Scouts Inc. on the Bills "O"

[obie_wan]

Sorry, but that pass had very little zip to it. It was heaved into the air and looked more like a punt than a pass. If we were playing anyone but the Dolphins it would have been defended. Edwards simply doesn't have very good arm strength when it comes to the deep passes. He excels at the short to medium range passing game and does have an excellent quick release, but you can't start telling us he has very good arm strength because of that deep lollipop pass against the fins. Arm strength is there when the ball is thrown deep with some zip to it.

 

sort of like that pass JP threw against the Jets

[34-78-83]

Sorry, but that pass had very little zip to it. It was heaved into the air and looked more like a punt than a pass. If we were playing anyone but the Dolphins it would have been defended. Edwards simply doesn't have very good arm strength when it comes to the deep passes. He excels at the short to medium range passing game and does have an excellent quick release, but you can't start telling us he has very good arm strength because of that deep lollipop pass against the fins. Arm strength is there when the ball is thrown deep with some zip to it.

 

I think you need to watch that throw again. It's on the season highlights clip on the official Bills site. It was anything but a heaved punt. If anything it was more like a line-drive well timed throw that could have had more air under it, if not for the perfect timing he implemented.

[1billsfan]

Save them for when you need them.

 

Yes, because the Bills surely didn't need them the twenty or so times the Bills went touchdownless in the redzone. Worst in the league. I think if you're worst in the league and a trick play has worked for you, you might want to try it again at least one more freaking time. But this is Jauron's calling card. Hit one jackpot, leave the casino and never go back again. I feel sorry for any player that's had to play on offense with this guy as their head coach. Count Dickula, he'll suck the life out of any NFL offense under his command as a head coach.

[Pyrite Gal]

My sense of the O issues raised in this report and in reality are:

 

1. How will our scheme man and utilize the short passing game?

 

Particularly if we are going to run something which can be classified as a West Coast offense, the Bills will need to establish with clarity the short passing game which was really nothing short of pathetic when one looks at the actual production last year. TE Royal led this unit with all of 25 catches and even worse, RB Jackson led this crew with 22. If this is truly going to be a weapon which we utilize we need to double what it takes to be the team leader at these positions. If we want other teams to fear this weapon we have to triple the real world production of the team leader at these positions.

 

We theoretically have players with the tools to do this at RB where Lynch demonstrated good receiving skills in college and back-up Wright also showed some potential with this aspect of his game. However, to actually double their output would seem to require a virtual complete retooling of our O approach and the difference between theory and reality is so huge for doubling the output as to be doubtful and tripling it would seem an impossible fantasy.

 

At TE, 25 catches was a career year in output for Royal and TE would most likely be considered as a 6th blocker in past Bills usage so turning this position into a true receiving option (much less a threat) would seem to require a major retool by Schonert.

 

I simply do not realistically see how we expect this to work consistently and we seem a good year away from having effective short passing production.

 

2.The OL challenge is huge but can possibly be met by the starters.

 

I think one reasonably can feel good about our starting OL prospects as individuals and reasonably hopeful that the chemistry which was showing signs of emerging will blossom in what will virtually be a second full season together for this unit. Individually-

 

Peters- Consensus agreement in the NFL that he is the real deal at LT as he was elected to the Pro Bowl. A great achievement for any 5th year player and phenomenal for a UDFA at the key LT role. Part of the first Bills OL to start 15 games together in recent memory which gave up the fewest sacks in Bills history ever. Most feel a deal is a deal and he signed up for a long time but his accomplishments lead even those of us who feel morally a deal is a deal realistically simply show him the money. Resigning him with a huge pay raise simply suits the Bills interests so really just get her done.

 

Dockery- Gives Bills a powerful tandem on the left side and needs to achieve Kent Hulllike status as the team leader to meet expectations for his experience and the amount of money he gets to be considered successful. He is set up to do this. We'll see but I certainly hope this is the case and almost believe it will be.

 

Fowler- I had little doubts he was a talented player when we got him as he was someone I wanted us to draft when he hit the league. However, he never proved himself at stops in Cleveland as the team drafted Faine (since gone from Cleveland) to be their center for a long time with Fowler on the team. He settled in MN as deep back-up in Matt Birk's IR year, but lo and behold asserted himself to become the starter on a team with running productivity. Pro Bowler Birk came back and he was available. He was gettable as nagging injury issues seeded doubts about him.

 

However, having started 16 games two years in a row he has answered the injury question. Further, he has shown that he is a smart and mobile player showing athleticism to allow him to be a pulling center on outside rushes. Not so fast though because though Fowler appears to me (and obviously to the Bills coaches who have not even acquired someone to challenge him) to be adequate as a player no one mistakes this average starting center for a Pro Bowl candidate. Particularly since us Bills fans were spoiled by the very good skills and even better leadership of a Kent Hull at center, Fowler though he called blocking assignments for an OL which gave up few sacks overall, they never have generated the authoritative push one demands from an OL. Fowler's athleticism breeds complaints he is light in the loafers in terms of weight and authoritative push. And Fowler has a lot to prove on the field of play before he merits much confidence. Can he produce on the field in an overwhelming way? Maybe he is talented and he is young but he still has to show more.

 

Butler- Not only did he start 16 games at a non-college position for him, but he clearly fell in the draft not due to a questionable talent but due to one low class move in college (clearly cheapshotting a defenseless opponent) which earned him a suspension. However, he showed his talent by mastering a new position to such a level he was rewarded with big bucks. It is very reasonable to be hopeful about him.

 

Walker- its very hard to teach big and this is a big boy. Playing for Oakland raised questions about his NFL performance, but yet he did show some signs of talent last year and like much of the rest of the OL is young player who can improve with more coaching and the building of chemistry.

 

Overall, I think one has to be quite psyched about the prospects for this OL. However, one also needs to live in great fear of any injuries as the back-ups are simply unimpressive players like Chambers or talented guys a bit long in the tooth like Wittle.

 

The low total sack numbers were real and should not be ignored (though JPs fleet footedness and Edwards quick release are part of the story here. All Bills fans can help by praying to the deity of their choice for OL health.

 

3. The WR situation could work well (but probably will not this year.

 

Evans needs to show that the real Evans was the one we saw his first two years and that last years drop off in his production was likely due to the failure of the Fairchild O to use the getting older skills of PP at #2 WR well. The failure to use the RBs well as receivers or get much out of the TE were also factors which left Evans as the only real threat outside occaisional good use of Parrish.

 

Parrish has impressed me alot with how he bounced back from the initial injury to demonstrate he can produce in the slot.

 

Yet, we are dependent on one player (who already has had a troubled start with the law) producing at #2. He is another big boy and his mere presence and college rep should create more opportunities than last year for Evans. The bad news is that even if Hardy avoids the slow start of an NFL career which has fallen many a highly valued WR, that if he produces at about the level of the few WRs who made an impact immediately his numbers will look a lot like PPs last year.

 

QB- A lot of the debate has been much ado about nothing. Edwards looks like the real deal but likely still needs a year or two. The thought his arm is weak I think is silly and the strength tests he took at the Combine raised no red flags. I think him not hitting the long bomb yet is more a question of footwork IMHO which does not allow Edwards to get everything behind his throws.

 

My sense is that JP is actually a better QB right now, but in the long run Edwards has far more upside. JP is also done as a Bill since he declared his final start of last season make or break for him and he unfortunately broke, Even his teammates have lost faith in him asthe new messiah. t would not take much to win back his teammates with a solid performance, but I doubt local media and a few vocal fans would allow this.

 

Overall, we are fine this year training the O, but I doubt this O is going to be productive as we want this year.

[Pyrite Gal]

Sorry, but that pass had very little zip to it. It was heaved into the air and looked more like a punt than a pass. If we were playing anyone but the Dolphins it would have been defended. Edwards simply doesn't have very good arm strength when it comes to the deep passes. He excels at the short to medium range passing game and does have an excellent quick release, but you can't start telling us he has very good arm strength because of that deep lollipop pass against the fins. Arm strength is there when the ball is thrown deep with some zip to it.

There are several tests at the Combine that measure raw arm strength and I do not remember the exact numbers for amount of weight or number of reps Edwards was able to do. However, when a player (particularly a QB) comes up short or does much less than the norm on these tests then the prospect draws the label of weak armed and tends to plummet in the draft ratings and guesses.

 

Edwards was generally seen as a possible but unlikely 1st round choice but a definite by the 2nd round pick. When the Bills 3rd round choice came around the Bills pick was seen as a surprise. In part this was because after an improving near the end of the 07 season Losman was seen as our definite QB, but also because it was generally agreed that Edwards would be gone by round 3.

 

From what I have seen Edwards problems are not due to a weak arm (actually to some extent a problem which can be mitigated through careful weight training is needed as increased muscles can throw off mechanics) but due to poor footwork which does not allow him to get his full "arm" behind a throw. This mechanical technique problem can also be improced through work.

 

I think the weak armed Edwards complaint is a myth.

[obie_wan]

There are several tests at the Combine that measure raw arm strength and I do not remember the exact numbers for amount of weight or number of reps Edwards was able to do. However, when a player (particularly a QB) comes up short or does much less than the norm on these tests then the prospect draws the label of weak armed and tends to plummet in the draft ratings and guesses.

 

Edwards was generally seen as a possible but unlikely 1st round choice but a definite by the 2nd round pick. When the Bills 3rd round choice came around the Bills pick was seen as a surprise. In part this was because after an improving near the end of the 07 season Losman was seen as our definite QB, but also because it was generally agreed that Edwards would be gone by round 3.

 

From what I have seen Edwards problems are not due to a weak arm (actually to some extent a problem which can be mitigated through careful weight training is needed as increased muscles can throw off mechanics) but due to poor footwork which does not allow him to get his full "arm" behind a throw. This mechanical technique problem can also be improced through work.

 

I think the weak armed Edwards complaint is a myth.

 

being able to throw effectively down the field is dependant on a strong core, not so much just a strong arm.

 

just like a pitcher, power is generated from teh legs and body, not just the arm

 

Edwards will be fine.

 

With the arn he has, he is able to deliver the ball to WRs in a position for them to generate yards after the catch.

[marauderswr80]

I kinda thought Edwards has a decent arm. Look at that Miami game he launched the ball. Not his fault most pass plays were under 10 yards. I think Edwards has a stronger arm then we all think.

[krazykat]

2.The OL challenge is huge but can possibly be met by the starters.

Pretty decent post PG!

 

I guess my question regarding the line continues to be the same. I don't disagree to strongly with your statements although I'd say you overrated Dockerly slightly and Butler as well. Fowler to me is a better depth player too.

 

Otherwise, you paint the picture of a line that played OK but not great to be certain.

 

What then was the cause for our offense being the least productive in the NFL last year and particularly under Edwards where it got even less productive on a per-game average basis?

 

I mean we hear that the line was OK, Edwards played very well for a rookie, Lynch obviously had a good season. While the WRs were disappointing Evans is still easily a top 20 WR if not more.

 

So why then did our O stink to the point of being the worst in the league then?

[krazykat]

There are several tests at the Combine that measure raw arm strength and I do not remember the exact numbers for amount of weight or number of reps Edwards was able to do. However, when a player (particularly a QB) comes up short or does much less than the norm on these tests then the prospect draws the label of weak armed and tends to plummet in the draft ratings and guesses.

 

Edwards was generally seen as a possible but unlikely 1st round choice but a definite by the 2nd round pick. When the Bills 3rd round choice came around the Bills pick was seen as a surprise. In part this was because after an improving near the end of the 07 season Losman was seen as our definite QB, but also because it was generally agreed that Edwards would be gone by round 3.

 

From what I have seen Edwards problems are not due to a weak arm (actually to some extent a problem which can be mitigated through careful weight training is needed as increased muscles can throw off mechanics) but due to poor footwork which does not allow him to get his full "arm" behind a throw. This mechanical technique problem can also be improced through work.

 

I think the weak armed Edwards complaint is a myth.

 

Here was a very fair assessment of him coming out of Stanford:

 

Strengths:

Edwards possess the arm strength and has the size to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He was a top prospect out of high school and has the intangibles to be a solid player. He has outstanding mechanics and a quick release.

 

Weaknesses:

It is difficult to accurately project Edwards, because he played with such an inferior supporting cast at Stanford. He was often injured playing behind a poor offensive line and did not have the playmakers around him to succeed. He does not throw the deep ball exceptionally well at this point. He must work on improving his reads as he did not get to play as much as you would like at Stanford.

 

Overall:

Edwards is more of a project then an immediate starter in the NFL. His workouts will go a long way in determining his draft status and he must prove to NFL scouts that he can stay healthy and make good decisions. The raw physical tools and intangibles are there to be molded into a starting quarterback, given time and the right coaching.

 

Here is another:

 

Positives:

 

Trent Edwards possesses prototypical NFL size at 6-4, 230+ pounds, and has the ability to stand tall in the pocket to make every throw. Not afraid of taking a hit, he gives his receivers the extra split second they need to make their breaks. He has more-than-adequate scrambling ability and can bootleg or escape the pocket to make a play. Teammates praise his leadership skills and competitiveness. Edwards finishes his Stanford career in the top 10 of every major passing statistic.

 

Negatives:

Edwards has had trouble keeping himself upright, partly due to a sub-par offensive line, but also because he holds on to the ball way too long in hopes of making a big play. He was getting sacked at a rate of almost four per game through the first half of the 2006 season, compiling an 0-6 record during that stretch.

Taking all those hits has lead to several injury problems during his career, including issues with his throwing shoulder during his sophomore season and missing the final five games of the 2006 season with a broken right foot. Decision making was also, clearly, a problem as his career passing percentage is around 54% with just three more touchdowns than interceptions in his 31 starts. Edwards has compiled a career record of only 11-20, appearing in 35 games.

 

Overview:

Coming into the 2006 season, Edwards was a popular choice as this year's Jay Culter. But a slow start coming out of the blocks, both in wins and loses as well as statistically, was causing his stock to fall long before the broken foot put him on the shelf for the remainder of the year. Edwards will be completely healthy, though, in time for the NFL Combine and could see a turn around in his fortune, if he can display the physical traits that impressed in the first place.

Edwards never did play in a bowl game or beat a team ranked in the top 25, so it's hard to say if he can shine on a big stage. He could be a capable back up in the NFL, though the high hopes at the beginning of the year that Edwards could be a first day pick should be put to rest.

 

The bottom line is that Edwards was a risky pick. He didn't have a track record of success at Stanford for which the best that can be done with that is dismiss it under the guises that he didn't have a great supporting cast. But that alone doesn't spell success at the NFL level obviously.

 

To make matters worse, he doesn' t have the best cast here either pending further review. Our OL isn't great to be sure. Our WRs are probably better than average or at least around average at worst with Evans in there. Lynch is average to above average so he has that.

 

Still, thus far JP has done more with less than Edwards has. So we'll see what happens with Edwards not a rookie anymore.

 

I agree with the reviews that he was and is more of a project and risk than a sure starter. He is composed in the pocket, but you have to question his reads and decision making in light of that particularly when you coupled that composure/poise with the fact that so little production accompanied it by pretty much any measure other than the lack of sacks.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Here was a very fair assessment of him coming out of Stanford:

 

Strengths:

Edwards possess the arm strength and has the size to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He was a top prospect out of high school and has the intangibles to be a solid player. He has outstanding mechanics and a quick release.

The mechanics and quick release, especially when compared to the unpolished play of JPL, are a big factor in the "poise" argument. He's just so fluid, he's got to be a good QB.

Weaknesses:

It is difficult to accurately project Edwards, because he played with such an inferior supporting cast at Stanford. He was often injured playing behind a poor offensive line and did not have the playmakers around him to succeed. He does not throw the deep ball exceptionally well at this point. He must work on improving his reads as he did not get to play as much as you would like at Stanford.

Not much changed when Edwards got to the pros -- how good a pro he'll end up being is still uncertain, and some suggest the fault lies with the other 10 guys on the offense (or the illogical notion that the problem is the backup QB's fault).

Overall:

Edwards is more of a project then an immediate starter in the NFL. His workouts will go a long way in determining his draft status and he must prove to NFL scouts that he can stay healthy and make good decisions. The raw physical tools and intangibles are there to be molded into a starting quarterback, given time and the right coaching.[/i]

Well, one way to keep a brittle QB on the field is to not let him get hit. How did the Bills do that? They leaned on the running game (built around another rookie and a geriatric) and ultra short passing game. Edwards quick release and reliance on pre-snap reads fit well in an aerial game designed to stretch the backfield horizontally. The Bills offense had almost no vertical passing game (IIRC, it was less than 20 plays) to speak of and certainly were no threat to stretch, making Fairchild's comments that they "couldn't get teams to back off" not exactly profound. Does this address Edwards decision making? His INT% of 3.0 isn't horrible, but it wasn't fantastic either (8 INTs/7 TDs). Considering the passing system employed, one could make the argument that a 3.0 is poor for a QB that took so few chances down the field and sacks. The "decision making" is further muddled by the heavy reliance on pre-snap reads and quick, minimal routes. Edwards just wasn't asked to stand in the pocket and go through his progression and try to make plays in the defensive secondary. Was that because he was a rookie? Was it to keep him healthy? Was it because the Bills receivers suck? Was it because the line sucked? Was it because Edwards wasn't ready and didn't know the offense well enough?

 

Let's go back to Fairchild's comment. "We can't get them to back off of us." Superficially, this comment is profoundly dumb. Fairchild is calling conservative plays, runs and very short passes. How did a guy that can't put the cause and effect together here get a job as an NFL football coach? Are we to believe that the Bills hired a knuckle-walking drooler such as that to outsmart Bill Belichick?!? Is there any other reason for Fairchild to so baldly state the supremely obvious and even implicate his own role?

[obie_wan]

The mechanics and quick release, especially when compared to the unpolished play of JPL, are a big factor in the "poise" argument. He's just so fluid, he's got to be a good QB.

 

Not much changed when Edwards got to the pros -- how good a pro he'll end up being is still uncertain, and some suggest the fault lies with the other 10 guys on the offense (or the illogical notion that the problem is the backup QB's fault).

 

Well, one way to keep a brittle QB on the field is to not let him get hit. How did the Bills do that? They leaned on the running game (built around another rookie and a geriatric) and ultra short passing game. Edwards quick release and reliance on pre-snap reads fit well in an aerial game designed to stretch the backfield horizontally. The Bills offense had almost no vertical passing game (IIRC, it was less than 20 plays) to speak of and certainly were no threat to stretch, making Fairchild's comments that they "couldn't get teams to back off" not exactly profound. Does this address Edwards decision making? His INT% of 3.0 isn't horrible, but it wasn't fantastic either (8 INTs/7 TDs). Considering the passing system employed, one could make the argument that a 3.0 is poor for a QB that took so few chances down the field and sacks. The "decision making" is further muddled by the heavy reliance on pre-snap reads and quick, minimal routes. Edwards just wasn't asked to stand in the pocket and go through his progression and try to make plays in the defensive secondary. Was that because he was a rookie? Was it to keep him healthy? Was it because the Bills receivers suck? Was it because the line sucked? Was it because Edwards wasn't ready and didn't know the offense well enough?

 

Let's go back to Fairchild's comment. "We can't get them to back off of us." Superficially, this comment is profoundly dumb. Fairchild is calling conservative plays, runs and very short passes. How did a guy that can't put the cause and effect together here get a job as an NFL football coach? Are we to believe that the Bills hired a knuckle-walking drooler such as that to outsmart Bill Belichick?!? Is there any other reason for Fairchild to so baldly state the supremely obvious and even implicate his own role?

 

You would think the head coach would offer a little helpful advice.

 

He is, after all, responsibile

[krazykat]

can someone cite something that actually supports that the Bills will be converting to a WCO.

 

I think this is a fallacy.

 

Bills wil run what they ran last year - which had a focus on quick releases.

 

not necesarily a WCO.

I agree with this so called conversion to the WCO. Schonert has said/implied the opposite.

 

We will have to get away from what we ran last year. It was good to let Edwards get his feet wet, but we couldn't move the ball or score, and that had more to do with simply missing a WR. He's going to have to do some 7-step drops and do some pocket sitting here and there if we're going to be productive.

 

Having all of these three step drops and 2/3 yard completions is death by papercut.

[krazykat]

1.) So, 6 and 7 man fronts are something new? Clue: EVERY base defense in the league presents a 6 or 7 man front. Teams will routinely stack the LOS with 8 or 9 to stop the run, man-over Evans, and DARE us to beat them one-on-one with anyone else. Just like last year. Look for more of the same until we can PROVE we can hurt teams with either another WR or TE. Until then it's stack the LOS, take away RUNNING lanes, outnumber blockers at the POA, and blitz like crazy. Again, just like last year. Edwards and the O would LOVE to see 6 or 7 man fronts. Won't happen unless we spread the formations.

 

2) Every player on the Bills OL can move VERY well in space. When we ran out of single back spread formations last year we were VERY successful BECAUSE they can all move well in space. ESPECIALLY to the right (Butler's and Walker's side). It would be nice to spread the field more to LET them enjoy more space. But that's more simple said than done for a lot of reasons. The least of which have to do with whether or not the Oline can work from spread formations.

 

3.) The FB isn't a trait in the WCO? That's just plain wrong. See 49ers, FBs during Walsh years (Earl Cooper, Roger Craig just to name two) and tell me if the man widely considered to be the architect of the WCO didn't utilize the FB. Especially one that could catch.

 

4.) You're right about the defense. That's gonna HAVE to carry us. No doubt.

 

5.) I have the same feeling Edwards will see lots of pressure. Just like every young QB does UNTIL he shows he can beat it. That will require legitimate receiving threats other than Evans who can exploit the single coverage Evans allows. Especially those that can read a defense and adjust.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

1. Completely false. When I say front, I mean 6 or 7 on the line, just like they did to us with Bledsoe. You're going to see the same exact thing this year and Edwards doesn't scare any DC nearly as much as Bledsoe did. So we could very well be in a world of hurt there. Otherwise, many 4-3 teams line up four on the line throughout most of the game. I think you've been watching to much Bills defense.

 

2. I would challenge that too. Dockery is noted for not being good in space. He's our second best lineman. I don't think that anyone is going to rant about Butler or Fowler's play in space. Besides, how often do our guys have the option of playing in space? That typically happens when an offense can spread the D out some which we haven't proven to be able to do. If anything teams stunt us, making "space" a luxury, and are very effective at it. Regardless, Dockery clearly has his space play as an issue and otherwise I'm sure we can sit here and discuss how many plays the OL men were in space or not, but that's a waste of our time.

 

In fact however, Dockery is ill suited to zone blocking, which is what we're going to do. Fowler's more "suited" to it as are most Cs due to their smaller size, but he's just not that good. Butler's a msytery. But I would say this, you're not going to be very effective at zone blocking if your Gs suck at it.

 

3. Correct. A catching FB. Have we got one on the roster? No, we don't. So yes, a purely blocking FB ain't a fixture in the WCO. A FB in the WCO absolutely must be able to catch. Is Barnes a good receiver? Nope. In six seasons Barnes has fewer catches than you have fingers and toes, unless you lost some.

 

Jonathon Evans is your other choice. You want to rely on Evans to run our WCO?

 

Regardless, the problem with all of this is that Schonert spoke of using a FB in a traditiona sense, block for Lynch, not to be used in the passing game. Clearly the team hasn't prepared for that either. We have no one that is even a tenth of what Rathman, for example, was in the passing game.

 

4. We are in agreement then.

 

5. I haven't seen evidence that Edwards is particularly good at either reading a defense or seeing the entire field. We all saw numerous instances last year where Edwards went for the primary off the short step drop with much better options open that would have resulted in big plays. At least bigger plays. Call it rookie issues. But I didn't see enough to suggest that he will all of a sudden be great at reading Ds or finding the best options. I also don't think he's gonna have the time to evaluate them often.

[krazykat]

Well, one way to keep a brittle QB on the field is to not let him get hit. How did the Bills do that? They leaned on the running game (built around another rookie and a geriatric) and ultra short passing game. Edwards quick release and reliance on pre-snap reads fit well in an aerial game designed to stretch the backfield horizontally. The Bills offense had almost no vertical passing game (IIRC, it was less than 20 plays) to speak of and certainly were no threat to stretch, making Fairchild's comments that they "couldn't get teams to back off" not exactly profound. Does this address Edwards decision making? His INT% of 3.0 isn't horrible, but it wasn't fantastic either (8 INTs/7 TDs). Considering the passing system employed, one could make the argument that a 3.0 is poor for a QB that took so few chances down the field and sacks. The "decision making" is further muddled by the heavy reliance on pre-snap reads and quick, minimal routes. Edwards just wasn't asked to stand in the pocket and go through his progression and try to make plays in the defensive secondary. Was that because he was a rookie? Was it to keep him healthy? Was it because the Bills receivers suck? Was it because the line sucked? Was it because Edwards wasn't ready and didn't know the offense well enough?

 

Let's go back to Fairchild's comment. "We can't get them to back off of us." Superficially, this comment is profoundly dumb. Fairchild is calling conservative plays, runs and very short passes. How did a guy that can't put the cause and effect together here get a job as an NFL football coach? Are we to believe that the Bills hired a knuckle-walking drooler such as that to outsmart Bill Belichick?!? Is there any other reason for Fairchild to so baldly state the supremely obvious and even implicate his own role?

Outstanding!!

[krazykat]

You would think the head coach would offer a little helpful advice.

 

He is, after all, responsibile

Only officially. In the media and on fan boards he's absolved.

[Adam]

Yes, because the Bills surely didn't need them the twenty or so times the Bills went touchdownless in the redzone. Worst in the league. I think if you're worst in the league and a trick play has worked for you, you might want to try it again at least one more freaking time. But this is Jauron's calling card. Hit one jackpot, leave the casino and never go back again. I feel sorry for any player that's had to play on offense with this guy as their head coach. Count Dickula, he'll suck the life out of any NFL offense under his command as a head coach.

If it is a trick play, you won't use it more than a couple times a season at most- you don't want something like that to become a staple of your offense.

 

We actually don't have a staple play from what I have seen, and that is a problem.

 

Everyone keeps saying trick them and be innovative. There isn't much in football to be innovative about- you run or pass. The good teams are predictable, but still are effective when the opponent knows what is coming.

 

And Jauron has been known to delegate to his coordinators- he doesn't suck the life out of anything. He isn't a micromanager

[Pyrite Gal]

Pretty decent post PG!

 

I guess my question regarding the line continues to be the same. I don't disagree to strongly with your statements although I'd say you overrated Dockerly slightly and Butler as well. Fowler to me is a better depth player too.

 

Otherwise, you paint the picture of a line that played OK but not great to be certain.

 

What then was the cause for our offense being the least productive in the NFL last year and particularly under Edwards where it got even less productive on a per-game average basis?

 

I mean we hear that the line was OK, Edwards played very well for a rookie, Lynch obviously had a good season. While the WRs were disappointing Evans is still easily a top 20 WR if not more.

 

So why then did our O stink to the point of being the worst in the league then?

The answer to your question IMHO is the the reason the O results stunk last year was mostly a failure of Fairchild to develop and implement and effective O.

 

The buck of course eventually stops with the HC who generally get far too much credit for things working and far too much blame for failure.

 

However, the initial primary responsibility for running an effective O is the OC's and it simply amazes me that he got promoted to his new job with the results our offense produced.

 

Will Schoenert do better?

 

Yep, as it will not be hard to be better than worst in the NFL.

 

Will he be adequate?

 

We will have to see. The team will have better players on O (a #2 WR who will likely not produce better results than PP, but who simply presents demographic issues because of his height which likely will force Ds to adjust to us rather than have us adjust to them). Both Edwards and Lynch in the second years should reasonably give us improvement.

 

Finally, the lack of production of the Fairchild directed O provides a template for improving the O performance.

 

A key likely will be whether the massive retool we have going on on ST will consistently generate good field position consistently for this team.

 

I think the O is still a year away from the adequacy we want, but it should easily be better.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The answer to your question IMHO is the the reason the O results stunk last year was mostly a failure of Fairchild to develop and implement and effective O.

 

The buck of course eventually stops with the HC who generally get far too much credit for things working and far too much blame for failure.

 

However, the initial primary responsibility for running an effective O is the OC's and it simply amazes me that he got promoted to his new job with the results our offense produced.

 

Will Schoenert do better?

 

Yep, as it will not be hard to be better than worst in the NFL.

 

Will he be adequate?

 

We will have to see. The team will have better players on O (a #2 WR who will likely not produce better results than PP, but who simply presents demographic issues because of his height which likely will force Ds to adjust to us rather than have us adjust to them). Both Edwards and Lynch in the second years should reasonably give us improvement.

 

Finally, the lack of production of the Fairchild directed O provides a template for improving the O performance.

 

A key likely will be whether the massive retool we have going on on ST will consistently generate good field position consistently for this team.

 

I think the O is still a year away from the adequacy we want, but it should easily be better.

 

My answer is "I have no idea" if the O is going to improve from 32nd best in 08.

 

Sorry, but the arguments you present that the offense will improve are weak. Schonert is automatically better than Fairchild? That's just not a given as offensive performance is not determined by simply drawing names out of a hat. There is no evidence that Schonert is better or even knows what he is doing. He could be another bad experiment that just goes haywire. A rookie WR will force defenses to adjust to the offense based on his height but you don't expect him to be even as good as Peerless, who was below average (and missed most of 07 with a broken neck). You realize that Jauron likes his veterans because they represent fewer mistakes than rookies, right? And finally Edwards and Lynch will automatically be better than last year because its a new calendar year. Let's hope so, because a sophomore slump for either of those two could spell a long fugly season.

[robkmil]

The west coast offense invokes using the pass to set up the running game which is about a 180 degrees difference from the run run pass punt offense that Jauron seems to be so mesmerized with. I would definitely like to see more passing in '08. I'd also like to see Marshawn play a big part in the passing game. The guy's got great ball catching skills. He's not that bad at tossing the rock either, 1 pass 1 touchdown. Did they ever go back to that play? Of course not. It was the one and only out of the box play in '07.

 

I wouldn't get your hopes up as long as Jauron is calling the shots.

 

I would love to see the ball thrown more to Marshawn and maybe even Jackson. Many RB's have excelled in this type of offense.

[Adam]

Let's go back to Fairchild's comment. "We can't get them to back off of us." Superficially, this comment is profoundly dumb. Fairchild is calling conservative plays, runs and very short passes. How did a guy that can't put the cause and effect together here get a job as an NFL football coach? Are we to believe that the Bills hired a knuckle-walking drooler such as that to outsmart Bill Belichick?!? Is there any other reason for Fairchild to so baldly state the supremely obvious and even implicate his own role?

OK, now play the role of defensive coordinator for a moment:

 

Your opponent is playing a rookie QB, who has one real threat to throw to- an undersized WR who's main strength is going deep and struggles over the middle. The other tools in the passing game are this: A solid slot receiver who is forced to play outside, a punt returner who doesn run routes, a couple practice squad players and mediocre tight ends.

 

Add that the center is very soft and that the right tackle is a step slow out of his stance.

 

Add in that the running backs have trouble stopping blitzing cheerleaders.

 

OK, not to put this together, the middle of our line is a disaster because of a center who isn't goood enough and our right tackle is slow. This leaves us vulnerable to the blitz- factor in that nobody in the backfield picks up the blitz and we have a QB that is still adjusting to NFL pressure. The line problem almost negates having the best LT in football!

 

Would you back off?