The real weakness of the 2007 Bills

[ghz in pittsburgh]

is the Cornerbacks.

Say what you want regarding the departure of London, Takeo, Nate, and others. The only one I wanted out of that group is Nate. And I don't see a single CB on this roster capable to play at Nate's level this whole season.

Now Whitner and Simpson should get better and that may make up the loss of Nate a bit. Still, if we face a dominant WR that we need to cover one-on-one, we have no one. That, my friend, makes a DC sleepless at night, because he doesn't have that weapon any more.

DL is a concern. But they have played a whole year together with a couple of rookies and new comers last year. They have to be better than last year. How much better? We don't know. But they will be better and that's a nice thought going into the season.

LB corp was my biggest concern even when Fletcher was here. Unlike many I actually have had big hope for Ellison. Guys like him - having speed and very intelligent - have a history in NFL of improving big time in their second year. He won't be a superstar but he can be very good - always recognize plays quickly and go to the right place at the right time, until his body fall apart (we already got a taste of that as he went down near the end of last season). Poz to me filled the biggest need this entire off-season. I look for him to improve throughout the season. Based on his Penn State career, he's dependable with a great upside.

Ideally, the Bills would like to follow the Bears and Colts route in 2006 - scoring a lot early and force the defense to pass. But here is my concern, we definitely get worse in terms of coverage this year. For this reason I'm expecting a similar year like last year record wise.

[don137]

I am not too concerned. I think they won't be the strong point of the defense but they will do better than whay many think.
They may not have a star but they have great depth and Webster if he can stay healthy will do much better than people think.

[Pinkerton Security]

Still, if we face a dominant WR that we need to cover one-on-one, we have no one.

Thats the thing with a base D of zone: you dont necessarily need excellent man-cover CB's. Not to say Im not still concerned a bit, but not as much as I am with the Dline.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Let me ask you a question: did Indy, San Diego, The Jets, the Giants have a CB that played as well as Nate Clements last year? (One could argue about Dallas and New Orleans as well.)

Did having Nate Clements help the Bills or Dre Bly help the Lions make the playoffs?

Now, that's not to say that the Bills won't miss Nate Clements. They will. And, to a certain--though significantly lesser--extent I do share your concerns about the Bills' CBs. But, I don't really think that we fully know what the Bills have in the CBs that they have on the roster already--specifically in Jason Webster and Ashton Youboty--and I also think that there are some thing that can be done, scheme-wise, in the Tampa 2 defense that can help to cover up or compensate for not having a great man-to-man cornerback.

I'm not going to tell you that Ashton Youboty will suddenly turn into the second coming of Champ Bailey or that Jason Webster is going to magically become a Dre Bly clone. And, I must admit that I am a bit concerned about the prospect of starting two CBs that are just 5'9" tall, if Webster ends up winning the starting job opposite T.McGee. But, on the otherhand, by all reports, Webster has played pretty well and been a solid starter when he has been healthy in the past and he seems to be doing a pretty good job so far in trainign camp and the OTAs. And, while I haven't seen a lot of positive stuff about Youboty, there was a report recently that the coaches are pleased with his progress.

Now, I understand that we can't expect the Bills offense to be as prolific this season as the Colts offense was last year, but I don't see McGee and a healthy Webster as being that much worse a CB combo than David and Harper were for the Colts defense last season. I know, I know, that we would all like to see the Bills get better play out of their CBs than that. But, I also wouldn't count Youboty entirely out of the picture either, particularly as the season progresses. He was a raw talent coming in last year who was going to need some time to develop and, as we all know, he missed a lot of time, making this, in effect, as with JP Losman the year after he was injured as a rookie, Youboty's first real year. I expect that the coaches, knowing that the Bills will be facing teams with some tall WRs, will try to get Youboty to the point where they can start working him into the lineup as soon as possible.

Even if Webster plays well and Youboty develops quickly, I realize that that still will not mean that the Bills will be able to field a CB tandem comparable to the pair of CBs that Denver will have starting for them to open the season, but I do think that the Bills CBs can be good enough to allow the Bills to be competitive and, perhaps, in the hunt for a playoff berth, if the run defense improves and the offense and special teams play up to their capablilities.

Depending on what happens with the interior of the Bills' defensive line this season, I think that it may take another offseason for the Bills to put a starting CB in the class of a Clements or Winfield on the field. But, then again, who knows, from some of the things I've read, when he is healthy Webster sounds like he could be very similar in many ways to A.Winfield.

Personally, because of what I have read about how Webster played when he was healthy and the talent that Youboty has, I am more concerned about the interior of the Bills front seven and how the DTs and MLB (who I expect to be Posluzny) will perform this season.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

Thats the thing with a base D of zone: you dont necessarily need excellent man-cover CB's. Not to say Im not still concerned a bit, but not as much as I am with the Dline.

That's where I don't agree. From Marv's comment after the draft, I think they realize a somewhat hole in CB. The fact many pegged us drafting a CB instead of Lynch is not out of nowhere.

Yes the base is cover 2 but it changes from game to game, from quarter to quarter, even from play to play. You can bet there will be time they have our CBs cover one on one. Maybe even a sizable percentage. And you know what? Every team does that. Man to man is one of the basics of defensive strategy and no matter what base scheme you have, you need that some time.

Think of the end of the Houston game last year. On the play where Nate defended the 3rd down play before Losman got his chance at the end of the game, the Bills had to play man to man on the receivers because the threat of the run and because of the short distance situation - like Nate said afterwards "I expect something quick" - which generally speaking nullify any D-Line pressure (the QB is going 3 steps or less). If this happens again this year, we have no one who has the speed to hang with anyone and the size to battle anyone (as well as the smarts).

To me, the Bills wanted Walker not for run defense, but for pass defense. You are a bit short on cover so you try to go long on pressure. This is GM's overall approach thinking. Deep down, you bet they'd kill to have a guy like Nate on your roster.

[madness]

Donte Whitner on Sirius discussing Webster...

“Who ever says he can’t play football didn’t know what they were talking about, because he covers Lee Evans as well as anybody I’ve seen since I’ve been here.”

[Wys Guy]

is the Cornerbacks.

Say what you want regarding the departure of London, Takeo, Nate, and others. The only one I wanted out of that group is Nate. And I don't see a single CB on this roster capable to play at Nate's level this whole season.

Now Whitner and Simpson should get better and that may make up the loss of Nate a bit. Still, if we face a dominant WR that we need to cover one-on-one, we have no one. That, my friend, makes a DC sleepless at night, because he doesn't have that weapon any more.

DL is a concern. But they have played a whole year together with a couple of rookies and new comers last year. They have to be better than last year. How much better? We don't know. But they will be better and that's a nice thought going into the season.

LB corp was my biggest concern even when Fletcher was here. Unlike many I actually have had big hope for Ellison. Guys like him - having speed and very intelligent - have a history in NFL of improving big time in their second year. He won't be a superstar but he can be very good - always recognize plays quickly and go to the right place at the right time, until his body fall apart (we already got a taste of that as he went down near the end of last season). Poz to me filled the biggest need this entire off-season. I look for him to improve throughout the season. Based on his Penn State career, he's dependable with a great upside.

Ideally, the Bills would like to follow the Bears and Colts route in 2006 - scoring a lot early and force the defense to pass. But here is my concern, we definitely get worse in terms of coverage this year. For this reason I'm expecting a similar year like last year record wise.

If we can't run and stop the run we won't be able to control the clock. We lost the ToP battle in 12 of 16 contests last year winning it vs. the Fins twice, the Vikes, who barely ran in the 2nd half, and vs. the Jets in one game I believe, a team that we always seem to play tough in this new millenium.

We won't jump out to early leads if we can't stop opposing rushing games. To say "we will improve" isn't exactly a leap of faith given our near last status in doing so. We were also ranked 30th in ToP ahead of only Tampa and Oakland I believe, so ditto there.

I just don't think teams will pass much against us unless we begin to stack the box, which clearly we won't be able to afford to do given your points above.

Even if Poz steps up huge, he's still only one player on a D that was decimated from an experience standpoint. Sure, Fletcher was no HoF-er but he was a very solid above average starter. Spikes will probably never play to Pro Bowl levels again, but he too came on towards the end of the season being the leading tackler in a couple of games, most notably the one game in which our "losing by three" had the greatest merit even if only for a half.

The huge puzzle piece in this scenario is, well actually, two things, Lynch and his overall play, and Losman's ability to find his short game.

If one thing disturbs me it's that there seems to be an awful lot, too much, talk about how Losman is going deep in camp, usually discussed relative to Nall and Edwards.

We all know that there's nothing wrong with the Bills' deep game. Only NO with Brees, Bush, and Colston threw more deep TD passes than Losman. So that should not even be of concern.

Losman needs to focus entirely on his short game and ball distribution within the 10 or 15 yard line on the fly. I have read at least one report, probably by someone here indicating that in fact he had done that, at least in one practice.

If Losman finds that short game, Lynch will benefit tremendously. As written about, expect Evans to establish at least one, perhaps all three major team records for receiving this season.

A nominal rushing game and a lone deep ball tandem is no formula for playoff caliber offense however. Lynch shouldn't have much trouble matching McGahee's contributions, and if not in paper yardage, at least in how hard he hits the holes, and well, frankly hitting the hole at all which McG was clearly loathe to do running more like Franco Harris did in his last days in Seattle.

So many facets of team play ranked 26th or worse last season that simple "improvement" just ain't going to cut it. An increase of 6 ranking spots in each across the board would still leave us as a statistically below average team. While some can dismiss stats all that they want to, they do carry meaning and when so globally short and short across the board like that it definitely means something when aggregated.

The season should be interesting. We get a glimpse next Friday night on national TV vs. NO. If all we do is launch deep balls to Evans and Price, with little else, then it won't be a good sign. The team needs to come out offensively an establish the fact that they can in fact sustain drives with 8-15 play drives consistently. As it stands from last season, we ran fewer plays than all 31 other teams. That will have to change if we're going to improve. "Improving" from 32nd to 28th isn't going to do us much good in the long haul.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I think more people should take managment classes if they want to manage people, a team, or a company. Things just don't work as simple as "replace him", or "replace the team" overnight, or in NFL world, over a season.

The simple question I ask myself is 1) are we better today than yesterday and 2) can we be better tomorrow than today? If you get yes answers consistently for your offense and defense on both run and pass, then you are improving and will get to your big ride eventually.

For the Bills, I see the answer to question 1) is yes for pass offense and about equal for run offense (experience McGahee replaced by two young guns plus an improved O-Line). On defense, I see a yes for run defense, but I find it hard not to say no on pass defense.

In terms of individual style, I'm not that concerned. You can demand but can't expect a QB to be perfect. Losman's strength is long ball. Let's use it. Kurt Warner was good at throwing long, and the Rams had the O-Line and WRs to pull it off. The Bills might go for that route, too. On run defense, from what I read, I'm going to boldly guess that Fewell may go the Eagles route - the Colts went for it the same way in last year's playoffs - run blitz. You may see Whitner and Simpson run blitz a lot in running downs, especially early in the season when Poz is still getting his feet wet.

[Wys Guy]

I think more people should take managment classes if they want to manage people, a team, or a company. Things just don't work as simple as "replace him", or "replace the team" overnight, or in NFL world, over a season.

I think more teams/owners ought to step out of their world of the NFL's version of their good-ole-boy-network and take a chance on people with perhaps not as much direct experience managing a team or the like, and perhaps just hire someone that they know is capable of doing it in spite of perhaps their lack of a track record in that way.


The simple question I ask myself is 1) are we better today than yesterday and 2) can we be better tomorrow than today? If you get yes answers consistently for your offense and defense on both run and pass, then you are improving and will get to your big ride eventually.

That's fair.


For the Bills, I see the answer to question 1) is yes for pass offense and about equal for run offense (experience McGahee replaced by two young guns plus an improved O-Line). On defense, I see a yes for run defense, but I find it hard not to say no on pass defense.

I see the answer to question one for pass offense as yes also. But we were so far down last year in essential pass offense that it is almost impossible not to. I.e., there's really only one way to go but up with one exception, the Bills' single deep ball threat from JP to Evans. I'll discuss that more below. But otherwise, and you have to break it down as such, by separating our horrendous short game and successful deep game.

Re: Run offense, IMO the "experience" we lost in McGahee was "bad experience" just like Jauron is "bad experience." If you want to benchmark something, benchmark success, not failure. Benchmarking is merely setting a standard for operating from. Lynch should not have difficultly bringing at least what WM did. So I expect, w/ Lynch even as a rookie, an improvement. How much remains to be seen. If you watch his college games vs. SC and UCLA you'll notice that he hits the holes quickly.

On defense I see the pass D as similar if not slightly worse, but prolly the same due to style and the same front-4 for the most part.

On rush D I see a regression. We had some size, strength, and beef on rush defense that we just don't have anymore. Schobel's gotten lighter/thinner, we have no "wide-bodies" or heavyweights by design, our LBs are underexperienced too.


In terms of individual style, I'm not that concerned. You can demand but can't expect a QB to be perfect. Losman's strength is long ball. Let's use it. Kurt Warner was good at throwing long, and the Rams had the O-Line and WRs to pull it off. The Bills might go for that route, too. On run defense, from what I read, I'm going to boldly guess that Fewell may go the Eagles route - the Colts went for it the same way in last year's playoffs - run blitz. You may see Whitner and Simpson run blitz a lot in running downs, especially early in the season when Poz is still getting his feet wet.

The "long ball" has never propelled any team deep into the playoffs or to win a Super Bowl. The Rams throw long much less than you think. Most of Bulger's TD passes were within the 10 yard line and all but a couple were within the red zone.

Any good offense is predicated on a strong, or at least average rushing game, and effective short-medium passing game. Teams that rely on the deep ball w/o having that just don't do much. Only one team had more deep passes for TDs than we did, Brees and NO. We had more deep tosses for TDs than even Manning and Palmer. Considering that they both threw nearly then-again 50% more passes, that's saying quite a bit.

The bread of the passing game is buttered in the short game.

This is also why we were dead last in plays run last year and third from last in ToP. You don't improve those things by improving your deep game or going to it more often. That's just basic common sense.

We need to control the ball and control the clock if we're going to be able to claim improvement on O this season. I agree we will, but from what, near dead last and in fact dead last in one case. So dependent upon how far that moves, we may be able to claim "success" under Jauron.

If after three years we're only still in the 20s for rankings in these areas, in spite of raw statistical "improvement" I think it would be very fair to suggest that overall we can call it failure. So IMO we need to move into the range of the average, meaning on or about the 12th to 20th range this year in most categories or that is in jeopardy of occurring.

As well, we can talk all the "ifs" and "I thinks" that we want to now. What matters is what happens in weeks 1 thru 17.

So we can revisit later on. But IMO if Lynch plays halfway decently, we can do that offensively assuming that Losman can pitch decent short games too and has improved in that way.

Defensively, I don't see improvement at all. I see only further regression. So given that, I would say that the extent to which we regress defensively contrasted with how much we improve offensively will largely reveal how much we improve in ball-control and therefore clock/ToP control.

If our D does in fact get worse and we just can't keep teams from mounting long clock consuming drives on us, unless we can do the same thing and to at least the same extent, we can't win those battles. That should also be common sense. Last season we also ranked 26th in number of plays allowed in spite of ranking only 23rd in rushing plays allowed.

So in essence, for us to win the ball control/clock control battle with the D we have, our O will have to outperform our opponents' Offenses yet mostly against superior Defenses considering that ours ranks near the bottom. Even with a marginal uptick in Defensive play, something that we won't see more than tops if we see improvement at all, it still won't be average.

I just don't see that happening. The only way that might even be possible is if our O plays to a level such that it ends up among say the top-5 O's.

[Wys Guy]

As well gigahertz, just as our D is so bad that there's really only one way to go but up, so too our STs is so good that the only room to move there is down.

Not saying we will, but we will have to sustain that level of play on STs or that offsets other gains. I believe we will, but that doesn't guarantee anything either anymore than your thinking our D gets better does.

[Night Train]

I still say DT. I did see positives in camp from Williams ( looks stronger ) and McCargo ( shooting gap for backfield tackles ) but everything on D works from the line out.

If the front 7 is showing holes, the secondary is being hung out to dry.

[BillsFever21]

Donte Whitner on Sirius discussing Webster...

“Who ever says he can’t play football didn’t know what they were talking about, because he covers Lee Evans as well as anybody I’ve seen since I’ve been here.”

You hear stories like this with every single team when it come to guys that isn't very good. Check out any team and you will find stories like this and then the season starts and you find out what you have.

What is he supposed to say? Webster is a bum and we are screwed without Nate? Of course not.

[madness]

You hear stories like this with every single team when it come to guys that isn't very good. Check out any team and you will find stories like this and then the season starts and you find out what you have.

What is he supposed to say? Webster is a bum and we are screwed without Nate? Of course not.

If it didn't need to be said he wouldn't have said it. If he would say something like that and he didn't mean it, that would say something about his character. There's a difference between saying something nice about a teammate and just flat out blowing him up. I don't go talking up an employee when I give my reviews if I think he has an average work ethic, even if he is a buddy of mine.

Camp reports have more or less said Webster has been doing a great job on Evans also. The guy has always been the real deal when he wasn't struggling with injuries. He may not be as talented as Nate but he does something Nate couldn't ever do, play within the scheme.