folz Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 MSN Fox Sports put out their offensive power positional rankings...I know, who cares what the media has to say, but for the curious... QB: 12th__I was a bit surprised we ranked that high, not because I don't believe in Trent, but didn't think the media was sold yet OL: 28th__Understandable due to 2 rookies and all the changes, although I think they'll turn out a lot better than that WR/TE: 3rd__Behind just Arizona and the Patriots RB: 17th__This surprised me quite a bit though, 17th? really? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9735822...gs:-QB-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9848856...gs:-OL-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9787230...-WR/TE-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9746990...gs:-RB-packages
Omar Little Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 QB position should be lower because Trent, as much as I like him, is still unproven and prone to injury. Also, the two backups are terrible. OL and WR seem fair. Lastly, there are not 16 teams with backfields better than Lynch, Jackson and Rhodes. No chance. Rhodes had nine TDs last year and he's third string!
DazedandConfused Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 QB position should be lower because Trent, as much as I like him, is still unproven and prone to injury. Also, the two backups are terrible. OL and WR seem fair. Lastly, there are not 16 teams with backfields better than Lynch, Jackson and Rhodes. No chance. Rhodes had nine TDs last year and he's third string! Agree with your post. I would add that: QB- What interests me is actually how little play the Trent Edwards injury issue has gotten, I think this is particularly true given Edwards history of past injury (I define injury prone as a player missing PT due to injuries to different part of his body). As Trent has lost playing time to an arm injury as a rookie, a concussion last regular season, and missed some PT in an exhibition game from an injury I do not remember being revealed last year he just barely meets the objective criteria I use (the loss of exhibition PT is not the same as regular season PT but given Edwards' youth and the critical need for him to develop chemistry with his team I think it qualifies siting this injury). Given the question marks which surround his back-ups talents (can either of these two men do 3 starts credibly if called upon, this strikes me as a real crap shoot. WR- Simply scary speed. Even with TO likely to have the reduction in production that comes to us all with age (he should easily be the best #2 WR we have had in years. Parrish does have real limitations seemingly in consistently running sharo patterns, but no one logically questions his speed or proven ability to run after the catch paralleled with his PR success. If the Evans commands a PT (which he does based on his speed and demonstration of some athleticism making catches). If TO still demands a dt (quite probable as an over and under is the most effective way to avoid his RAC ability) and Parrish offers a threat though even if he is inconsistent, an opposing DC must account for him going to the house on each place they play him, a base 3 WR is the way for us to go. OL- On the face of it the Bills are in big trouble on the OL due to youth. This kiddie corps may step up to be great but based on real occurrences in the NFL this is simply unlikely. Still the OL has a fighting chance under specific circumstances: A. The WR attack proves successful and the need for multiple dts forces opposing Ds into limiting their pass rush to the four DL guys as the OLBs are playing pass D rather than blitzing and the MLB is staying home to guard against the run. An attacking Bills pass game would be the best friend ever to a young OL. Add to that a quick release by Edwards and there likely will be minimal sacks. B. If the Bills successfully run the no huddle they will rush Ds to the LOS without a huddle to decide to run stunts and complex rushes difficult for the young OL to match. The opponents will also be limited in the substitutions and sackers will be pacing themselves to last rather than rushing like madmen all the time. Its as much up to Turk and the coaches to effectively design and implement a system as it is for the players to be talented. RB- 3 potential starter quality players allow the Bills to absorb losing Lynch for 2-4 games. I like the potential of this O. The question is whether Turk is up to it,
Steely Dan Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 MSN Fox Sports put out their offensive power positional rankings...I know, who cares whatthe media has to say, but for the curious... QB: 12th__I was a bit surprised we ranked that high, not because I don't believe in Trent, but didn't think the media was sold yet OL: 28th__Understandable due to 2 rookies and all the changes, although I think they'll turn out a lot better than that WR/TE: 3rd__Behind just Arizona and the Patriots RB: 17th__This surprised me quite a bit though, 17th? really? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9735822...gs:-QB-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9848856...gs:-OL-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9787230...-WR/TE-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9746990...gs:-RB-packages They might be factoring in Lynch's suspension with that. Still too low.
billsfreak Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 MSN Fox Sports put out their offensive power positional rankings...I know, who cares whatthe media has to say, but for the curious... QB: 12th__I was a bit surprised we ranked that high, not because I don't believe in Trent, but didn't think the media was sold yet OL: 28th__Understandable due to 2 rookies and all the changes, although I think they'll turn out a lot better than that WR/TE: 3rd__Behind just Arizona and the Patriots RB: 17th__This surprised me quite a bit though, 17th? really? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9735822...gs:-QB-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9848856...gs:-OL-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9787230...-WR/TE-packages http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9746990...gs:-RB-packages I would say the RB is about 7-8 positions too low, but I guess it balances out because the QB is 10-12 positions too high.
BuffOrange Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 QB position should be lower because Trent, as much as I like him, is still unproven and prone to injury. Also, the two backups are terrible. OL and WR seem fair. Lastly, there are not 16 teams with backfields better than Lynch, Jackson and Rhodes. No chance. Rhodes had nine TDs last year and he's third string! Agree on all points.
Recommended Posts