Looks Like the Bills Found Themselves a Diamond in the Rough

[Orton's Arm]

I've come full circle on the Byrd pick. At first I hated it but now I love it. Hopefully he develops into a 4-7 int per season FS.

Byrd

[afcfan1]

Think about it. Who was LarryFtzgerald before made his name? Not saying Byrd is a star but you can't say he won't be.

 

PTR

 

I can't tell if your being serious. Larry Fitzgerald was the best receiver in college football, so I don't know what you're getting at. Comparing him to Ed Reed? Are you being serious? I can tell you Pats fans all over the country are hoping the Buffalo Bills safeties consist of Jarius Byrd and Donte Whitner. According the majority of people that get paid to analyze these things, Byrd wasn't the best player in his own defensive backfield. The Pats ended up with thst guy. Byrd had some picks in college...good for him. He cannot run even at a moderately acceptable level. 4.68. I know the 40 isn't everything, but that is terrible. By the way, I'm not sure who led the NCAA in picks last year (2008), but in 2007 it was a BC kid by the name of Jamie Silva. I don't blame you if you haven't heard of him, but he was also considered a "ball hawk" who couldn't run a lick. Like I said, I don't think the 40 is the end all be all, but I do think you need to run at a minimum level to be a successful DB in the NFL. I don't believe 4.68 is it.

[ax4782]

I can't tell if your being serious. Larry Fitzgerald was the best receiver in college football, so I don't know what you're getting at. Comparing him to Ed Reed? Are you being serious? I can tell you Pats fans all over the country are hoping the Buffalo Bills safeties consist of Jarius Byrd and Donte Whitner. According the majority of people that get paid to analyze these things, Byrd wasn't the best player in his own defensive backfield. The Pats ended up with thst guy. Byrd had some picks in college...good for him. He cannot run even at a moderately acceptable level. 4.68. I know the 40 isn't everything, but that is terrible. By the way, I'm not sure who led the NCAA in picks last year (2008), but in 2007 it was a BC kid by the name of Jamie Silva. I don't blame you if you haven't heard of him, but he was also considered a "ball hawk" who couldn't run a lick. Like I said, I don't think the 40 is the end all be all, but I do think you need to run at a minimum level to be a successful DB in the NFL. I don't believe 4.68 is it.

 

You know that Jerry Rice ran a 4.7 40 don't you? Hate to tell you but looking at the tape, and the statistics, Byrd was clearly the better safety. Check out the stats from last season. Here are the links to both of their stats. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/stats?playerId=169696. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/stats?playerId=173394. I'll point you to the INTs. Last season, Byrd had 5 INTs, Chung had a staggering 1. In three years Byrd had 197 tackles. In four years Chung had 370 in four years. The disparity was caused by what each player was called on to do in Oregon's defensive scheme. Chung played more at strong safety, and if you watch Oregon's games, they use the SS to help up on running and short yardage downs. The end result is a higher tackle number. But look at the percentage of their tackles that were solo compared to their total. Chung had a total of 232 solo tackles, for a rate of 62%. That's not bad. But look at Byrd's statistics. he had a total of 143 solo tackles for a rate of 72.5%. That means that almost 3/4 of the time Byrd did not need an assist to make a tackle on the opposing player. That shows good physical strenght, and instincts to play the ball and be in position to make the tackle where necessary. The stats show that they were at worst equal and that in some areas of the game, Byrd was actually better than Chung. Not saying Chung is going to be better or worse than Byrd, or vice versa, I just think that you should keep your Patriots' bias at bay when analyzing players. Both are good, but Chung was not CLEARLY better in really any phase of the game. That's telling, considering Byrd was a junior last year and Chung was a fourth year senior.

 

Nothing about Chung's play stood out that much from Byrd's. Most people thought that Byrd and Chung were excellent picks and very good value where they were taken in the second round. I know that you are a Pats* homer, but at least try to be objective. Also, keep in mind that Byrd is not coming in to play corner, he's coming into to play safety in a Tampa-2 Cover Zone Scheme. Speed is not as essential in a zone coverage scheme. Good technique and instincts are much more important. Silva wasn't that good in college, even against the weaker competition in the ACC. He just was the best of a weak class that year, though I'm sure you'll concoct some lame argument against that fact as well.

[BB Fan 4 LIFE]

Yeah, I admit I've been influenced by the articles since the draft. But what encourages me more than anything is that he grew up around the game. The PRO game. Can anyone say "DB version of Larry Fitzgerald?" If he already has a command of angles he won't have too much of a problem making the transition to FS. He's a natural ball hawk. And will be MORE of one given the freedom he'll have at FS; his more natural position. If, and it's a HUGE if, we can generate ANY type of pressure with a pass rush and force QBs to hurry a bit more, he's gonna be a force. I'm talking an ED REED type of force.

 

There, I said it. It's out there. We make QBs as uncomfortable as the Ravens do with their fronts, then we have the next Ed Reed at FS. Go ahead. Flame away. But it's the offseason, we are tied for 1st in the conference, and I'm tired of all the pee in my cornflakes around here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Great! By the time he's an Ed Reed maybe we can get a late pick for him!

Go Bills Front Office!

[afcfan1]

You know that Jerry Rice ran a 4.7 40 don't you? Hate to tell you but looking at the tape, and the statistics, Byrd was clearly the better safety. Check out the stats from last season. Here are the links to both of their stats. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/stats?playerId=169696. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/stats?playerId=173394. I'll point you to the INTs. Last season, Byrd had 5 INTs, Chung had a staggering 1. In three years Byrd had 197 tackles. In four years Chung had 370 in four years. The disparity was caused by what each player was called on to do in Oregon's defensive scheme. Chung played more at strong safety, and if you watch Oregon's games, they use the SS to help up on running and short yardage downs. The end result is a higher tackle number. But look at the percentage of their tackles that were solo compared to their total. Chung had a total of 232 solo tackles, for a rate of 62%. That's not bad. But look at Byrd's statistics. he had a total of 143 solo tackles for a rate of 72.5%. That means that almost 3/4 of the time Byrd did not need an assist to make a tackle on the opposing player. That shows good physical strenght, and instincts to play the ball and be in position to make the tackle where necessary. The stats show that they were at worst equal and that in some areas of the game, Byrd was actually better than Chung. Not saying Chung is going to be better or worse than Byrd, or vice versa, I just think that you should keep your Patriots' bias at bay when analyzing players. Both are good, but Chung was not CLEARLY better in really any phase of the game. That's telling, considering Byrd was a junior last year and Chung was a fourth year senior.

 

Nothing about Chung's play stood out that much from Byrd's. Most people thought that Byrd and Chung were excellent picks and very good value where they were taken in the second round. I know that you are a Pats* homer, but at least try to be objective. Also, keep in mind that Byrd is not coming in to play corner, he's coming into to play safety in a Tampa-2 Cover Zone Scheme. Speed is not as essential in a zone coverage scheme. Good technique and instincts are much more important. Silva wasn't that good in college, even against the weaker competition in the ACC. He just was the best of a weak class that year, though I'm sure you'll concoct some lame argument against that fact as well.

 

Chung did not play SS at all. He actually played the Rover position, which requires a unique set of skills, including the ability to run real well and hit like a truck. The Oregon coaches firmly believed he's a special talent. Here's a predraft quote from his position coach at Oregon, "He's got to be a blitzer. He's got to be a linebacker sometimes. He's got to be a deep-third corner. He's got to be a middle safety, a half safety, and he's got to be able to cover a wide receiver man to man," said Neal. "No position asks a guy to do more. When I get another guy who can do that, it will be awhile." Also, Chung was a 2 time 1st team All Pac 10 and 2 time team captain. Obviously, I am not in the minority in thinking Chung is the superior player.

 

Also, this is not really part of our debate, but I found it interesting. Did you know Chung came to Oregon as a 16 year old freshman? That's the only reason he was redshirted. How many 21 year old 5 year college students do you see? Just thought it was interesting.

[K-9]

The Bills did not make Super Bowls as a result of Mark Kelso.

 

Could the Bills free safety position be better, most definitely yes. That is why I thought Whitner was being moved.

 

Having a secondary now made up of a #8, #11, a second rounder, a third rounder and two fourth rounders drafted in the last 4 years is excessive in my opinion, especially when the team went 7 years without spending a first day pick on an offensive lineman. Look at Pioli's draft this year and what the Pats did in the early days, they never went to those excessive lengths.

 

How DARE you insult the great Kazoo!

 

Of course Kelso was just along for the ride. But that's not to say that if Smith and Jones had better help at the other safety position we wouldn't have been that much better off for having 2 good safeties.

 

I agree you don't build a team around safeties. But when you have two that know how to play, man, it makes a difference. The best tandem I've seen EVER was Steve Atwater and Dennis Smith with the Broncos. What they did to Kelly and the K-Gun in the AFC championship game should be coaching clinic material. They took away EVERYTHING the Bills tried to do. Held us to what, three points on offense. At home? I was there, I saw the coaches tape afteward, and it was Atwater/Smith that shut us down. It was amazing how Bum Philips schemed them against us. It was a thing of beauty. We were lucky to escape that one. Gotta give credit to our own D and a timely INT return for the TD by Carlton Bailey and a couple missed FGs by Treadwell and it's a different game. But I digress.

 

I also agree that we've neglected our trenches for far too long. Every knows or should know that's where games are won and lost. We agree on that. Always have, always will. But at the same time I see the value of shoring up our middle D when the immediate goal has got to be to win the division and that's going through NE. They run that spread and it puts so much pressure on your D backs to be well, better than we were last year. I personally believe Byrd gives us a chance. He's a player with the intangibles you just can't coach and he grew up around the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ax4782]

Chung did not play SS at all. He actually played the Rover position, which requires a unique set of skills, including the ability to run real well and hit like a truck. The Oregon coaches firmly believed he's a special talent. Here's a predraft quote from his position coach at Oregon, "He's got to be a blitzer. He's got to be a linebacker sometimes. He's got to be a deep-third corner. He's got to be a middle safety, a half safety, and he's got to be able to cover a wide receiver man to man," said Neal. "No position asks a guy to do more. When I get another guy who can do that, it will be awhile." Also, Chung was a 2 time 1st team All Pac 10 and 2 time team captain. Obviously, I am not in the minority in thinking Chung is the superior player.

 

Also, this is not really part of our debate, but I found it interesting. Did you know Chung came to Oregon as a 16 year old freshman? That's the only reason he was redshirted. How many 21 year old 5 year college students do you see? Just thought it was interesting.

 

Many strong safeties are asked to fill a lot of those roles in the NFL in different situations. For example, in a 4-3 or 3-4 scheme, a safety acts as an extra linebacker on obvious running plays at the line, where they have to be able to "hit like a truck" as you stated, but also be quick enough to pick up a responsibility if the play turns into a pass against the 8 man front. Depending on the play, the SS may have to cheat up to become a "half" safety or a "middle safety." Nothing you have said suggests that he was a better player than Byrd, and you absolutely failed to address the factual argument that I made concerning their measurables. The fact is, I'm sure the Oregon coach had a lot of nice things to say about Byrd as well. What are they supposed to do? Bash their top players and say they were terrible picks and that they weren't special?

[Lurker]

Chung did not play SS at all. He actually played the Rover position

By that 'logic,' Chung will be changing position as well, since the Ducks' scheme doesn't include the Strong Safety position...

[BuffaloBillsfan66]

Yeah, I admit I've been influenced by the articles since the draft. But what encourages me more than anything is that he grew up around the game. The PRO game. Can anyone say "DB version of Larry Fitzgerald?" If he already has a command of angles he won't have too much of a problem making the transition to FS. He's a natural ball hawk. And will be MORE of one given the freedom he'll have at FS; his more natural position. If, and it's a HUGE if, we can generate ANY type of pressure with a pass rush and force QBs to hurry a bit more, he's gonna be a force. I'm talking an ED REED type of force.

 

There, I said it. It's out there. We make QBs as uncomfortable as the Ravens do with their fronts, then we have the next Ed Reed at FS. Go ahead. Flame away. But it's the offseason, we are tied for 1st in the conference, and I'm tired of all the pee in my cornflakes around here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

I think it's rolling the dice on trying to convert a player into a different positionl it either takes a longer time or ends up being a no go.

[Alphadawg7]

Think about it. Who was LarryFtzgerald before made his name? Not saying Byrd is a star but you can't say he won't be.

 

PTR

 

Huh? Fitz was highly touted coming out of college...was called a sure thing...

[BillsGuru4]

Yeah, I admit I've been influenced by the articles since the draft. But what encourages me more than anything is that he grew up around the game. The PRO game. Can anyone say "DB version of Larry Fitzgerald?" If he already has a command of angles he won't have too much of a problem making the transition to FS. He's a natural ball hawk. And will be MORE of one given the freedom he'll have at FS; his more natural position. If, and it's a HUGE if, we can generate ANY type of pressure with a pass rush and force QBs to hurry a bit more, he's gonna be a force. I'm talking an ED REED type of force.

 

There, I said it. It's out there. We make QBs as uncomfortable as the Ravens do with their fronts, then we have the next Ed Reed at FS. Go ahead. Flame away. But it's the offseason, we are tied for 1st in the conference, and I'm tired of all the pee in my cornflakes around here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I love it and you are correct, we got ed reed with the 42nd over all pick. If only we had Nagta next to stroud instead of no one opposing qb's would be throwing ducks for byrd to pick off. I am lovin maybin and i hope that first step is just as explosive after he puts on a few lbs...Im very excited about this season and although i didnt love the byrd pick at first, it only took a few minutes for me to think about it and if dante can be a stud SS and Byrd can be a stud FS then I will be one happy bills fan and I will support DJ

[afcfan1]

Many strong safeties are asked to fill a lot of those roles in the NFL in different situations. For example, in a 4-3 or 3-4 scheme, a safety acts as an extra linebacker on obvious running plays at the line, where they have to be able to "hit like a truck" as you stated, but also be quick enough to pick up a responsibility if the play turns into a pass against the 8 man front. Depending on the play, the SS may have to cheat up to become a "half" safety or a "middle safety." Nothing you have said suggests that he was a better player than Byrd, and you absolutely failed to address the factual argument that I made concerning their measurables. The fact is, I'm sure the Oregon coach had a lot of nice things to say about Byrd as well. What are they supposed to do? Bash their top players and say they were terrible picks and that they weren't special?

 

 

Nothing I said suggests he was a better player??? Chung was All Conf. in 07 and 08, Byrd only 08. Chung was a 2 time captain, as voted by his peers, Byrd wasn't. Also, you gave some pretty misleading data when comparing the percentage of solo vs. total tackles earlier. I would assume this is because safeties are asked to support the run around the line of scrimmage a lot more frequently than corners. By doing that there are more people around the ball to make tackles. You say it shows "strength" on the part of Byrd to make these "Solo" tackles. One could also argue, it means he gave up a lot of completions, and got there too late to break up the ball, but in time to tackle. I would say a 4.68 40 time would help support this hypothesis. I am still waiting for all of these sites that had Byrd rated as the 2nd highest safety in this draft as I was told in a previous post. I'll also wait for a comment similar to Chung's coach stating they are going to have to wait awhile to get another player like him.

[K-9]

I think it's rolling the dice on trying to convert a player into a different positionl it either takes a longer time or ends up being a no go.

 

I agree to a certain extend, especially younger players. But some position conversions are easier than others. By far the easiest transition is from CB to FS. Then from T to G. The fact that Byrd grew up in NFL locker rooms and actually, if you believe Fewell, attended positional meetings, shouldn't be overlooked, IMO. He knows the schemes already. I'm not suggesting it won't be a challenge to him, just that he seems to possess the qualities to make the transition better than most coming out of college.

 

Totally agree it's a roll of the dice. All draft picks are until proven otherwise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ax4782]

Nothing I said suggests he was a better player??? Chung was All Conf. in 07 and 08, Byrd only 08. Chung was a 2 time captain, as voted by his peers, Byrd wasn't. Also, you gave some pretty misleading data when comparing the percentage of solo vs. total tackles earlier. I would assume this is because safeties are asked to support the run around the line of scrimmage a lot more frequently than corners. By doing that there are more people around the ball to make tackles. You say it shows "strength" on the part of Byrd to make these "Solo" tackles. One could also argue, it means he gave up a lot of completions, and got there too late to break up the ball, but in time to tackle. I would say a 4.68 40 time would help support this hypothesis. I am still waiting for all of these sites that had Byrd rated as the 2nd highest safety in this draft as I was told in a previous post. I'll also wait for a comment similar to Chung's coach stating they are going to have to wait awhile to get another player like him.

 

You cited an anecdote and some other fluff. How does that respond to the facts I stated? Byrd was a four year starter for Oregon. He was a All-PAC 10 as a junior and a senior. Byrd only played until his Junior year. If he had been a senior, everything based on his stats and measurables suggests that he would have been all conference his senior year as well. Chung may have been a vocal leader on the team, which was why he was voted captain. We don't know what the locker room was like at Oregon, but while that shows some potential leadership ability, it does not suggest in any way that his play on the field was actually better.

 

The tackle stats were not misleading, unless you wanted them to be. Solo tackles to total tackles ratio is a big indicator of a players conditioning and game smarts. If you are out of position to make the play, you aren't going to make a solo tackle. As I indicated, in football the SS frequently plays up at the LOS in an 8 man formation in the box. This is done for a number of reasons, but is why a SS's tackle ratio is so high. Chung played SS at Oregon, regardless of what they called it. That was the role that he filled while he was there. The FS is not asked to play up at the line nearly as much, except in certain short yardage situations. Anyone who pays attention to football knows the significance behind that solo tackle/total tackle ratio, especially for a safety or a corner. I never cited any site that called him the second highest rated safety in the draft, but I'm sure if a person looked hard enough, they could find one. The fact is, you saying that Chung is clearly better than Byrd, is, at this point, not factually or statistically accurate.

[aceinthehouse]

Mike Williams>hopefully,we did too

[KD in CA]

Byrd

 

 

Mine That Byrd!

[afcfan1]

You cited an anecdote and some other fluff. How does that respond to the facts I stated? Byrd was a four year starter for Oregon. He was a All-PAC 10 as a junior and a senior. Byrd only played until his Junior year. If he had been a senior, everything based on his stats and measurables suggests that he would have been all conference his senior year as well. Chung may have been a vocal leader on the team, which was why he was voted captain. We don't know what the locker room was like at Oregon, but while that shows some potential leadership ability, it does not suggest in any way that his play on the field was actually better.

 

The tackle stats were not misleading, unless you wanted them to be. Solo tackles to total tackles ratio is a big indicator of a players conditioning and game smarts. If you are out of position to make the play, you aren't going to make a solo tackle. As I indicated, in football the SS frequently plays up at the LOS in an 8 man formation in the box. This is done for a number of reasons, but is why a SS's tackle ratio is so high. Chung played SS at Oregon, regardless of what they called it. That was the role that he filled while he was there. The FS is not asked to play up at the line nearly as much, except in certain short yardage situations. Anyone who pays attention to football knows the significance behind that solo tackle/total tackle ratio, especially for a safety or a corner. I never cited any site that called him the second highest rated safety in the draft, but I'm sure if a person looked hard enough, they could find one. The fact is, you saying that Chung is clearly better than Byrd, is, at this point, not factually or statistically accurate.

 

Through our discussions I've thought you have made some good points, but solo vs. total tackles is not one of them. I really think it is absolutely pointless. I checked the 08 tackling stats of the universally accepted top 3 safeties in the NFL, Reed, Polamalu and Sanders. Using your logic Fabian Washington and Samari Rolle were more effective than Reed, Ike Taylor and Brant McFadden were more effective than Polamalu and Kevin Hayden and Marlin Jackson were more effective than Sanders. All of these corner tandems had higher solo tackle vs. total tackle percentages than their respective safety. Corners make a higher percentage of solo tackles than safeties do. It's a fact. Corners are "on an island" more frequently where they have to make one on one tackles. Safeties play in the thick of everyone, where gang tackles usually take place. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know this.

 

When you are having to resort to these kinds of bogus stats to make the case for Byrd being a better player than Chung, you are obviously not in a very strong position.

[The Senator]

Through our discussions I've thought you have made some good points, but solo vs. total tackles is not one of them. I really think it is absolutely pointless. I checked the 08 tackling stats of the universally accepted top 3 safeties in the NFL, Reed, Polamalu and Sanders. Using your logic Fabian Washington and Samari Rolle were more effective than Reed, Ike Taylor and Brant McFadden were more effective than Polamalu and Kevin Hayden and Marlin Jackson were more effective than Sanders. All of these corner tandems had higher solo tackle vs. total tackle percentages than their respective safety. Corners make a higher percentage of solo tackles than safeties do. It's a fact. Corners are "on an island" more frequently where they have to make one on one tackles. Safeties play in the thick of everyone, where gang tackles usually take place. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know this.

 

When you are having to resort to these kinds of bogus stats to make the case for Byrd being a better player than Chung, you are obviously not in a very strong position.

Why does your quarterback dress like a freakin' queer?

 

Tom Marcia Brady and her really gay hat

 

(Oh yeah, that's right - all Patriettes* players and NE* fans are freakin' gay. Forgot about that for a second.)

[jtl3302]

I can't tell if your being serious. Larry Fitzgerald was the best receiver in college football, so I don't know what you're getting at. Comparing him to Ed Reed? Are you being serious? I can tell you Pats fans all over the country are hoping the Buffalo Bills safeties consist of Jarius Byrd and Donte Whitner. According the majority of people that get paid to analyze these things, Byrd wasn't the best player in his own defensive backfield. The Pats ended up with thst guy. Byrd had some picks in college...good for him. He cannot run even at a moderately acceptable level. 4.68. I know the 40 isn't everything, but that is terrible. By the way, I'm not sure who led the NCAA in picks last year (2008), but in 2007 it was a BC kid by the name of Jamie Silva. I don't blame you if you haven't heard of him, but he was also considered a "ball hawk" who couldn't run a lick. Like I said, I don't think the 40 is the end all be all, but I do think you need to run at a minimum level to be a successful DB in the NFL. I don't believe 4.68 is it.

Do you know NYJ safety Jim Leonhard's measurables, specifically 40 time? I think he's become pretty successful!

[iinii]

Yeah, I admit I've been influenced by the articles since the draft. But what encourages me more than anything is that he grew up around the game. The PRO game. Can anyone say "DB version of Larry Fitzgerald?" If he already has a command of angles he won't have too much of a problem making the transition to FS. He's a natural ball hawk. And will be MORE of one given the freedom he'll have at FS; his more natural position. If, and it's a HUGE if, we can generate ANY type of pressure with a pass rush and force QBs to hurry a bit more, he's gonna be a force. I'm talking an ED REED type of force.

 

There, I said it. It's out there. We make QBs as uncomfortable as the Ravens do with their fronts, then we have the next Ed Reed at FS. Go ahead. Flame away. But it's the offseason, we are tied for 1st in the conference, and I'm tired of all the pee in my cornflakes around here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

It would be utterly fantastic if we have an Ed Reed in the making. How many days do we have til New England? It is going to be a long summer