Scouts Inc. Fantasy O-Line rankings

[Lv-Bills]

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.

Was Cassel throwing him the ball last year? And, yeah, if you pay attention at all to football, Welker was a pretty darn good WR on a terrible Miami team. He had the same attributes there. Thus, Bill Belicheck exclaiming that they picked him up in Free Agency because no one on NE's team could cover or stop him. Plus, he returned punts and kickoffs.

 

And again, I drafted Welker in my fantasy league because I have a point per reception league plus yardage league. He was dominant. I obviously didn't think he'd be that good, but I did have him penciled in as a starter at my #3 WR before last year. He obviously became a scoring machine.

 

Again, if you are in a point per reception league, Welker is a stud.

[krazykat]

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.

Once again, excellent points.

[krazykat]

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.

Yet, the converse isn't true, right?

 

That we beat the Jets and Fins by only three, the Ravens by 5 in a horrible game for us, and the Skins by 1 on a completely flukey ending that means we were also 12 points away from being 3-13.

 

If you're going to be fair, then you need to acknowledge both.

 

Also, did we outplay the Cowboys, or just capitalize off of their TOs? I mean could our D prevent them from moving the ball or could our O move the ball on them?

 

What about the Denver game? Who had more rushing yards, passing yards, total net yards?

 

This is getting silly.

[krazykat]

Was Cassel throwing him the ball last year? And, yeah, if you pay attention at all to football, Welker was a pretty darn good WR on a terrible Miami team. He had the same attributes there. Thus, Bill Belicheck exclaiming that they picked him up in Free Agency because no one on NE's team could cover or stop him. Plus, he returned punts and kickoffs.

 

And again, I drafted Welker in my fantasy league because I have a point per reception league plus yardage league. He was dominant. I obviously didn't think he'd be that good, but I did have him penciled in as a starter at my #3 WR before last year. He obviously became a scoring machine.

 

Again, if you are in a point per reception league, Welker is a stud.

LOL

 

OK, so you think that Welker was just as good in Miami with one receiving TD in two seasons and less yards in both seasons combined than he had in NE.

 

OK, noted.

 

I really don't know how to respond, but you can think what you want to. I will say that if you had told people prior to the start of last season that Welker would have almost 1,200 yards and 8 TDs you would have been laughed out of the room.

[dave mcbride]

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.

 

I actually agree with both of your main points here -- of course playing well in college should be factored into an evaluation, and of course rookie WRs usually don't produce much. My point is only that measurables (height, speed, etc. etc.) plus some level of decent production is a better way to evaluate a player than simply focusing on whether his production was superb. There are just too many variables when it comes to evaluating a player's production for a school like Indiana. It has traditionally sucked, yet it plays in a historically good conference with lots of schools that pump players into the pros; OSU, MSU, U of M, PSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, and to a lesser extent Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota. Indiana produces fewer pros than any of these schools, and pound for pound it's a good bit worse than even Northwestern in the last decade plus. But hey, we did get Victor Allotoy from IU!

[VOR]

krazycat's analysis/expectations for Hardy based on his college performance would be apropos if he were expected to be a #1 WR for the Bills. He isn't.

[krazykat]

I actually agree with both of your main points here -- of course playing well in college should be factored into an evaluation, and of course rookie WRs usually don't produce much. My point is only that measurables (height, speed, etc. etc.) plus some level of decent production is a better way to evaluate a player than simply focusing on whether his production was superb. There are just too many variables when it comes to evaluating a player's production for a school like Indiana. It has traditionally sucked, yet it plays in a historically good conference with lots of schools that pump players into the pros; OSU, MSU, U of M, PSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, and to a lesser extent Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota. Indiana produces fewer pros than any of these schools, and pound for pound it's a good bit worse than even Northwestern in the last decade plus. But hey, we did get Victor Allotoy from IU!

LOL on Allotay.

 

I suppose, but I've also followed these things for years now and it's unlikely that a player that has a hard time against the better of his opposing defenders and/or systems, etc. in college, will all of a sudden turn it on in the pros. Does it happen? Yes, but with relative infrequency at the WR position. The top WRs in the NFL don't change much from season to season. It's not as if five rookies join the list every year yet dozens are drafted and even more are picked up as UFAs that could easily have been 6th or 7th round picks.

 

Measurables paint only part of the picture and are extremely overrated. In fact one of the big sports writers wrote something to that very affect this offseason. Forget who it was. Maybe King. Measureables often fall flat too. Just look at the extensive list of annual busts that had great measurables. I look much more at how they actually performed than their measurables. Measurables are almost a 50/50 proposition whereas how a player handled the pressure and opposing talent of big games against top competition, either team or individual, IMO means much more.

 

Speed can't really be coached but it also isn't necessary for success as a WR in the NFL if other skills are present. What you as a scout ultimately look for is how coachable some of the lesser tier players are and how likely their weaknesses are to be improved via good coaching. Which raises another point. Good coaching. Not all coaching is good and it would be remiss to suggest that this team's coaching is at the top of that curve.

 

At least for a player that has stepped up in a big time situation against top caliber talent, both team and individual, you can catch a glimpse of something actually happening rather than having to wonder if it's even possible, which is the case with Hardy since he didn't do it at IU.

 

As you said, that doesn't always translate to the pros, but again, not having done it doesn't translate "doing it" to the pros either, and even less so. I mean it would be silly to argue that because a player hasn't done something that there's reason to believe he will when the going gets tougher.

[krazykat]

I actually agree with both of your main points here -- of course playing well in college should be factored into an evaluation, and of course rookie WRs usually don't produce much. My point is only that measurables (height, speed, etc. etc.) plus some level of decent production is a better way to evaluate a player than simply focusing on whether his production was superb. There are just too many variables when it comes to evaluating a player's production for a school like Indiana. It has traditionally sucked, yet it plays in a historically good conference with lots of schools that pump players into the pros; OSU, MSU, U of M, PSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, and to a lesser extent Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota. Indiana produces fewer pros than any of these schools, and pound for pound it's a good bit worse than even Northwestern in the last decade plus. But hey, we did get Victor Allotoy from IU!

As a case in point in fact, the knock on Kelsay was that he didn't play well against the top competition in college. Well, what is Kelsay today in the NFL? He's an OK DE, meaning a very average one, but if you look at where he has his big games, they are all against the worst teams and worst QBs with an exception or two now in what, four seasons. Nothing's changed. He rarely if ever steps up against the best and in the most meaningful games. And I don't mean in the annual what has become the "Squish the Dead Fish" game either.

[ax4782]

Yet, the converse isn't true, right?

 

That we beat the Jets and Fins by only three, the Ravens by 5 in a horrible game for us, and the Skins by 1 on a completely flukey ending that means we were also 12 points away from being 3-13.

 

If you're going to be fair, then you need to acknowledge both.

 

Also, did we outplay the Cowboys, or just capitalize off of their TOs? I mean could our D prevent them from moving the ball or could our O move the ball on them?

 

What about the Denver game? Who had more rushing yards, passing yards, total net yards?

 

This is getting silly.

 

I see. So when the Bills lose to Denver in a "completely flukey game" or lose to the Cowboys in a "completely flukey game" that was because we suck and can't play with the good teams. But when we beat the Redskins with the same type of fourth quarter drive, including an excellent read and throw by Edwards, that set up the game winning field goal with less than two minutes to play, that had nothing to do with solid play and execution by the offense.In my book, this is exactly the type of comment that shows you look at the Bills with fire and brimstone colored glasses and refuse to see any positive improvement by the team. I agree with some of your points. No we were not superb last year on D and the O was terrible. But I look at the changes and see a solid reason to expect improvement, not just because there is almost no way to do worse, but because the team is actually better and more competitive. Maybe I'm wrong, and if that day comes, I'll happily eat my dish of crow, served cold. That being said, I just think you are looking at everything about this team in completely the wrong way.

 

I'm wonderfully familiar with the theory of keep expectations low, such that, when they don't pan out, you won't be disappointed and if they turn out better than expected then hey, that makes the surprise even greater. But I think there are certain times where you can let that go. Try and see the positives here. The rookie QB that you seem to think is the worst in NFL history based on some of your prior posts, was 5-4 with those horrible stats, and he played well enough to keep us in a couple of close games that with even minimal improvement we would win next year. Let's try to be optimistic for a change, before the season. Save the pessimism for mid season when we know where the team actually is.

[krazykat]

krazycat's analysis/expectations for Hardy based on his college performance would be apropos if he were expected to be a #1 WR for the Bills. He isn't.

Not at all VOR. Hardy is clearly not a #1 WR type. No #1 WR has limited speed, difficulty with routes, questionable hands at times, etc. He's a purely #2 WR to begin with. If you're expecting more, then you will likely be very disappointed.

 

Having said that, it's not as if he's going to line up against the scrubs of the league each week at DB/LB either. And don't think LBs can cover him? I say they can since he's not that fast nor is a deep WR. I think we'll see faster LBs covering him or at least helping out frequently.

 

But it's not as if our team is so loaded with weapons that teams will have to choose between Hardy as the #2 or which other firepower Pro Bowl talent decides to cross the line of scrimmage, which is where your limited assessment falls flat on its face.

 

Teams won't have any trouble covering Hardy systematically. The question is how good will Hardy be relative to the people on him, can Edwards get him the ball, will we have enough balance otherwise on O, and will Schonert prove that he knows what he's doing. You can't answer those right now, so we will simply have to wait and see.

 

But to act as if, and assuming that Hardy is all that as a #2, teams having to cover two decent WRs is somehow foreign to them is ridiculous. Many teams have two or even three or four very good WRs. We have one until proven otherwise.

[krazykat]

I see. So when the Bills lose to Denver in a "completely flukey game" or lose to the Cowboys in a "completely flukey game" that was because we suck and can't play with the good teams. But when we beat the Redskins with the same type of fourth quarter drive, including an excellent read and throw by Edwards, that set up the game winning field goal with less than two minutes to play, that had nothing to do with solid play and execution by the offense.In my book, this is exactly the type of comment that shows you look at the Bills with fire and brimstone colored glasses and refuse to see any positive improvement by the team. I agree with some of your points. No we were not superb last year on D and the O was terrible. But I look at the changes and see a solid reason to expect improvement, not just because there is almost no way to do worse, but because the team is actually better and more competitive. Maybe I'm wrong, and if that day comes, I'll happily eat my dish of crow, served cold. That being said, I just think you are looking at everything about this team in completely the wrong way.

 

I'm wonderfully familiar with the theory of keep expectations low, such that, when they don't pan out, you won't be disappointed and if they turn out better than expected then hey, that makes the surprise even greater. But I think there are certain times where you can let that go. Try and see the positives here. The rookie QB that you seem to think is the worst in NFL history based on some of your prior posts, was 5-4 with those horrible stats, and he played well enough to keep us in a couple of close games that with even minimal improvement we would win next year. Let's try to be optimistic for a change, before the season. Save the pessimism for mid season when we know where the team actually is.

It's been pretty good so far, but if this keeps up, I won't respond to you anymore.

 

So when the Bills lose to Denver in a "completely flukey game" or lose to the Cowboys in a "completely flukey game" that was because we suck and can't play with the good teams.

 

That's pretty much a fact regarding those two games. We were dominated by both teams!

 

Denver ran at will on us and hit nearly 500 net yards. I'm sorry if you think that was a good, solid defensive effort in spite of their inability, under the Pro Bowl QB Cutler, to get into the EZ. Without our PR-TD we score 7 in that game, typically enough on a week to week basis for 0-16.

 

As to Dallas, ditto there. We couldn't stop Dallas, they stopped themselves. Rather Romo stopped them. In fact, if news came out that he threw that game for bucks would it shock anyone? His INTs were horrible and nowhere near the receivers in most cases. Otherwise, how many times in a season of 256 games does a team score three D/STs TDs? Is it a common occurrence? Something that you can count on? Something that is designed? If so, then why didn't we do it more often, particularly against far worse teams? But to suggest that we played well for even one quarter much less four is absurd. We had three fortunate plays in that game aided by Romo with a pathetic performance otherwise.

 

The Redskins were not good last year axp, and we only won, or were at least aided in the win, because of Gibbs' blunder, remember? And can you think of any other reason as to why the Skins may not have been at the top of their game that week last year!

 

And what about our close wins vs. Miami, the Jets, Ravens? How come the things that you argue in favor of the Bills don't seem to apply against them using the same exact logic yet going the other way? You're not being honest here.

 

The rookie QB that you seem to think is the worst in NFL history based on some of your prior posts, was 5-4 with those horrible stats, and he played well enough to keep us in a couple of close games that with even minimal improvement we would win next year.

 

I don't even know what to say there. If you think that Edwards was the "reason" why we were in close games last year with his pathetic performances, either statistically, from a TDs thrown perspective, TD/INT ratio, team offensive scoring, or whatever perspective, then think what you will since it's clear that in your mind the primary reason for a win any given week is the QB regardless of the circumstances. I just cannot think like that.

 

What I see, or don't see, in Edwards will bear itself out as either correct or incorrect this season. Really no need to discuss it until then.

[krazykat]

PS Show me another QB axp that threw for 0 TDs in 2/3 of his games and led his team to fewer than 10 offensive points in most of his games and yet had his team post a winning record on his watch? Can you find any?

 

If you can't, then I would suggest looking for other reasons as to why we won those games.

[VOR]

Not at all VOR. Hardy is clearly not a #1 WR type. No #1 WR has limited speed, difficulty with routes, questionable hands at times, etc. He's a purely #2 WR to begin with. If you're expecting more, then you will likely be very disappointed.

 

Having said that, it's not as if he's going to line up against the scrubs of the league each week at DB/LB either. And don't think LBs can cover him? I say they can since he's not that fast nor is a deep WR. I think we'll see faster LBs covering him or at least helping out frequently.

 

But it's not as if our team is so loaded with weapons that teams will have to choose between Hardy as the #2 or which other firepower Pro Bowl talent decides to cross the line of scrimmage, which is where your limited assessment falls flat on its face.

 

Teams won't have any trouble covering Hardy systematically. The question is how good will Hardy be relative to the people on him, can Edwards get him the ball, will we have enough balance otherwise on O, and will Schonert prove that he knows what he's doing. You can't answer those right now, so we will simply have to wait and see.

 

But to act as if, and assuming that Hardy is all that as a #2, teams having to cover two decent WRs is somehow foreign to them is ridiculous. Many teams have two or even three or four very good WRs. We have one until proven otherwise.

I'm not expecting anything more out of Hardy than to be the #2 WR and to draw coverage away from Evans. With 4.45 speed (that's "limited?" ), a 6.84 3-cone, a 4.20 short shuttle, and a 37" VJ, at 6'6" and 220#, it's not like teams can simplistically ignore him, much less put a LB'er (LOL!) on him. Route running will come in time. And even if he did have "limited" speed, you want your #2 to be a big possession-type WR. So why focus on speed?

 

As for no other threats, there's a RB and there's a slot receiver named Reed. That's what we know of so far.

[ax4782]

It's been pretty good so far, but if this keeps up, I won't respond to you anymore.

 

So when the Bills lose to Denver in a "completely flukey game" or lose to the Cowboys in a "completely flukey game" that was because we suck and can't play with the good teams.

 

That's pretty much a fact regarding those two games. We were dominated by both teams!

 

Denver ran at will on us and hit nearly 500 net yards. I'm sorry if you think that was a good, solid defensive effort in spite of their inability, under the Pro Bowl QB Cutler, to get into the EZ. Without our PR-TD we score 7 in that game, typically enough on a week to week basis for 0-16.

 

As to Dallas, ditto there. We couldn't stop Dallas, they stopped themselves. Rather Romo stopped them. In fact, if news came out that he threw that game for bucks would it shock anyone? His INTs were horrible and nowhere near the receivers in most cases. Otherwise, how many times in a season of 256 games does a team score three D/STs TDs? Is it a common occurrence? Something that you can count on? Something that is designed? If so, then why didn't we do it more often, particularly against far worse teams? But to suggest that we played well for even one quarter much less four is absurd. We had three fortunate plays in that game aided by Romo with a pathetic performance otherwise.

 

The Redskins were not good last year axp, and we only won, or were at least aided in the win, because of Gibbs' blunder, remember? And can you think of any other reason as to why the Skins may not have been at the top of their game that week last year!

 

And what about our close wins vs. Miami, the Jets, Ravens? How come the things that you argue in favor of the Bills don't seem to apply against them using the same exact logic yet going the other way? You're not being honest here.

 

The rookie QB that you seem to think is the worst in NFL history based on some of your prior posts, was 5-4 with those horrible stats, and he played well enough to keep us in a couple of close games that with even minimal improvement we would win next year.

 

I don't even know what to say there. If you think that Edwards was the "reason" why we were in close games last year with his pathetic performances, either statistically, from a TDs thrown perspective, TD/INT ratio, team offensive scoring, or whatever perspective, then think what you will since it's clear that in your mind the primary reason for a win any given week is the QB regardless of the circumstances. I just cannot think like that.

 

What I see, or don't see, in Edwards will bear itself out as either correct or incorrect this season. Really no need to discuss it until then.

 

 

And yet, we lost both of those games only at the last second. Again, statistics don't tell the whole story.

[Lv-Bills]

LOL

 

OK, so you think that Welker was just as good in Miami with one receiving TD in two seasons and less yards in both seasons combined than he had in NE.

 

OK, noted.

 

I really don't know how to respond, but you can think what you want to. I will say that if you had told people prior to the start of last season that Welker would have almost 1,200 yards and 8 TDs you would have been laughed out of the room.

No, his stats weren't just as good. But, if you watched him, yes, he was just as good. He tore up the Bills a couple of seasons ago in RWS, and I remember sitting there with a Dolphins fans asking......."who in the hell is that little white guy?" He was like ......"that's Wes Welker, and he's pretty damn good, we just can't get him the ball" or something like that. They always forced the ball to Chambers but Welker was starting to have a knack for making plays. He was already good at returning kicks and punts.

 

When Lee Evans can go from a pro bowl type year, to the drivel he produced last year, it's not secret that a team's offense can make a player non-noticeable.

 

Then, Belicheck exclaims that they picked up Welker because no one on his team could cover him.....you start thinking.......let's see.....Randy Moss and Stallworth on the outside.......Maroney running the ball (I thought he was actually going to have a monster year, he didn't), Welker should do all kinds of damage on the inside. Plus you get points for punt returns and kickoff returns on your defensive scoring.

 

Add it all up, and I thought Welker would have about 70 catches, 3 or 4 TD's and pts from special teams. Then he absolutely exploded.

 

So, in all, yeah, I thought Welker would be a very good fantasy player. I can understand if some people didn't. After all, they get their fantasy reports from sites like RF365. If you had any clue about football, you would have known that Welker would be more than serviceable in NE. That was a lock. But no, no one thought he'd be quite as good as he was......not really because of his talent or help with Moss and company......NE just threw the damn ball every friggin down it seemed like. Someone had to make all those catches.

[dave mcbride]

As a case in point in fact, the knock on Kelsay was that he didn't play well against the top competition in college. Well, what is Kelsay today in the NFL? He's an OK DE, meaning a very average one, but if you look at where he has his big games, they are all against the worst teams and worst QBs with an exception or two now in what, four seasons. Nothing's changed. He rarely if ever steps up against the best and in the most meaningful games. And I don't mean in the annual what has become the "Squish the Dead Fish" game either.

He's a bad case for this particular argument, because if memory serves, his measurables were only OK - hardly as impressive as Umenyiora, who was drafted a few spots later. A better person to compare him with is a guy like Josh Reed, truth be told -- a good college player with OK talent who becomes an OK pro player (and anyone who can last 8 years in the NFL -- as these two probably will -- is at least OK). For 48th overall or whatever he was, Kelsay has performed to expectations (pretty much).

[dave mcbride]

No, his stats weren't just as good. But, if you watched him, yes, he was just as good. He tore up the Bills a couple of seasons ago in RWS, and I remember sitting there with a Dolphins fans asking......."who in the hell is that little white guy?" He was like ......"that's Wes Welker, and he's pretty damn good, we just can't get him the ball" or something like that. They always forced the ball to Chambers but Welker was starting to have a knack for making plays. He was already good at returning kicks and punts.

 

When Lee Evans can go from a pro bowl type year, to the drivel he produced last year, it's not secret that a team's offense can make a player non-noticeable.

 

Then, Belicheck exclaims that they picked up Welker because no one on his team could cover him.....you start thinking.......let's see.....Randy Moss and Stallworth on the outside.......Maroney running the ball (I thought he was actually going to have a monster year, he didn't), Welker should do all kinds of damage on the inside. Plus you get points for punt returns and kickoff returns on your defensive scoring.

 

Add it all up, and I thought Welker would have about 70 catches, 3 or 4 TD's and pts from special teams. Then he absolutely exploded.

 

So, in all, yeah, I thought Welker would be a very good fantasy player. I can understand if some people didn't. After all, they get their fantasy reports from sites like RF365. If you had any clue about football, you would have known that Welker would be more than serviceable in NE. That was a lock. But no, no one thought he'd be quite as good as he was......not really because of his talent or help with Moss and company......NE just threw the damn ball every friggin down it seemed like. Someone had to make all those catches.

Actually, before last season started a close friend who is a lifelong hardcore Pats fan (and very knowledgeable - certainly more than me) thought that Welker was going to have a huge year. In fact, when they pulled off that Welker deal, he e-mailed me right away and said you watch, he's going to have a huge season - he's better than the other guys who've been the recipients of Brady's largesse (Givens, Troy Brown, Patten, Branch, etc.).

[krazykat]

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?

What do you think now about the FB situation?

 

Just curious.

 

And it looks to me that you're one step closer to being wrong.

[krazykat]

There is Hardy and ...? (Are people serious that Barnes and/or Viti are difference makers?) And now the Lynch legal trouble.

If they are then they will have to revise their basis for hope.

[Pyrite Gal]

What do you think now about the FB situation?

 

Just curious.

 

And it looks to me that you're one step closer to being wrong.

It has struck me for a while that given the journeyman talent and the now cut Viti being what we had at FB that the answer seemed to be more 3 WR sets and not really making the FB more than a sometimes part of our offense. I really see no answer for us with the FB talent we have on the roster to rely at all on the traditional FB mold.

 

Though I think that those who somehow seem to hold out the proposition that Viti was a beast who would allow us to play a Sam Gash smashmouth kind of ball were pretty close to psychotic, I also think that folks go overboard when they say we have no answer at WR.

 

Are we loaded at WR?

 

Nope.

 

We do not have the depth to make that claim nor do we have a bunch of surefire #1 WRs to credibly claim we are loaded.

 

However, it could easily work that though we are not loaded, the WRs we do have are mutants in a number of specific ways that IF we avoid injury and the players play up to talent levels which they have already demonstrated, the WR passing portion of the game could easily be quite formidable and a big part of the game.

 

Specifically,

 

Evans- Mutant speed and a demonstrated ability to have exceptional games and achieve great things in episodes (such as the game last year where he caught 2 70+ yard TDs or the one where he registered 3 TDs against the Fins. He has not shown the full season consistency which legitimately would have earned him Pro Bowl status. However, even his spotty performance last year I found to be incredibly impressive as he brought off the great episodes without Fairchild running an O with a credible #2 threat, which made use of the RBs as receivers (a failing I think falls on Fairchild as folks like Lynch and Wright had good receiving records in college and even WM produced much more as a receiver away from Fairchild) and which never employed the TE effectively besides sometimes spasms with Gaines. The fact Evans did what he did (not to mention the QB disruption) was quite impressive. Just get the contract done Oberdorfer.

 

Hardy- The least credible arguments you seem to make are the negative take you have on Hardy. Is he perfect? Nope? Do #2 WRs actually tend to produce numbers as rookies not unlike PP's last year? No they do not.

 

However, I think the summary produced on Bills' Daily about Hardy is pretty accurate IMHO > WR James Hardy Indiana 6-6, 217, 4.49 - Hardy is a tall receiver with a great reach. Gets open quickly and has good speed for his tremendous size. Can take a hit and has good hands. His size allows him to shield defensive backs from the ball. Needs to work on his route running abilities and may have trouble separating from top corners at this level. Hardy will step right in to help the red zone defense. He scored 36 touchdowns in three seasons and should be great for jump balls in the end zone. Likely a starter early in the season if not on opening day.

 

<

 

This perspective, his Combine numbers which support the view he has good speed and not the limited speed you site above, and the descriptions of his actual college games indicate to me that he should do a lot for the threat the Bills pose in the redzone and while opponents are used to facing two good WRs, they will have tough choices to make as the set their coverages, They will be virtually forced to put their tall guy or at least someone who can elevate on Hardy. If the Bills use more 3 WR sets because of their poor FB selection then Parrish has demonstrated the ability as a return guy and some surprisingly tough good work over the middle after his initial injury (he made all 16 two years in a row and improved his reception total each of his three years) the other team is virtually forced to put a fast good cover guy on the slot receiver. Now this leaves Evans who also demands speed from a DB and who now becomes difficult to double well if your tall guy and a somewhat fast guy are committed to the #2 and #3.

 

Add to this when the Bills go 4 WRs that Reed feasted on the DB designated to cover our #3 as a rookie when opposing DCs found a need to double both Moulds and the young PP and he gets a chance to do this as a vet now.

 

The Bills WRs if they avoid injury and if the performed as the have in the past as pros (or in college when Hardy was racking up 30+ TDs in his career) the WR threat shows good possibility of being quite impressive.

 

Sure it could suck to, but there is not objective evidence to offer that it will be a big problem and there is good objective evidence to indicate it may well be quite substantial.