Pretty Good read!

[alohabillsfan]

The nicest way to view the current platoon of Bills defensive tackles is that they've had a year to improve. They had, shall we say, a problematical relationship with rushers in 2006, and, pending Darwin Walker's negotiations, have not added anyone, much less a run-stuffer, to the line's core.

But John McCargo's healing foot, the further gains Kyle Williams should be able to make following a surprisingly sturdy rookie campaign, and the unlikelihood that Larry Tripplett will put forth a worse showing than his dud of a 2006 - all point to a better bunch of tackles without any personnel changes.

Even more optimistically, the moves made to redo the linebacker lineup could benefit attempts to stifle opponents' ground attacks.

As weak as the interior linemen were facing the run last year, the linebackers didn't steadily step up and help, either. The best example of this worst sort of tendency was London Fletcher, who, with every tackle he makes, adds to his NFL record of stops made after 9-yard gains. Fletcher, now a Redskin, is outstanding at bringing down guys for his size, but his problem is that he usually waits quite an extended time to make that same stop.

He was too passive, taking too long to both sniff out plays and physically respond. After the Redskins overpay for a player, it's conclusive scientific proof that he possesses no value to the team losing him. Dan Snyder wanted and got Fletcher, which should make Bills followers genuflect with happiness and relief that he's no longer an incomplete player on their team, one who failed to fulfill the linebacker's bargain of being permitted a fraction of a moment to diagnose what the offense is doing as long as he then strikes swiftly.

Also failing to contribute toward taking down running backs was the hobbled Takeo Spikes. Playing on a still-recovering Achilles, the brutal injury slowed the once-superhuman Spikes to the rank of a middling player. It still must sting for Buffalo's to have had their team let him go, as at his best he was a spectacular player who was a leveler of planets, but waiting for a 30-year-old to heal from devastation simply wasn't practical. His difficulty in climbing back to the same levels of strength and quickness as he showed during his pre-injury roaming was evident last season as his aggression against the run was mitigated by his physical limitations.

The replacement of the departed should then improve the Bills' run defense, especially considering with whom they chose to replace those gone. Angelo Crowell is a stronger player who hasn't gotten pushed around on the strong side. A good tackler with prototypical linebacker versatility, he should be able to stand firm while facing ground attacks this season.

Meanwhile, everything that's been seen from rookie second-round pick Paul Posluszny indicates that he was born to track down the ball, as he's shown a sense for sniffing out plays faster than Fletcher ever did. Toss in Keith Ellison, who pleasantly displayed a propensity for stepping up and helping battle the run in limited time as a rookie, and the best thing that happened to the Bills' defensive tackles is that the guys lining up behind them got that much better.

The front four needs to progress, but improvement among the next three should help.

****No one complained about Fletcher's play when he was in Gregg William's 46 system and had good DT's in front of him. Remember, the Bills got Fletcher from the Rams because Lovie Smith couldn't use him in the Tampa-2 he was installing in St. Louis. Now Buffalo is playing Tampa-2, and once again, Fletcher doesn't fit.

[justasportsfan]

I can't disagree with his assesment of Fletcher, but I'll have to wait and see if a rookie (Poz) makes our lb'er better. Looking at his videos from college, he does attack the backfield. Whether he can do it at the NFL level remains to be seen.

[Jan Reimers]

I saw that article earlier. It made me feel a little better, after being told over and over by the negmeisters how bad our LBs were going to be.

Who really knows at this point, but it's great to see that some "experts" actually noticed that Fletcher and Spikes were just a tad short of all-world anymore.

[bigbub2352]

Perfect assessment of what we got rid of, not the ESPN explanation that we got ripped on everything we did

[Wys Guy]

But John McCargo's healing foot, the further gains Kyle Williams should be able to make following a surprisingly sturdy rookie campaign, and the unlikelihood that Larry Tripplett will put forth a worse showing than his dud of a 2006 - all point to a better bunch of tackles without any personnel changes.
McCargo did nothing in college to suggest that he's going to do anything other than what he has in the pros. He was not a sack generator or any kind of monster "disrupter." Where that came from is remarkable. He had three sacks in his rookie season and one in the next two, on some QB stiff name Baker at NC on a poor O.

Tripplett has played exactly the same for five seasons. So someone, anyone, besides just "because the team famous for spoon feeding the fans enough to become the next Gerber spokes-entity" said so, why now should Tripplett all of a sudden become something other than what he's been for half-a-decade now halfway into his prime? You and anyone else believing that Tripplett's going to do anything other than provide backup caliber play at DT are merely fooling themselves.

As to Fletcher, is it not entirely possible that the reason for his downfield tackles was b/c he had no front-four capable of even slowing down opposing RBs for him? I mean at 5'10"/245, favorable on the height here, Fletcher was no soft-body or lightweight. He also wasn't slow and in comparison and contrast for NFL players he also wasn't stupid.

IMO there's a tremendous misassessment occurring here that is falsely placing the blame for a front-four devoid of any talent after Schobel, and then only in the passing game, squarely on the shoulders of a departed player. While perhaps convenient, it's not honest.

Nonetheless, we'll see if Washington's or our rushing D improves more. Both teams were statistically neck and neck last year. Neither team realliy did much other than swap MLBs.

[Wys Guy]

I saw that article earlier. It made me feel a little better, after being told over and over by the negmeisters how bad our LBs were going to be.

Who really knows at this point, but it's great to see that some "experts" actually noticed that Fletcher and Spikes were just a tad short of all-world anymore.
And their replacements are automatically better how now?

Apparently no one is at all concerned over the lack of playing experience, either at the depth or starter levels and the lack of starts, 30 total, by our entire LB-ing corps.

Since when has that never been a factor?

Not trying to argue, rather merely attempting to understand the basis for much of the belief(s) around here. Truly, I just don't get it b/c it makes no sense.

If I said that I expect that my house is going to add 20% to its value and threw out some ill-founded reasons, that doesn't mean that the analysis is sound at all. Yet, that's the method in applying ideas here, often, usually.

Since when has a team led pretty much by one linebacker with a dozen starts in each of two seasons alongside what amounts to a caste of rookies and backups been anything but low end?

I'm incredibly curious to hear what the going thing is about 10 games into the season.

[Jan Reimers]

Wys, it was time for Fletcher and Spikes to go. Players get older and less effective. And unless you replace every departed player with a veteran free agent, you are going to have a less experienced rookie in the lineup. Why can't you accept that?

How do rookies get to be experienced veterans unless they play?

I loved Darryl Talley as much as any Bill in history, but there was a time for him to go, too. I saluted him - as I do Spikes and Fletcher - and moved on.

[casdhf]

****No one complained about Fletcher's play when he was in Gregg William's 46 system and had good DT's in front of him. Remember, the Bills got Fletcher from the Rams because Lovie Smith couldn't use him in the Tampa-2 he was installing in St. Louis. Now Buffalo is playing Tampa-2, and once again, Fletcher doesn't fit. I'd never thought of this before.

[Wys Guy]

Wys, it was time for Fletcher and Spikes to go. Players get older and less effective. And unless you replace every departed player with a veteran free agent, you are going to have a less experienced rookie in the lineup. Why can't you accept that?

How do rookies get to be experienced veterans unless they play?

I loved Darryl Talley as much as any Bill in history, but there was a time for him to go, too. I saluted him - as I do Spikes and Fletcher - and moved on.
Good negotiating mandates that you sell while high, buy while low. This is something that I've been harping on for years. Donadope bought high (Bledsoe, Vincent, Milloy, McGahee) and sold low. (Henry, Brown) Among others.

Your insistence that either Fletcher or Spikes was washed up is nonsense. We'll find that out w/ both this season. Nevertheless, point well taken. If you've read my stuff over the past year, you'd note that I was not big on Fletcher anyway in the cover 2. He's not suited to it. Spikes however was.

Spikes also would have been worth more following this season than last. We should have hung onto him for one more season given the hike in the cap, restructured his contract so as not to count as much against the cap this season, and used him to transition into next season whereby we could have easily traded him for more and had more time to find a suitor and therefore someone that may have been better for us in the long haul, perhaps a 25-year old player instead of a one-foot-out-the-door less than stellar Walker.

We got virtually nothing for Spikes and mark my words, if you think that Spikes is only gonna be what he was last year, you're mistaken. He'll likely be a solid/average LB. But right now that's more that we can say we have.

Now, I do like Posluszny, and again, if you read my post draft stuff you'd already know that if any player we selected and given the manner that we did, he was worth it. I can't say much more there than to do what y'all do and annoint him the next Urlacher which I can't imagine is going to happen since he doesn't have BU's size or speed.

But a trio of Puz, Crowell, and Spikes would easily have been better than what we have, afforded us some decent depth, and allowed the younger players to transition instead of throwing them into a situation whereby I believe they will only become frustrated and overcome, not a good way to learn and grow.

As it now stands, what if Crowell gets hurt, ... again? What if Puz doesn't meet the most lofty expectations placed upon him, even by me? Then what? We essentially have absolutely no LB-ing presence. Some holdover vet talent would have been wise to hang onto. I don't consider Crowell seasoned vet talent.

Either way, and it can't be stressed enough, that amongst our entire LB-ing corps, starter, depth, whatever, only two players have any experience and neither has started all 16 games of an entire season. One of the two, Ellison, is still very raw and unproven contrary to more unfounded hopes.

To me that's very relevant in determining where we are headed and how our D will play. But to even suggest that what we have now can match what we had last year just makes no sense to me.

Last year DeMeco Ryans was ROY, and still, the Texan D only improved marginally and they brought on many other players too including Anthony Weaver.

So I fully understand what you're saying, but then by the same token, why not have replaced the aging, ineffective, and overpaid Peerless Price who was perhaps even less effective than either Spikes would have been or Fletcher was, with one of the picks in the draft we used on backups with our 3rd thru 5th picks and why aren't you hard on the organization for that?

I mean if you're going to be consistent here, then also why not have not paid Langston Walker, two years removed from NFL irrelevance, all that money and kept Pennington, who at least statistically outshone Walker in spades last season?

I mean if you're going to be consistent here, then at some point you have to quit taking this "let's just support the team not matter what they do" pill as if it's pleasant and begin to apply that logic universally within the team.

Yet, you don't. Why not?

Also, your assumption that all of this rookie and young talent will work out is unfounded. Yet, it must simply for us to present mediocrity this fall. Anything less will result in simply being really, really bad.

I'm tellin' ya, expect our D to rival the worst Ds ever for this team. Whether the play of the offense can overcome this remains to be seen. That's a tall order however in my book.

[Wys Guy]

****No one complained about Fletcher's play when he was in Gregg William's 46 system and had good DT's in front of him. Remember, the Bills got Fletcher from the Rams because Lovie Smith couldn't use him in the Tampa-2 he was installing in St. Louis. Now Buffalo is playing Tampa-2, and once again, Fletcher doesn't fit.
Fletcher has always been a liability in the passing game, in any system. He routinely gets beat, even if only by half-a-step, by bigger RBs and TEs. It was a hallmark of his time in Buffalo.

Upon the ILDD's hire and the decision to go to the C-2, I pointed out that even more so Fletcher would not fit the system.

He did have a tremendous initial burst however, and in the right role, WLB, he may have had tremendous value in the pass rush and sack generation. Laugh it up, but IMO he could easily have had double-digit sack production in such a role.

Having kept him on, not as a MLB, but as a WLB, would have made quite a bit of sense, at least in part. Granted, he'd still need to participate in coverages, but just as has been a tradeoff with him here in the MLB-ing role when everyone seemed fully content with his play not levying some of these criticisms while I was and while he was with the team, so too there'd have had some utility at WLB.

[Jan Reimers]

Also, your assumption that all of this rookie and young talent will work out is unfounded. Yet, it must simply for us to present mediocrity this fall. Anything less will result in simply being really, really bad.

I'm tellin' ya, expect our D to rival the worst Ds ever for this team. Whether the play of the offense can overcome this remains to be seen. That's a tall order however in my book.
You have no idea how our young talent will progress, or how good or bad our D will be. Nor do I. We've missed the playoffs 7 straight years, and it's time for some major changes. I don't like them all, and you don't like most of them. So be it.

Now I'm tired and crabby, and it's time for my afternoon nap.:respect:

[Wys Guy]

You have no idea how our young talent will progress, or how good or bad our D will be. Nor do I. We've missed the playoffs 7 straight years, and it's time for some major changes. I don't like them all, and you don't like most of them. So be it.

Now I'm tired and crabby, and it's time for my afternoon nap.:respect:

LOL Sounds grand, ... the nap that is. ;)

And no, I don't know how our young talent will progress. But I'm wagering that as a collective it will fall along a normal curve, which is, well, outside of the statistical nomenclature, very normal.

So to assume that they all fall flat would be unwise. My assumption is that Lynch and Puz will be very good. But the likelihood of that occurring is less than 50/50 insofar as the expectations for each, according to draft media hype, is concerned.

As to the rest, I can say who I think will step up and who won't. All I have to go on is last season's performances for the guys brought in under the ILDD. While I may then be wrong about a particular player one way or another, I'd likely be oppositely incorrect on another.

But as a collective performing to a normal distribution performance wise, we still don't have enough to put a winner on the field next season without a substantial net improvement, much less this one.

Your comment about it being time for "major changes" is interesting. I agree, but what I see going on now is not "major changes" from the way things were under Donadope. Certainly the same exact personnel structure exists. Good, or bad? Major change there?

Lastly, you haven't even commented on the coaching, which from the perspective of the coordinators is still a craps shoot at best. We know nothing about these guys as they are both being developed at your expense. Under whom? Under Jauron, a proven failure.

So I'd have to say, and if you're being honest here Jan you'd have to agree, that that merely creates more of an uphill battle for the team and therefore for us as fans.

I just hope that if this season doesn't shape up as many here would like it to, that the MBs in general, here, TSW, Range, TOS, etc. all begin making some noise to get Wilson to finally get us a decent GM and therefore a decent head coach. I'd like to see us grab the next decent GM that becomes available. If that means ditching Levy early, fine. If it means hanging onto him for an extra season until one does, then fine.

But let's buy when there's something worth buying, not when we have our backs to the wall and for the media's sake we have to make a kneejerk managerial and coaching change when the best candidates are not available.

But I'll give it this season. If we stink the joint up and our D is in fact among the worst ever in the team's history, then I'd have to say that all of my positions will have been fully validated.

We were flat out awful last season in plays allowed and in time-of-possession only spots from the bottom. That doesn't figure to change much with the exact same ineffective front-four and even less now at the LB-ing unit both for starters and depth. How we overcome that definitely remains to be seen.

Happy snoozing!

[Wys Guy]

Oh yeah, while I may not have an exact idea of how our young talent will progress, I've put it in writing that neither Kelsay nor Tripplett will do anything more than they have for half a decade apiece. They're not young and expected to provide some direction for this young D, yet neither will.

[SquishDaFish]

**The best example of this worst sort of tendency was London Fletcher, who, with every tackle he makes, adds to his NFL record of stops made after 9-yard gains. Fletcher, now a Redskin, is outstanding at bringing down guys for his size, but his problem is that he usually waits quite an extended time to make that same stop.

He was too passive, taking too long to both sniff out plays and physically respond. After the Redskins overpay for a player, it's conclusive scientific proof that he possesses no value to the team losing him. Dan Snyder wanted and got Fletcher, which should make Bills followers genuflect with happiness and relief that he's no longer an incomplete player on their team, one who failed to fulfill the linebacker's bargain of being permitted a fraction of a moment to diagnose what the offense is doing as long as he then strikes swiftly.**

Exactly what Ive been saying all along. The only thing we or the Bills are going to miss about him is his leadership

[mackey789]

Wys Guy - I have to say, you are a well informed and very effective writer. But I almost spit my drink out this morning when I saw your multiple postings on this site again. If every fan was as deterrent and negative as you i'd probably jump off a cliff. Reading your articles from time to time over the years, it's evident that even if we win a superbowl - you will somehow manage to rain on the parade. While elegant when expressing your thoughts - I find it hard to digest your material. It's somewhat angry and consistently bleak. Please don't ever let me ever become the pessimist you are. If i never read another one of your posts/articles, I will be the happiest person in the world.

Go Bills

[justasportsfan]

As to Fletcher, is it not entirely possible that the reason for his downfield tackles was b/c he had no front-four capable of even slowing down opposing RBs for him? I mean at 5'10"/245, favorable on the height here, Fletcher was no soft-body or lightweight. He also wasn't slow and in comparison and contrast for NFL players he also wasn't stupid.

.

I agree that his downfield tackles were due to lack of DT's in front of him in the tampa 2.

How was he when Sam and PAt were infront of him in another system? Was he much of an impact player and making plays in the backfield ? Enough that he'd make probowl ? NO. Same old downfield tackler but less tackles because of Sam and PAt in front of him.

Our Lbing corps was supposedly one of the best in the league ..... up until Pat Williams left.

It's safe to say, other than Spikes, we didn't have much of a lb corps then .

Big Pat and Sam Adams made Posey and Fletcher look better than they were.

His tackles went up last year because he had no DT's in front of him last but he wasn't filling the gaps at the LOS in the Tampa 2.

Now it's easier for me to agree that Marv and Dick weren't lying when they implied they wanted Poz over Willis. Watching his tapes from college , Poz seems to have a knack for sniffing the ball and attacking the backfield. Even more than Willis(prior to his knee injury.

If he's as smart as they think he is and is 100%, I can see POz covering the gaps and making plays in the backfield when Fletcher couldn't.

[alohabillsfan]

Some people understand football, enjoy their team and chat about it on message boards...

Some people will argue why the sky is blue utilizing 18 paragraphs, nuff said.

[TigerJ]

Link anyone? I don't have that site bookmarked.

[HHURRICANE]

Uhhh, whipcream on ****.