ohio State feasting on mediocre Big 10 secondaries in the 1980s-90s (Galloway, Boston, Glenn, Cris Carter, and more) plus Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, etc. (not to mention Jerry Rice, Herman Moore, Jimmy Smith, Andre Reed, and Art Monk) wouldn't have made it past camp.

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

I don't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level for any reason other than to compare how he played vs. the type of competition that he will face in the pros. Hardy hasn't come close to proving that he can "hang with the big boys" whereas Johnson has, at least to some extent.

 

And you're absolutely correct on your assessment, but the converse is also true if not even more so, that simply because a player hasn't played against that level of competition and/or done well against it, that does not mean that he's even as likely to succeed as the players (Florida, Reed, etc.) that you mentioned above.

 

Otherwise, a lot of the other players you mentioned were top WRing prospects in the draft.

 

But where I want to focus is on your second statement;

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

In terms of productivity, that isn't all that matters at the end of the day since the pro game is a whole new ballgame. And off-field issues such as character play a far greater role in the pros since those players often quit getting coddled as they've been for 4-8 years, especially if they don't produce commensurate with their high draft positions. In other words, let's say Hardy gets in trouble in some way and proves to be only a 35 catch/ 450 yard WR the next two seasons on average. The Bills, or any team, are a lot more likely to consider that his character issues are not worth hanging onto given that production. If he's putting up 1,200 yards and 10 TDs however, then they may deal with it more readily and willingly.

 

But either way, Hardy hasn't proven that he has produced in all situations that he found himself in. He faced no teams that finished in the top 15, almost top 20, that he played well against or "produced" in. His biggest games were against Ball St., Indiana St., Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan St., and PSU. The only good team there was PSU and I've already shown you that PSU's passing D wasn't good although it was the best he faced.

 

In other "situations that he found himself in" he didn't do much of anything. In seven other games, he had less than 50 yards. Two of those games were against Illinois and Wisconsin, the two best teams that he played, he didn't do anything and his team's O scored only 14 and 3 points in those two games. He had one TD and 42 yards receiving in that game.

 

So what you just said there isn't true. What's true is that Hardy stepped up against mediocre and worse competition but didn't do anything noteworthy against the best teams that he played.

 

So, in the NFL then, to succeed at the level that is expected for a 1st or 2nd round pick, and remember, he was slated as a 1st rounder by some and many said we got a 1st rounder in the 2nd round, then he will essentially have to begin doing what he hasn't done.

 

Johnson's already done it, at least more so than Hardy has.

 

So I would challenge your comments there.

 

With Steve Johnson that's not true say what you want to about him. And you said this:

 

If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

Well, Hardy doesn't run any faster! There's like half a second between them. Johnson doesn't have a knock about his hands either. Also, the list of good games against solid pass Ds and regular Ds ran well beyond LSU and Auburn if you read the list again.

 

Either way, what you're doing is dismissing Johnson for that, but then suggesting that Hardy who also runs about a 4.5 and haven't even had a good game against a team like LSU or Auburn is somehow more likely to play well. That makes no sense.

[krazykat]

Very well put. You said it all right here.

It may be "very well put," but it doesn't make sense. Check out my prior post.

[krazykat]

Yuo obviously don't get it. If you are good college, you will be good in the pros. It's that simple.

The only ones saying that are those that think that Hardy is a shoe in for greatness in the NFL.

 

There is far too much of people here looking at the most superficial of indicators and ignoring all the stuff that goes into the conducting of thorough due diligence.

 

You can cite all the pro writers all you want, but they're wrong just as often as they're right and usually do little of their own analysis.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

When did this become a Hardy vs. Johnson thread? I think Steve Johnson will be a fine pro but I also think Hardy could be a star. The odds are one will be a solid contributer this year and my money's on Hardy.

[Pyrite Gal]

The only ones saying that are those that think that Hardy is a shoe in for greatness in the NFL.

 

There is far too much of people here looking at the most superficial of indicators and ignoring all the stuff that goes into the conducting of thorough due diligence.

 

You can cite all the pro writers all you want, but they're wrong just as often as they're right and usually do little of their own analysis.

Only a fool would claim that any player is a shoo-in destined for a great NFL career. Too many great regarded players have had unfortunate breaks (literally in some cases) or turned out to be poor players once they pocketed their bonus for one to make that claim. Too many late draftees and even UDFAs have mounted great careers.

 

The question is where will Hardy fall on what is likely to be result which is likely more disappointing for those who see him as a consistent pro Bowler or more impressive for those who see him destined to be a bust.

 

The good news for the Bills is that all should agree he is a tremendous specimen who has had some (but not total) significant success as a TD producer.

 

Other teams will need to adjust to him simply based on the fear of what he might do and the mismatches he creates.

 

This will likely be a boon to Lee Evans who will not see the DTs or biased coverage toward him that other teams could mount last year with little fear that Fairchild and the Bills offense would make them pay for have an overwhelming focus on Evans.

 

This coverage will not last if Hardy is not able to produce at all. However, the tea leaves are clearly in the Bills favor on this one.

[obie_wan]

Only a fool would claim that any player is a shoo-in destined for a great NFL career. Too many great regarded players have had unfortunate breaks (literally in some cases) or turned out to be poor players once they pocketed their bonus for one to make that claim. Too many late draftees and even UDFAs have mounted great careers.

 

The question is where will Hardy fall on what is likely to be result which is likely more disappointing for those who see him as a consistent pro Bowler or more impressive for those who see him destined to be a bust.

 

The good news for the Bills is that all should agree he is a tremendous specimen who has had some (but not total) significant success as a TD producer.

 

Other teams will need to adjust to him simply based on the fear of what he might do and the mismatches he creates.

 

This will likely be a boon to Lee Evans who will not see the DTs or biased coverage toward him that other teams could mount last year with little fear that Fairchild and the Bills offense would make them pay for have an overwhelming focus on Evans.

 

This coverage will not last if Hardy is not able to produce at all. However, the tea leaves are clearly in the Bills favor on this one.

 

Teams will not shift coverage away from Evans until they are burned by someone else consistently.

 

As a rookie, Hardy may or may become effective on the field, since he has shown an inability to got off the line and to get separation.

 

Until he makes big plays for long yardage or TDs, teams will not show him any more respect than the Bills other WRs.

[Lv-Bills]

The other thing to keep in mind is that these are fantasy ratings (at least that's what your title says and that's what Scouts, Inc. does). Fantasy football is different than NFL football (outside of Brady and Moss the Pats* aren't a great fantasy team, but they had the best record in the NFL so their fantasy status does not predict their NFL status [insert your own cheating comment here]).

 

Anyway, I don't know what makes a good o-line from a fantasy perspective (I've been playing for 10+ years and have never come across a league where you draft o-line and have o-line accumulate stats), but it may be different from a good o-line from a NFL perspective - the two aren't always the same.

Wes Welker is a fantasy scoring machine. If you are in a point per reception league, he's a beast. Automatic double digit scorer every week, and if he scores a TD......can carry you to a win.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Other teams will need to adjust to him simply based on the fear of what he might do and the mismatches he creates.

Everybody in the NFL is an athlete and most were elite players at the college level. Just being a physical specimen isn't going to strike fear into DC's hearts. Hardy will have to prove he can make big plays in order for defenses to fear him.

This will likely be a boon to Lee Evans who will not see the DTs or biased coverage toward him that other teams could mount last year with little fear that Fairchild and the Bills offense would make them pay for have an overwhelming focus on Evans.

Why is it "likely"? Hardy hasn't even been to training camp, seen 1 snap in 1 pre-season scrimmage yet. Seems a tad early to be declaring anything about his game and how it will change defensive game plans.

This coverage will not last if Hardy is not able to produce at all.

Actually, the coverage isn't going to change unless Hardy can prove he is a more capable WR threat than Josh Reed (or Peerless Price & Roscoe Parrish) were last year. Josh Reed may not be a great WR, but he did catch 51 passes last year in the NFL.

However, the tea leaves are clearly in the Bills favor on this one.

Again, why "clearly"? Clearly there is some wishful thinking, but there is nothing more than subjective evidence based on hopes.

 

And all of this fixates on Hardy. What if the Bills passing game continues to have the firepower of a leaky squirt gun? Will people post all the reasons Hardy is a bust and why he is the sole reason the passing game sucks? Would that be fair?

 

I don't think so. There is a lot more to an NFL offense in the passing game than not taking sacks and running the ball and throwing dump offs in order to minimize interceptions. I mean the objectives of an offense at any level of football should really be to execute a variety of plays, possess the ball, move the chains to put drives together, keep the opponent on the long end of the field, and score some points. The Bills as an offensive unit (Hardy or no) haven't really shown they can do any of that on a consistent enough basis. That's why they were one of the worst offenses in the NFL in 2007 and the worst Bills offense ever.

[dave mcbride]

I don't get too hung up on strength of competition at the college level for any reason other than to compare how he played vs. the type of competition that he will face in the pros. Hardy hasn't come close to proving that he can "hang with the big boys" whereas Johnson has, at least to some extent.

 

And you're absolutely correct on your assessment, but the converse is also true if not even more so, that simply because a player hasn't played against that level of competition and/or done well against it, that does not mean that he's even as likely to succeed as the players (Florida, Reed, etc.) that you mentioned above.

 

Otherwise, a lot of the other players you mentioned were top WRing prospects in the draft.

 

But where I want to focus is on your second statement;

 

The only things I'd pay attention to are as follows: did he produce in situations that he found himself in (i.e., against the teams he actually played against and with whatever stiff was throwing him the ball), and--more importantly--is he big, quick, fast, a good leaper, and a "football player" (meaning physically and mentally tough)? In terms of projecting productivity, that's all that matters at the end of the day. If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

In terms of productivity, that isn't all that matters at the end of the day since the pro game is a whole new ballgame. And off-field issues such as character play a far greater role in the pros since those players often quit getting coddled as they've been for 4-8 years, especially if they don't produce commensurate with their high draft positions. In other words, let's say Hardy gets in trouble in some way and proves to be only a 35 catch/ 450 yard WR the next two seasons on average. The Bills, or any team, are a lot more likely to consider that his character issues are not worth hanging onto given that production. If he's putting up 1,200 yards and 10 TDs however, then they may deal with it more readily and willingly.

 

But either way, Hardy hasn't proven that he has produced in all situations that he found himself in. He faced no teams that finished in the top 15, almost top 20, that he played well against or "produced" in. His biggest games were against Ball St., Indiana St., Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan St., and PSU. The only good team there was PSU and I've already shown you that PSU's passing D wasn't good although it was the best he faced.

 

In other "situations that he found himself in" he didn't do much of anything. In seven other games, he had less than 50 yards. Two of those games were against Illinois and Wisconsin, the two best teams that he played, he didn't do anything and his team's O scored only 14 and 3 points in those two games. He had one TD and 42 yards receiving in that game.

 

So what you just said there isn't true. What's true is that Hardy stepped up against mediocre and worse competition but didn't do anything noteworthy against the best teams that he played.

 

So, in the NFL then, to succeed at the level that is expected for a 1st or 2nd round pick, and remember, he was slated as a 1st rounder by some and many said we got a 1st rounder in the 2nd round, then he will essentially have to begin doing what he hasn't done.

 

Johnson's already done it, at least more so than Hardy has.

 

So I would challenge your comments there.

 

With Steve Johnson that's not true say what you want to about him. And you said this:

 

If a guy has some good games against LSU and Auburn et al. yet has average size and runs a 4.5, I wouldn't expect a whole lot.

 

Well, Hardy doesn't run any faster! There's like half a second between them. Johnson doesn't have a knock about his hands either. Also, the list of good games against solid pass Ds and regular Ds ran well beyond LSU and Auburn if you read the list again.

 

Either way, what you're doing is dismissing Johnson for that, but then suggesting that Hardy who also runs about a 4.5 and haven't even had a good game against a team like LSU or Auburn is somehow more likely to play well. That makes no sense.

 

My post wasn't about Johnson, who I never mentioned (it was more about Early Doucet, but it could have been about anyone who fits the description -- and there are many). Johnson may end up being a great player, but I must confess that I simply don't care. My point was a general one--that that college production vis-a-vis strength of competition isn't especially indicative. As for the games you mentioned where he had low numbers, was he double covered? Did the QB suck? Was the line overwhelmed? Given that it was Indiana, I'd bet that all three issues were in play.

 

Re off-field stuff, you'll note that Moss, Owens, Steve Smith, etc. are hardly choirboys. Good citizenship doesn't seem to correlate all that closely with WR productivity in the NFL. The "football mentality" does, however. Whether Hardy has it, neither you nor I have much of an idea at this point, largely because we've been subject to puffery by the school and the team that drafted him plus near-mindless critical commentary by "scout" reporters who have to juggle the names of 400 players come draft time and who get their information mostly secondhand. The proof will be in the pudding, so the last thing I'd do is make reckless projections about catches/yards before the guy's first training camp.

 

p.s. Not that it matters much given the variations in measurement, but my understanding is that he ran a 4.45.

[krazykat]

Only a fool would claim that any player is a shoo-in destined for a great NFL career. Too many great regarded players have had unfortunate breaks (literally in some cases) or turned out to be poor players once they pocketed their bonus for one to make that claim. Too many late draftees and even UDFAs have mounted great careers.

 

The question is where will Hardy fall on what is likely to be result which is likely more disappointing for those who see him as a consistent pro Bowler or more impressive for those who see him destined to be a bust.

 

The good news for the Bills is that all should agree he is a tremendous specimen who has had some (but not total) significant success as a TD producer.

 

Other teams will need to adjust to him simply based on the fear of what he might do and the mismatches he creates.

 

This will likely be a boon to Lee Evans who will not see the DTs or biased coverage toward him that other teams could mount last year with little fear that Fairchild and the Bills offense would make them pay for have an overwhelming focus on Evans.

 

This coverage will not last if Hardy is not able to produce at all. However, the tea leaves are clearly in the Bills favor on this one.

I was using the term "greatness" loosely and in probably the lightest possible sense. I meant inasmuch as making the kind of difference for this offense that many are expecting.

 

Again, his success against the types of DBs found in the NFL is very limited and his game experiences in which he shone vs. outstanding Ds is also severely limited. There is no debate about that, or should not be.

 

Other teams need to account for every player on the field. His size is not at all unusual in the NFL. They said loftier things about Matt Jones who was even taller. There is no verifiable coorelation between his size or athleticism and his chances of succeeding in the NFL. To suggest that there is has no basis. He will have a learning curve just like every other WR, and if he doesn't keep himself clean then all of this performance related debate may very well be moot.

 

I think we've pretty much beaten the dust out of this dead horse though. We will have to see what he does on the field plain and simple. I also don't think that anyone is disputing the notion that having Hardy and Johnson on the team will not help them improve. There's a big leap though from where this offense was last year, and where it needs to be in order to become a playoff caliber offense. A lot of people are expecting the Bills to make the playoffs.

 

As to the coverage lasting, let's just see the OL play consistently first. No team goes to the playoffs by mounting only two decent drives every game.

[krazykat]

Teams will not shift coverage away from Evans until they are burned by someone else consistently.

 

As a rookie, Hardy may or may become effective on the field, since he has shown an inability to got off the line and to get separation.

 

Until he makes big plays for long yardage or TDs, teams will not show him any more respect than the Bills other WRs.

I don't know about that. It's pretty difficult to not at least consider double coverage for a 6'5"/220 lb. WR. IMO what's more important is how the OL and Edwards play. There's far too much hype for a QB that did nothing last year, literally. To assume that we're going to "Hardy our way downfield" on 3rd-and-8 completions all season for scores is ridiculous. We will need consistent ball movement rushing and from the passing game in general in order to even boost this offense to the ranks of average.

[krazykat]

Wes Welker is a fantasy scoring machine. If you are in a point per reception league, he's a beast. Automatic double digit scorer every week, and if he scores a TD......can carry you to a win.

Do you think that his numbers would be the same if Cassel were throwing the ball in NE?

 

Welker obviously didn't do that in Miami.

[krazykat]

Actually, the coverage isn't going to change unless Hardy can prove he is a more capable WR threat than Josh Reed (or Peerless Price & Roscoe Parrish) were last year. Josh Reed may not be a great WR, but he did catch 51 passes last year in the NFL.

 

There is a lot more to an NFL offense in the passing game than not taking sacks and running the ball and throwing dump offs in order to minimize interceptions. I mean the objectives of an offense at any level of football should really be to execute a variety of plays, possess the ball, move the chains to put drives together, keep the opponent on the long end of the field, and score some points. The Bills as an offensive unit (Hardy or no) haven't really shown they can do any of that on a consistent enough basis. That's why they were one of the worst offenses in the NFL in 2007 and the worst Bills offense ever.

Two very good points!

 

And the Bills' offense was the worst scoring offense in the NFL last season. They scored fewer TDs than any other team in the league offensively which obviously includes teams that everyone routinely makes fun of here like the Raiders and Niners. They also ran fewer plays than any team in the league. Interestingly they were also 6th in the league with a +9 TO ratio. So much of what many are hoping for presumably also hinges on the notion that they will once again finish around 6th in the league in TO ratio.

 

Otherwise, for a team to have that kind of TO ratio and still stink the joint up both offensively and defensively really says precious little for it.

[krazykat]

My post wasn't about Johnson, who I never mentioned (it was more about Early Doucet, but it could have been about anyone who fits the description -- and there are many). Johnson may end up being a great player, but I must confess that I simply don't care. My point was a general one--that that college production vis-a-vis strength of competition isn't especially indicative. As for the games you mentioned where he had low numbers, was he double covered? Did the QB suck? Was the line overwhelmed? Given that it was Indiana, I'd bet that all three issues were in play.

 

Re off-field stuff, you'll note that Moss, Owens, Steve Smith, etc. are hardly choirboys. Good citizenship doesn't seem to correlate all that closely with WR productivity in the NFL. The "football mentality" does, however. Whether Hardy has it, neither you nor I have much of an idea at this point, largely because we've been subject to puffery by the school and the team that drafted him plus near-mindless critical commentary by "scout" reporters who have to juggle the names of 400 players come draft time and who get their information mostly secondhand. The proof will be in the pudding, so the last thing I'd do is make reckless projections about catches/yards before the guy's first training camp.

 

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you understand what I'm saying. You cannot then deduce the opposite, that since "collegiate stats do not correlate all that closely with WR productivity in the NFL," or that the lack of any such performance somehow heightens any particular WR's chance for success in the NFL which seems to be going on here.

 

I will also challenge that notion too, which is at least partially absurd. I think that it's very safe to say that in spite of the 1st round and day one WRing flops, far more WRs from day one picks and early rounds have more success generally speaking than day two picks and later round or UFA players. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. I mean looking at the AFCE alone, Evans and Moss are the two best who were both 1st rounders.

 

Which actually brings up another point. Look at all of the WRs drafted on any draft list over the past umpteen years. Then ask yourself how many have performed to the level expected by Hardy. Mathematically Hardy will be defying the odds if he can do that at all, much less as a rookie. So I don't know what the chances are, 1 in 10 maybe, maybe slightly lower because he was a 2nd round choice, but the odds are greater that he won't be. Just math. I know that many here will challenge that and try to pass off that this year is different, or Hardy's different, or how our staff is that much better than any of the other teams in the NFL, but for anyone looking at this objectively, it is unlikely that Hardy makes the kind of difference, either directly or indirectly, that propels an offense that sucked last year into a playoff caliber offense.

 

The facts otherwise are that little has changed.

 

As to "the offfield stuff," that's all hypothetical, but the NFL is harder today on offfield stuff than it was when Moss and Owens entered the league. In fact they're making examples of players with just about every opportunity these days.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Two very good points!

 

And the Bills' offense was the worst scoring offense in the NFL last season. They scored fewer TDs than any other team in the league offensively which obviously includes teams that everyone routinely makes fun of here like the Raiders and Niners. They also ran fewer plays than any team in the league.

Yep, I know. Given how bad the offense was, it doesn't really add up that the "sweeping changes", summed up as the promotion of a journeyman QB coach and the drafting of Hardy, is going to instantly propel the leaky quirt gun offense into the upper echelons of the NFL.

 

As far as TS and his talk, SF was saying all the right things less than a year ago as well. JPL was continuing to improve; the ball never hit the grass in practice; Lynch was a great receiving threat and might even be used at WR ala Marshall Faulk; the offense was going to be opened up a lot because the players had really taken to it and got it...

Interestingly they were also 6th in the league with a +9 TO ratio. So much of what many are hoping for presumably also hinges on the notion that they will once again finish around 6th in the league in TO ratio.

 

Otherwise, for a team to have that kind of TO ratio and still stink the joint up both offensively and defensively really says precious little for it.

Having a TO ratio like that is, I think, a big reason why the Bills went 7-9. They were not a good team, but they were able to hang around in games by not turning the ball over and putting themselves behind the 8-ball. In other words, they played not to lose games well enough that they pulled out a 7-9 record.

 

As a corollary, if they had "opened it up" as Steve Fairchild was promising to do less than a year ago, they'd have been taking more chances and with chances come both higher rewards (scoring) and bigger risks (more turnovers). Do they open it up for real in 2008? How will that affect the turnover margin? Are the Bills good enough in 2008 to lose the turnover margin and still beat teams, like Dallas did to them in 2007?

 

Then there is the argument, since the Bills were in playoff contention right into the beginning of the last month of the season then it follows that the Bills are on the verge of being a playoff team or even greatness. The only problem is that 30 NFL teams can say the exact same thing -- only the Jets and Dolphins (over half of the Bills victories there) were eliminated from the playoffs earlier.

[ax4782]

Yep, I know. Given how bad the offense was, it doesn't really add up that the "sweeping changes", summed up as the promotion of a journeyman QB coach and the drafting of Hardy, is going to instantly propel the leaky quirt gun offense into the upper echelons of the NFL.

 

As far as TS and his talk, SF was saying all the right things less than a year ago as well. JPL was continuing to improve; the ball never hit the grass in practice; Lynch was a great receiving threat and might even be used at WR ala Marshall Faulk; the offense was going to be opened up a lot because the players had really taken to it and got it...

 

Having a TO ratio like that is, I think, a big reason why the Bills went 7-9. They were not a good team, but they were able to hang around in games by not turning the ball over and putting themselves behind the 8-ball. In other words, they played not to lose games well enough that they pulled out a 7-9 record.

 

As a corollary, if they had "opened it up" as Steve Fairchild was promising to do less than a year ago, they'd have been taking more chances and with chances come both higher rewards (scoring) and bigger risks (more turnovers). Do they open it up for real in 2008? How will that affect the turnover margin? Are the Bills good enough in 2008 to lose the turnover margin and still beat teams, like Dallas did to them in 2007?

 

Then there is the argument, since the Bills were in playoff contention right into the beginning of the last month of the season then it follows that the Bills are on the verge of being a playoff team or even greatness. The only problem is that 30 NFL teams can say the exact same thing -- only the Jets and Dolphins (over half of the Bills victories there) were eliminated from the playoffs earlier.

 

Actually, SF wasn't saying all the right things last year. Many people, including myself, were skeptical at the time that the team would be able to execute a Mike Martz style offense. We only had one receiver who could move down the field and our RB was an unproven rookie at the time. Our QB was unproven and had a horrible record as a starter, with a rookie as a backup. So, no, SF wasn't saying any of the right things at the beginning of the season. TS, on the other hand, seems to have a grasp of what the players in this offense can actually do. He has said that they intend to use shorter drops with more timing routes, and to get the backs involved. That IS something that the offense can do. I frankly could care less if we NEVER threw the ball 40+ yards all season, so long as the offense moves the chains and scores points. Opening it up doesn't necessarily mean throwing long 10 times a game. What it means is giving your offense more flexibility and not becoming predictable. Schonert seems to recognize that, and he isn't babying the team either.

 

Further, you never saw JP going to Florida and Arizona to work on timing and passing with Evans and Royal to make sure that both he and they stay on track after Evans was out of OTAs with an injury. Same with Royal. Further, the players are putting in much more time than they did last year working after practice. You didn't see JP asking the offense to stay after for extra work to make sure they were getting their mistakes corrected. Edwards is leading, rather than just accepting his position and taking it for granted. That is a significant difference from last year. All the onus for success isn't on the coaching staff. It's on the players too, and how much they are willing to do to win. The team is putting in the time this year and it will pay off.

 

Finally, Buffalo doesn't have to be a top-5 offense to make the playoffs. We need to get to somewhere in the mid twenties, IMO to make a solid run. The D will be improved. Stroud has shown no signs of a nagging injury with the ankle in the OTAs and both of the rookie receivers played well against the top coverage unit. Again, I don't expect Hardy to come out and have a 100-1300-12 season. I expect a 48-650-6 season out of him and if Johnson can have half that, I would say they were successful. And frankly, this argument that people make that winning the games you are supposed to win, like against the Jets and the Phins, are meaningless and can be dismissed, is just crap. Folks, teams that are good and improving win the games they are supposed to. Teams that are on the decline or who are currently terrible lose those games. The Bills have finally started to win those games. At least recognize that as being true. And the fact is that two of the loses we had last year, Denver and Dallas, were by a combined two points. So for as bad as the team was, we were two points away from a 9-7 record. All this talk that the team totally sucked and Dick Jauron is the worst coach ever is bull. You have said that all that matters is the record at the end of the season. So if the team had gone 9-7 with all the injuries and the problems, would you then say he was deserving of coach of the year? No you'd find another reason to say he sucks and that 9-7 was really not that good of a finish. And by the way, there were not 30 teams that were LEGITIMATELY in the playoff hunt with three weeks to go. There may have been 30 teams that were mathematically in contention, but that is not the same as saying there were thirty teams that were, with any realistic chance, in the playoff race.