McCargo

[OpIv37]

This is what I saw from him in Friday's game:

-he made one good tackle on a running play.
-the fumble/INT was a bit of a "johnny on the spot" play, but I have to give him credit for getting to the spot and having the hands to pull it off.
- there was one play late in the 3rd where he ALMOST pressured the QB.

Other than those three plays, he was largely ineffective. Our DT's got no penetration in the passing game, especially against the first team. McCargo missed that tackle on the QB- it looked like he had him wrapped up but it didn't even slow the guy down.

So far, it looks like McCargo has demonstrated a limited ability to make plays but still struggles to consistently rush the passer.

[jamze132]

This is what I saw from him in Friday's game:

-he made one good tackle on a running play.
-the fumble/INT was a bit of a "johnny on the spot" play, but I have to give him credit for getting to the spot and having the hands to pull it off.
- there was one play late in the 3rd where he ALMOST pressured the QB.

Other than those three plays, he was largely ineffective. Our DT's got no penetration in the passing game, especially against the first team. McCargo missed that tackle on the QB- it looked like he had him wrapped up but it didn't even slow the guy down.

So far, it looks like McCargo has demonstrated a limited ability to make plays but still struggles to consistently rush the passer.
He's still young and very inexperieinced. Hopefully if he stays healthy, he can continue to improve.

[jmb1099]

From what I saw at the game he looked good. He and Hargrove worked well together and seemed to have a real chemistry. I'm not going to say you're being a bit hard, maybe you just had a different vantage point.

[Tatonka]

op.. just :stfu: for one night.. christ.

[duhbilz]

He's still young and very inexperieinced. Hopefully if he stays healthy, he can continue to improve.

Not what you want to hear about a 1st round pick.

[jmb1099]

Not what you want to hear about a 1st round pick.
You're right...no learning curve for anyone...ever

[BuffaloBillsStampede]

I thought he looked at least a little above average. He got a pretty good push for the most part.

[Goobylal]

Another great job at observing, Op. And how crappy was Walker again last night?

[justasportsfan]

Half empty vs. half full

[duhbilz]

You're right...no learning curve for anyone...ever

Doesn't change the fact that 1st round picks are first round picks for a reason. He's not a QB, He's a DT.....rush the passer, stop the run. How much more is there to learn??

[jmb1099]

Doesn't change the fact that 1st round picks are first round picks for a reason. He's not a QB, He's a DT.....rush the passer, stop the run. How much more is there to learn??
There is a learning curve with any and every position

[duhbilz]

There is a learning curve with any and every position

Pozluszny's learning curve doesn't seem to be a problem and he has much more to learn about his position then McCargo has to learn about his. It's 1 full season and 2 full camps of learning the position, even if he didn't play understanding what he needs to do shouldn't be the problem, so all that leaves is instinct.

[jmb1099]

Pozluszny's learning curve doesn't seem to be a problem and he has much more to learn about his position then McCargo has to learn about his. It's 1 full season and 2 full camps of learning the position, even if he didn't play understanding what he needs to do shouldn't be the problem, so all that leaves is instinct.

Not everyone develops as quickly hence the curve.

[Wys Guy]

Not what you want to hear about a 1st round pick.
Yeah, no kidding. Particularly one that you felt you absolutely had to trade up into an area where no one had him on their boards to get him at the cost of another day one pick that may have produced another starter on top of it.

Some of these guys will always ask for patience, three more years, the benefit of the doubt, etc. regardless of how ludicrous it all gets.

These are the same types that keep dating psycho women and the like long after the writing's on the wall after they find out. ;)

[Wys Guy]

You're right...no learning curve for anyone...ever
Perhaps he'll come around in time for free agency.

Then I'm sure we'll tag him making him one of the highest paid players in the league. After all, our top paid players offer so much now;

Tripplett, Kelsay, Price, Royal, three of the four the highest paid players at their positions ever for the Bills. I mean I just don't know how we'd actually get what little we get w/o those guys.

Langston Walker should be a beast too. The guy looks like he has pegs for legs, or like an orange with a couple of toothpicks stuck into it for legs. Plays like it too.

Ahhh, McNally will fix it. He can get any group of linemen playing like an average group or better. At least that's what we were told four seasons ago when we hired him. Maybe he just needs another five seasons.

On a side note, his pic on TOS looks like he just did five lines of coke and is getting goosed at the instant the pic was taken.

[Wys Guy]

Not everyone develops as quickly hence the curve.'
Most of our players have no curve. They just kinda come here, hang around for a while, then get cut. More like a flatline.

The learning flatlline.

[jmb1099]

Yeah, no kidding. Particularly one that you felt you absolutely had to trade up into an area where no one had him on their boards to get him at the cost of another day one pick that may have produced another starter on top of it.

Some of these guys will always ask for patience, three more years, the benefit of the doubt, etc. regardless of how ludicrous it all gets.

These are the same types that keep dating psycho women and the like long after the writing's on the wall after they find out. ;)
I know right? Its so easy to tell how a player will shape up that we shouldn't even have to bother with training camp and they should know it all after the first snap of preseason, especially if it was a first round pick.

[DraftBoy]

This is what I saw from him in Friday's game:

-he made one good tackle on a running play.
-the fumble/INT was a bit of a "johnny on the spot" play, but I have to give him credit for getting to the spot and having the hands to pull it off.
- there was one play late in the 3rd where he ALMOST pressured the QB.

Other than those three plays, he was largely ineffective. Our DT's got no penetration in the passing game, especially against the first team. McCargo missed that tackle on the QB- it looked like he had him wrapped up but it didn't even slow the guy down.

So far, it looks like McCargo has demonstrated a limited ability to make plays but still struggles to consistently rush the passer.


Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.

[jmb1099]

Perhaps he'll come around in time for free agency.

Then I'm sure we'll tag him making him one of the highest paid players in the league. After all, our top paid players offer so much now;

Tripplett, Kelsay, Price, Royal, three of the four the highest paid players at their positions ever for the Bills. I mean I just don't know how we'd actually get what little we get w/o those guys.

Langston Walker should be a beast too. The guy looks like he has pegs for legs, or like an orange with a couple of toothpicks stuck into it for legs. Plays like it too.

Ahhh, McNally will fix it. He can get any group of linemen playing like an average group or better. At least that's what we were told four seasons ago when we hired him. Maybe he just needs another five seasons.

On a side note, his pic on TOS looks like he just did five lines of coke and is getting goosed at the instant the pic was taken.
I know what you mean. I can't believe the Bills are paying so much more for their players than the rest of the league is paying for theirs its ridiculous I tell you. I must say that I like your idea about saving money by eliminating positional coaching! After all these guys are all drafted with perfect technique and ready to play... all except the ones we draft, that is right Wys? Everyone we have is beyond hope and improvement.

[jmb1099]

Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw this. I thought he did rather well.

[Wys Guy]

Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.

And which OL-men was he pushing around? I don't recall too many rankings rating the Falcon line as anything impressive. In fact, can you find one that has the Atlanta line ranked among the top 20?

It is what it is.

[Wys Guy]

I know what you mean. I can't believe the Bills are paying so much more for their players than the rest of the league is paying for theirs its ridiculous I tell you. I must say that I like your idea about saving money by eliminating positional coaching! After all these guys are all drafted with perfect technique and ready to play... all except the ones we draft, that is right Wys? Everyone we have is beyond hope and improvement.

LOL No wonder you support the team's current paces. ;)

[mysticsoto]

Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.

Agreed DB. I am surprised to be reading what I'm reading around here. When McCargo is in, the run D is definitely much better and the entire Dline does not get pushed back and instead seems to get a push forward. Even if he's not in the QB's face, he doesn't have to always be there. Clogging up running lanes is something we've struggled with, and I think when he is in, the clogging is alot more effective. He's not perfect, and he's not an "in his prime" PW or SA, but for not having played in so long, and being just slightly more experienced than a rookie, I think he is doing well.

[Wys Guy]

I hate to once again be the voice of reason, but McCargo did nothing in week one's game but get pushed around just like all the other DTs.

Now, I realize that pushing around rookies like Justin Blalock, who may never even turn out to be a solid backup after several years, is somehow impressive. But common sense would strongly suggest that perhaps that's not the best indicator of a DT's play. Call me insane.

[DraftBoy]

And which OL-men was he pushing around? I don't recall too many rankings rating the Falcon line as anything impressive. In fact, can you find one that has the Atlanta line ranked among the top 20?

It is what it is.


Do I give a damn if the OL-men ranked 1st or last in the NFL, its an improvement over last year. Any time we see one our linemen even begin to push back on an offensive line we should be ecstatic because it didnt happen last year.

[Wys Guy]

Do I give a damn if the OL-men ranked 1st or last in the NFL, its an improvement over last year. Any time we see one our linemen even begin to push back on an offensive line we should be ecstatic because it didnt happen last year.

LOL

OK

[DraftBoy]

I hate to once again be the voice of reason, but McCargo did nothing in week one's game but get pushed around just like all the other DTs.

Now, I realize that pushing around rookies like Justin Blalock, who may never even turn out to be a solid backup after several years, is somehow impressive. But common sense would strongly suggest that perhaps that's not the best indicator of a DT's play. Call me insane.


So getting pushed around by a rookie or somebody elses backup in week 1 is a stronger indicator than pushing around a rookie or somebody elses backup in week 2? Call me crazy but that makes no sense.

[mysticsoto]

I hate to once again be the voice of reason, but McCargo did nothing in week one's game but get pushed around just like all the other DTs.

Now, I realize that pushing around rookies like Justin Blalock, who may never even turn out to be a solid backup after several years, is somehow impressive. But common sense would strongly suggest that perhaps that's not the best indicator of a DT's play. Call me insane.

Week 1? Shouldn't we be talking about week 2? You know - where we saw improvement? Or are we just going to stick with the past? Well you know, last year, McCargo sucked...especially in those games he didn't play in...so that means he will suck again this year.

[DraftBoy]

LOL

OK

You disagree? Did we not get physically manhandeled last year and run on pretty much at will? Do you not see our DL being able to dominate anybody (and yes it was ATL's starting line including pro bowler OG Forney out there till halftime) as some degree of an improvement?

[Carlton Bailey]

It was McCargo's best performance as a Bill, in my opinion. If he plays that well during the season, this defense will probably be average instead of terrible. If the offense actually plays to its potential and is accompanied by an OK defense, that will probably mean nine or 10 wins.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

....Particularly one that you felt you absolutely had to trade up into an area where no one had him on their boards to get him at the cost of another day one pick that may have produced another starter on top of it.....

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.

[mysticsoto]

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.


:bf1:

[jmb1099]

LOL No wonder you support the team's current paces. ;)
I think you're reacting and over-reacting to positive comments made about someone you just clearly don't like. From there it snowballs into how bad the rest of the team is etc.
No one has declared McCargo the next superstar of the team, but the fact remains he played very decent in the situation he was in Friday night. Draftboy's analysis of how he played well hit the nail on the head. You can give any number of excuses why this may have happened, but it happened.

[John Doe]

Yeah, no kidding. Particularly one that you felt you absolutely had to trade up into an area where no one had him on their boards to get him at the cost of another day one pick that may have produced another starter on top of it.

Some of these guys will always ask for patience, three more years, the benefit of the doubt, etc. regardless of how ludicrous it all gets.


Are you seriously advocating cutting McCargo?

Unbelievable.

[Michael82]

Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.
Great post! I personally thought he had a solid game. I was impressed with the kind of pressure that he put on the QB and he seemed to do a decent job of plugging the hole when there was one. He has also showed his pass rushing ability in camp and looked good at it. Let's hope he can keep getting better. Maybe we might have a good DT for change.... :pray:

[Wys Guy]

Are you seriously advocating cutting McCargo?

Unbelievable.

No, not unless we have someone else that's better. I've already stated my positions prominently on McCargo.

Do you seriously think that the guy's going to blossom into anything other than a low-end starter or backup even? In essence a reliable starter?

[Wys Guy]

I think you're reacting and over-reacting to positive comments made about someone you just clearly don't like. From there it snowballs into how bad the rest of the team is etc.
No one has declared McCargo the next superstar of the team, but the fact remains he played very decent in the situation he was in Friday night. Draftboy's analysis of how he played well hit the nail on the head. You can give any number of excuses why this may have happened, but it happened.

Not a bad statement. And if we had lined up against an NFL Europe team and played well, what would the response have been?

Seriously, I like your statement. But consider the entirety of the context. And I won't necessarily agree however, that he had a "better than usual" game for himself and perhaps better than what we've seen as fans from the position. But consider the benchmark then.

He clearly wasn't stellar. Atlanta clearly does not have a great line. Snelling at RB, Harrington of all QBs, etc. and this shouldn't be anything even resembling any standard of anything good.

I'll be happy if McCargo can finally log a sack against somebody other than a scrub QB on a scrub offense, for what, like the first time in three or four seasons both college and pro. I may be convinced that he's anything other than what I've stated he is when he helps lead us to a rushing D that doesn't allow near or greater than 5 ypc. But this was not that yardstick. Snelling tore us up rushing. Snelling, not Tomlinson.

As to Harrington, well, 'nuff said.

Get all excited if you choose. I just don't think that this game was meaningful in establishing much of anything. IMO McCargo has a cliff to scale to merely show that he'll be on the team in '09. He's already a backup, although partially due to this team's staffing strategy, another story altogether.

Context is everything. The Falcons weren't good with Vick, now they utterly suck too. If you want a measuring stick, let's start choosing teams in the top half at least. When McCargo has a good game vs. NE then perhaps it'll have some meaning.

[Wys Guy]

I think you're reacting and over-reacting to positive comments made about someone you just clearly don't like. From there it snowballs into how bad the rest of the team is etc.
No one has declared McCargo the next superstar of the team, but the fact remains he played very decent in the situation he was in Friday night. Draftboy's analysis of how he played well hit the nail on the head. You can give any number of excuses why this may have happened, but it happened.

BTW, it has nothing to do with "I don't like him." To date he's been a sheer and utter waste of two day one draft picks. I merely wonder what we would have had had we not unwisely traded up to get him, at a spot where just about everyone (never say never) knew he wouldn't otherwise go.

As a FO and organization, when you make decisions as such, in order to appear competent, they'd better work out in spades. This one hasn't merely further questioning an already immensely questionable FO and organization.

[John Doe]

Do you seriously think that the guy's going to blossom into anything other than a low-end starter or backup even? In essence a reliable starter?

Yes.

[HHURRICANE]

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.

I concur. The message is aunthenticated.

[PECKERWOOD]

'
Most of our players have no curve. They just kinda come here, hang around for a while, then get cut. More like a flatline.

The learning flatlline.

LOL

[Luisito23]

Just when you think he's about to give someone props, he twistisis <---(?) it all around....Typical old OP.....:drunks:....





GO BILLS!!!!!!

[Goobylal]

Look at it this way. He stopped *****ing about Walker. McCargo shouldn't be far behind.

[justasportsfan]

Just when you think he's about to give someone props, he twistisis <---(?) it all around....Typical old OP.....:drunks:....





GO BILLS!!!!!!
they only see what they want to see . They will find ways and means to even make up negative stuff to feed their negativity.

[Michael82]

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.
As always, LifetimeBillsFan nails it again! Excellent post! :bf1:

[Wally The Barber]

Its funny how some fans are upset when you take a QB in the third when it is not a need position but when you take a need position then many fans believe there was still a Good QB left on the board last season
I find that pretty funny!

[justasportsfan]

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.


wys? Op? THe Answer? ICe? Cremordrinker?ICE? FTP? Beuller ? Moran?Moran?

Any of you want to take this?

[Bling]

I'm holding out on Jason Allen to come around. You guys should hold out on McCargo to come around. Some people take longer than you think. :up:

[Wally The Barber]

McCargo is nothing but a rookie when you think about his past injuries.
I think he is doing much better and I am happy with his play against Atlanta!

[Bling]

McCargo is nothing but a rookie when you think about his past injuries.
I think he is doing much better and I am happy with his play against Atlanta!

Basically a rookie? Hahaha... I remember that one.

[jmb1099]

Basically a rookie? Hahaha... I remember that one.
Think of it as a job that requires on the job training. If you lose any time it effects your progression and ability to do the job effectively. While I hear what you're saying about excuses, time off and missed experience have an effect on quality of play.

[OpIv37]

This is just patently false.

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

Additionally, it has been reported since that draft that several NFL clubs had McCargo rated as no lower than the third best DT in the draft--with some having him rated as the second best DT in the draft--with a large dropoff on their draft boards at the position after him, which is supported by the fact that almost 2 full rounds passed before the next pure DT was taken--the troubled C.Wroten, whose character issues rightly, given his recent arrest, concerned many teams--and close to 3 1/2 rounds passed before the second DT was taken after McCargo was selected.

Regardless of where you or Mel Kiper may have had McCargo rated, it is the opinions of NFL GMs and personnel evaluators that count and reports of what they were thinking and likely to do strongly indicate that they had McCargo rated as being worthy of a much higher pick than many outside of the NFL thought. Now, you can argue the merits of whether the Bills should have taken a DT early on in that draft or should have opted to fill another position, but to perpetuate the myth that the Bills would have been able to select McCargo later in the draft without trading up to get him shows that you simply have not done your research on the subject or are demonstrating a bias against the Bills FO (surprise, surprise....) that is simply not supported by the evidence.

Speaking of evidence: statistics and evidence support the notion that, except in rare, though outstanding, instances, it can take a DT, even one selected in the first rounder of the draft, a couple of years, sometimes even longer, to develop into a Pro Bowler. I posted a statistical analysis of the first year performances of several top-quality and Pro Bowl DTs demonstrating this here at the beginning of last season--feel free to look up that post. While one can hope that a first year DT will step in and be an impact player, more often than not this simply doesn't happen, even with players who end up going on to have Pro Bowl careers. One may expect a first round draft pick to step in and have an impact immediately, but recent history shows that with DTs this is just as often, or more often, not the case as it is. I state this not because I am a "homer", an "optimist" or an "apologist" or because it is my opinion or belief, but because the statistics and performance of many of the recent top-performers and Pro Bowlers at the position support it.

You don't have to take my word for any of this--do your own research. But, do it objectively and with an open mind and not through the prism of preconceived notions or ego-centric prejudices.

First, just because someone else was willing to take McCargo that high does NOT necessarily mean he was worth the pick.

Second, I'll give you that DT is a position that takes time to develop. So, what are we supposed to do? Just sit back and get owned in the running game and get no pressure on the passer until McCargo and Williams develop? That's not good enough. And what if they don't develop? Then in 2-3 years we'll be looking for new DT's and hopefully in 2-3 years they'll be able to stop the run. Great.

Third, how is McCargo supposed to develop when he's consistently injured? The guy's at practically zero from a development standpoint.

On Friday, the guy had a handful of good plays and a ton of mediocre ones. The good plays suggest he might develop into something- the bad plays suggest he's not there yet and that's not good for a position that's probably our weakest already.

[acehole]

Is there a piont? To your post I mean?
You also said R Parish would not get separation because he is to small...

You say alot of thing most don't mean anything...sorry.
Everbody looked very rusty yesterday in Friday's game:

wE ARE ROTATING THESE GUY ANYWAY.

In a way since you dont expect much from the bills there pick or non pick or Fa or non FA you may be pleasantly suprised this year. I think we will do well.

Would sombody please end the P PRICE EXPERIMENT!



-he made one good tackle on a running play.
-the fumble/INT was a bit of a "johnny on the spot" play, but I have to give him credit for getting to the spot and having the hands to pull it off.
- there was one play late in the 3rd where he ALMOST pressured the QB.

Other than those three plays, he was largely ineffective. Our DT's got no penetration in the passing game, especially against the first team. McCargo missed that tackle on the QB- it looked like he had him wrapped up but it didn't even slow the guy down.

So far, it looks like McCargo has demonstrated a limited ability to make plays but still struggles to consistently rush the passer.[/quote]

[OpIv37]

Is there a piont? To your post I mean?
You also said R Parish would not get separation because he is to small...

You say alot of thing most don't mean anything...sorry.
Everbody looked very rusty yesterday in Friday's game:

wE ARE ROTATING THESE GUY ANYWAY.

In a way since you dont expect much from the bills there pick or non pick or Fa or non FA you may be pleasantly suprised this year. I think we will do well.

Would sombody please end the P PRICE EXPERIMENT!




first of all, I never said Parrish wouldn't get separation because he is too small. I said he's only effective when he can get separation because he's too small to work in a crowd or outjump anyone. So far, Parrish has played well in pre-season. I'm just concerned about the type of routes he can run effectively and the catches he can make effectively because of his size. He's great as a 3rd receiver who can help stretch the field in long yardage situations. I just don't see him as a realistic #2.

As far as rotating, so what? We rotated last year. Keeping players fresh is a good thing, but a fresh player who isn't very good (or maybe hasn't developed and just isn't very good yet) still isn't good enough.

I agree on Price. I never liked the signing when Marv brought him back. The good thing: this is his last chance. His contract is heavily backloaded and he gets expensive to keep after this season, so if he doesn't prove his worth, he'll be a cap casualty in '08.

[justasportsfan]

OP only stated Parrish won't succeed in the NFL because he's too small. Smith and Moss are exceptions to the rule and not the rule.

[mysticsoto]

First, just because someone else was willing to take McCargo that high does NOT necessarily mean he was worth the pick.

Second, I'll give you that DT is a position that takes time to develop. So, what are we supposed to do? Just sit back and get owned in the running game and get no pressure on the passer until McCargo and Williams develop? That's not good enough. And what if they don't develop? Then in 2-3 years we'll be looking for new DT's and hopefully in 2-3 years they'll be able to stop the run. Great.

Third, how is McCargo supposed to develop when he's consistently injured? The guy's at practically zero from a development standpoint.

On Friday, the guy had a handful of good plays and a ton of mediocre ones. The good plays suggest he might develop into something- the bad plays suggest he's not there yet and that's not good for a position that's probably our weakest already.

You ***** very well and are good at pointing out problems...but I find that you are frequently lacking in pointing out a solution!!!

[OpIv37]

You ***** very well and are good at pointing out problems...but I find that you are frequently lacking in pointing out a solution!!!

That's Marv's job.

I made a prediction and since my prediction is that we won't do well, I need to state why. That means pointing out problems.

[mysticsoto]

That's Marv's job.

I made a prediction and since my prediction is that we won't do well, I need to state why. That means pointing out problems.

Well now is that nice. You get to criticize the whole time, but can't offer up any solutions yourself. So you're no better if you can't provide alternatives. Marv, on the other hand, doesn't have the luxury of just sitting back and whining. He actually has to do something and those somethings will sometimes involve risk. Some may pan out and some may not, but atleast he does his job and makes those decisions and doesn't just sit behind a keyboard cowardly whining and criticizing anything and everything of others decisions that he himself doesn't even have the balls to make!

[OpIv37]

Well now is that nice. You get to criticize the whole time, but can't offer up any solutions yourself. So you're no better if you can't provide alternatives. Marv, on the other hand, doesn't have the luxury of just sitting back and whining. He actually has to do something and those somethings will sometimes involve risk. Some may pan out and some may not, but atleast he does his job and makes those decisions and doesn't just sit behind a keyboard cowardly whining and criticizing anything and everything of others decisions that he himself doesn't even have the balls to make!

This is a hobby for me. Marv's full time job is to see who's available and of those, who's worth looking at. I'd love to do that but I have neither the time nor attention span.

And anyway, so what if there are no other options? It doesn't make McCargo any better and it doesn't make this team into a winner.

I want this team to WIN and I can and will criticize them until they do, regardless of your childish name-calling.

[mysticsoto]

This is a hobby for me. Marv's full time job is to see who's available and of those, who's worth looking at. I'd love to do that but I have neither the time nor attention span.

...nor the skillset. BTW, didn't know whining was a hobby...




And anyway, so what if there are no other options? It doesn't make McCargo any better and it doesn't make this team into a winner.

Neither does whining...



I want this team to WIN and I can and will criticize them until they do, regardless of your childish name-calling.

Did I name call??? All I did was describe what you do - Criticize, without apparently being able to offer a better solution.

[MikeInRoch]

You are making an assumption, I think, that there actually is a solution out there. When there just might not be one available, or at least one that can be had for a price even close to reasonable.

[OpIv37]

...nor the skillset. BTW, didn't know whining was a hobby...




Neither does whining...



Did I name call??? All I did was describe what you do - Criticize, without apparently being able to offer a better solution.

again, the absence of a better solution does NOT make this team into a winner, so it's irrelevant.

[OpIv37]

You are making an assumption, I think, that there actually is a solution out there. When there just might not be one available, or at least one that can be had for a price even close to reasonable.

see my previous post. What difference does it make? The lack of a better solution does not turn this team into a winner. This thread wasn't about Marv or the job he did or didn't do finding DT's- it was about McCargo and how he looked on Friday and his prospects for contributing this season. I'm still not seeing what we need to see from this guy, and that means bad things for our D this season.

[mysticsoto]

again, the absence of a better solution does NOT make this team into a winner, so it's irrelevant.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Unable to answer me effectively b'cse it's true. So? Can I turn your answer back at you?

The inclusion of your whining does NOT make this team into a winner, so it's irrelevant, unnecessary, and a waste of time.

[OpIv37]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Unable to answer me effectively b'cse it's true. So? Can I turn your answer back at you?

The inclusion of your whining does NOT make this team into a winner, so it's irrelevant, unnecessary, and a waste of time.

maybe that's how you feel about reading it, so don't read it.

That's not how I feel about writing it. I'm frustrated as hell with this team and the constant losses and if I don't find some sort of outlet for it I'm going to... well, I don't really know but I have a bit of a temper so it probably won't be good.

[madness]

Complete disagreement, not only did McCargo consistently hold up his blocker at the POA, but he also pushed the pocket and forced the QB to get outside the pocket on atleast two other plays, one being where Hargrove almost got a sack. Their running game pretty much ceased to exist after he came in on a consistent basis and a big reason was because he did not get pushed back like Kyle Williams was for most of the night. Very poor analysis of one of our best lineman last night imo.

That's exactly the same thing I saw. There were very few plays that McCargo didn't have some kind of impact when he was on the field.

[OpIv37]

That's exactly the same thing I saw. There were very few plays that McCargo didn't have some kind of impact when he was on the field.

I disagree- I saw 3 or 4 plays where he was good and a bunch of plays where he was a total non-factor.

[DraftBoy]

I disagree- I saw 3 or 4 plays where he was good and a bunch of plays where he was a total non-factor.


You are wrong, a non-factor by the way you a portraying it means he has to make a play every down. Simply holding his ground or getting a small push back at the POA is a step forward. Keep in mind last year our DL was railroaded over and over again, McCargo consistently stood up his blocker and did not allow for him to get to the second level.

[MikeInRoch]

see my previous post. What difference does it make? The lack of a better solution does not turn this team into a winner. This thread wasn't about Marv or the job he did or didn't do finding DT's- it was about McCargo and how he looked on Friday and his prospects for contributing this season. I'm still not seeing what we need to see from this guy, and that means bad things for our D this season.

No, but the lack of a better solution SHOULD excuse the front office, at least in part, from being held responsible for not finding a (non-existent) solution.

[mysticsoto]

You are wrong, a non-factor by the way you a portraying it means he has to make a play every down. Simply holding his ground or getting a small push back at the POA is a step forward. Keep in mind last year our DL was railroaded over and over again, McCargo consistently stood up his blocker and did not allow for him to get to the second level.

That is too positive sounding for Op. If McCargo is not in the backfield on every play, he's a bust and our D sucks. Nevermind that I know of *NO* DT that is in the backfield all the time!!!

[alohabillsfan]

looks like OP has a new play mate!

[OpIv37]

No, but the lack of a better solution SHOULD excuse the front office, at least in part, from being held responsible for not finding a (non-existent) solution.

fair enough, but I never blamed the FO (well, at least not in this thread). mystic started in with the "well, what would you have done" when he ran out of excuses for McCargo.

[mysticsoto]

fair enough, but I never blamed the FO (well, at least not in this thread). mystic started in with the "well, what would you have done" when he ran out of excuses for McCargo.

I need no excuses...excuses for what? McCargo played much better in this game than the last. And when people like DB point it out to you, or anyone else for that matter, all you do is backpedal. Just like my calling you out to provide a better solution of which you were incapable of doing...

[OpIv37]

You are wrong, a non-factor by the way you a portraying it means he has to make a play every down. Simply holding his ground or getting a small push back at the POA is a step forward. Keep in mind last year our DL was railroaded over and over again, McCargo consistently stood up his blocker and did not allow for him to get to the second level.

In the Tampa 2, DT's are also supposed to pressure the passer. He did that once against scrubs in the 3rd quarter. I know a 300 lb DT isn't going to be chasing a QB around the backfield all day, but he also shouldn't get stoned at the LOS on passing plays or guided well wide of the passer, as McCargo frequently was.

[Wys Guy]

McCargo is nothing but a rookie when you think about his past injuries.
I think he is doing much better and I am happy with his play against Atlanta!
McCargo's performance at NC State is absurdly overrated. He has an extensive injury history dating back into college too.

He's haled as a "pass rusher" but had only one sack in his last 16 games there or something like that, and on a QB that has no chance of play in the NFL and that was on an equally bad offense.

He played absolutely no differently in limited time last season either.

So if you want to expect more, feel free, but he's not going to deliver it.

How can you say that Wys? Well, he hasn't yet other than the statements of a throng of draft talent evaluators yet conspicuously absent many stats indicative of their reviews.

If I produce a pig, and tell you that it looks like a black lab, does that make it a black lab. Clearly not.

McCargo is what he is, not what a bunch of people that don't want to ruin their reps by being different say about him just because that happened to be the going mantra at the time.

McCargo will never be considered anything but a sub-par starting DT in this league, if he even stays healthy.

So if you want solid play, look elsewhere. A couple of plays against a team like Atlanta in the preseason does not a player make.

[OpIv37]

I need no excuses...excuses for what? McCargo played much better in this game than the last. And when people like DB point it out to you, or anyone else for that matter, all you do is backpedal. Just like my calling you out to provide a better solution of which you were incapable of doing...

Just like you are incapable of answering the question of how a different solution is going to make our team better this season....

The thread was not about what the team should have done. It's about how McCargo looked and his prospects for contributing this season. That's it.

[Wys Guy]

Are you seriously advocating cutting McCargo?

Unbelievable.

How come you guys always find things that I never stated within my statements?

You quote me, there's absolutely nothing in there about "cutting McCargo," yet you seem to be reading that?

'splain please.

Frankly, with our DT roster, an extremely sorry one and IMO the worst in the entire 32-team league, we can't afford to cut any DT even capable of playing backup. That in no way translates into anything suggesting that McCargo is or ever will be anything more than a #2 or 3 backup.

I am not merely suggesting, but stating plainly and confidently, that he has no proven track record of doing what many think he is capable of and given that we consumed, essentially, two day-one picks for him, that he will never be worth even one day-one pick much less the two that we used up to get him.

How that rubs in defining our marvelous organization you can draw the appropriate conclusions for.

As a team, we will be one of the worst teams in the league this year easily, and frankly, it wouldn't at all surprise me to see us be in the running for the worst.

[Wys Guy]

Do I give a damn if the OL-men ranked 1st or last in the NFL, its an improvement over last year. Any time we see one our linemen even begin to push back on an offensive line we should be ecstatic because it didnt happen last year.
You may not. I do.

Hence our differences and the accuracy in my predictions and expectations vice those of others.

Naturally then, if you see a 17-year old bully beating up a 10-year old girl, you're impressed then at how that bully handles himself?

Apparently you would be in applying the same logic.

[Wys Guy]

As has been posted here on more than one occasion previously, there is more than a little evidence that, had the Bills not traded up to take McCargo when they did, the NY Giants were prepared to take him with the pick that they used on Matthias Kiawanuka (some of which was reported in the NYC area news media in the days after the draft when then-Giants GM Ernie Accorsi had difficulty explaining why the Giants, having only one experienced DT on their roster after having lost starting DT K.Clancy to Arizona in free agency and with Strahan, Umeniyora and first day pick J.Tuck to play DE, chose to take another DE with their first round pick).

You implicitly raise another good point LtBF.

Why is it that we always seem to be drafting using "preemption" as a strategy?

Good GMs and personnel organizations, in the mode of good negotiating, do not "have to have a single individual player."

How many times do we have to learn that lesson:

Kelsay, Denney, McCargo now on your say so.

Further incompetence from the FO. And if you are going to apply such methods, then at least have people understanding why at some point. Clearly not the case with us. Clearly.

[mysticsoto]

Just like you are incapable of answering the question of how a different solution is going to make our team better this season....

The thread was not about what the team should have done. It's about how McCargo looked and his prospects for contributing this season. That's it.

Sure I can answer that question...there's no other solution available as of right now. Maybe someone will be released that fits out style, but it is highly unlikely. Which is why all the whining you do is completely ridiculous, uncalled for, tiring and pointless! You come off looking like a menopausal, hormonal woman.

As for McCargo contributing this season, as Justa would say, stop trying to be Ms Cleo. You don't know what he will contribute. He's looked better in the 2nd game than in his 1st and you can try to down play that all you want. I also notice you don't mention anything about our 1st string D not allowing a TD against a team's 1st string O's...of course not - you can only point out bad stats and whine about those...

[Wys Guy]

As for McCargo contributing this season, as Justa would say, stop trying to be Ms Cleo. You don't know what he will contribute. He's looked better in the 2nd game than in his 1st and you can try to down play that all you want. I also notice you don't mention anything about our 1st string D not allowing a TD against a team's 1st string O's...of course not - you can only point out bad stats and whine about those...

He'll contribute exactly what he has since his freshman season at NC State. Few, if any, sacks, and injuries for starters.

Otherwise, if you want to read a bunch of tripe from a bunch of people that supposedly all read off of each other and saw something different not qualified by his stat lines, then that's your choice although there's no basis for it.

So believe what you will, but there is no basis for what we're told McCargo can be like. None. Or precious little of it.

Could it happen? Sure. The moon could catch fire and plummet to the earth too.

[mysticsoto]

He'll contribute exactly what he has since his freshman season at NC State. Few, if any, sacks, and injuries for starters.

Otherwise, if you want to read a bunch of tripe from a bunch of people that supposedly all read off of each other and saw something different not qualified by his stat lines, then that's your choice although there's no basis for it.

So believe what you will, but there is no basis for what we're told McCargo can be like. None. Or precious little of it.

Could it happen? Sure. The moon could catch fire and plummet to the earth too.

All I know is our Run-D appears much improved when he is in there. Fine, if he can't get many sacks, we'll have to hope our DEs contribute there. But if he improves the run-D to blow up many of the long runs they would have gotten otherwise, then it's worth it to have him in there just for that!!!!

[OpIv37]

Sure I can answer that question...there's no other solution available as of right now. Maybe someone will be released that fits out style, but it is highly unlikely. Which is why all the whining you do is completely ridiculous, uncalled for, tiring and pointless! You come off looking like a menopausal, hormonal woman.

As for McCargo contributing this season, as Justa would say, stop trying to be Ms Cleo. You don't know what he will contribute. He's looked better in the 2nd game than in his 1st and you can try to down play that all you want. I also notice you don't mention anything about our 1st string D not allowing a TD against a team's 1st string O's...of course not - you can only point out bad stats and whine about those...

dammit this Ms Cleo **** is so ****ing irritating. I don't understand why you guys have such a problem with evaluating players and judging their performance. Based on how McCargo has looked so far and his lack of practice time, it's highly unlikely that he's going to do anything in the regular season. What is so wrong with saying that? I just don't get why you guys are so offended by predictions and why you think every prediction is somehow psychic- we don't have perfect information, but we do have enough information to make reasonable predictions about what will happen.

I did mention the D and how they relied off TO's- you even commented back on it. The D got pushed all over the field then, to their credit, had a great defensive stand. Then they caused some TO's. If they don't cause TO's, they get pushed all over the field and eventually they'll be too tired to make that goal line stand. This D would be great if football games were only 15 minutes long.

[mysticsoto]

dammit this Ms Cleo **** is so ****ing irritating. I don't understand why you guys have such a problem with evaluating players and judging their performance. Based on how McCargo has looked so far and his lack of practice time, it's highly unlikely that he's going to do anything in the regular season. What is so wrong with saying that? I just don't get why you guys are so offended by predictions and why you think every prediction is somehow psychic- we don't have perfect information, but we do have enough information to make reasonable predictions about what will happen.

I did mention the D and how they relied off TO's- you even commented back on it. The D got pushed all over the field then, to their credit, had a great defensive stand. Then they caused some TO's. If they don't cause TO's, they get pushed all over the field and eventually they'll be too tired to make that goal line stand. This D would be great if football games were only 15 minutes long.

Your "predictions" fail to take into acct that McCargo has already improved from game 1 to game 2. They fail to take into acct that with experience, young guys improve. And also b'cse you make your "predictions" with an air of righteousness as though your prediction should carry more weight than anothers. You don't know, Op...you just don't know.

As to the D getting tired, have you taken into acct that that's why our front 4 rotate? So as not to get tired. Our CBs and LBs may need to get in better shape, and now I have to wonder if Jauron intends to have the LBs rotating also - as he gave a considerable amt of time to Wire on Friday and with DiGiorgio looking decent, he may feel he can spell them frequently. Sadly, I hope he is not thinking of the same for safeties...as I can't stand Leonard and would love to see him cut!

[DraftBoy]

In the Tampa 2, DT's are also supposed to pressure the passer. He did that once against scrubs in the 3rd quarter. I know a 300 lb DT isn't going to be chasing a QB around the backfield all day, but he also shouldn't get stoned at the LOS on passing plays or guided well wide of the passer, as McCargo frequently was.


Your interpretation of the Tampa 2 DT is amazing exclusive, his job is not only to provide pressure on the QB on passing plays, but also to hold up at the POA and either maintain his block or collapse the pocket on the play. Of course we'd all like to see him in the backfield every play but the fact that he is holding up is atleast a sign of improvement, is it not?

[OpIv37]

Your "predictions" fail to take into acct that McCargo has already improved from game 1 to game 2. They fail to take into acct that with experience, young guys improve. And also b'cse you make your "predictions" with an air of righteousness as though your prediction should carry more weight than anothers. You don't know, Op...you just don't know.

As to the D getting tired, have you taken into acct that that's why our front 4 rotate? So as not to get tired. Our CBs and LBs may need to get in better shape, and now I have to wonder if Jauron intends to have the LBs rotating also - as he gave a considerable amt of time to Wire on Friday and with DiGiorgio looking decent, he may feel he can spell them frequently. Sadly, I hope he is not thinking of the same for safeties...as I can't stand Leonard and would love to see him cut!

what experience does McCargo have? 6 games last year and 2 preseason games this year? Saying guys improve is psychic- some go through sophomore slumps. Josh Reed has been in one for 4 years. Some predictions should carry more weight than others. I based my comments on McCargo on what I actually saw- you're basing yours on a blanket statement that "young players improve". Well, if that's the case, explain Tim Anderson, Mike Williams, I could keep going but you get the point.

Our front 4 rotated last year- they still gave up 7 minute drives in the final quarter. Rotating LB's is not a bad idea if we have the personnel to do it. I'm not convinced that we do, although Wire and to a lesser extent DiGiorgio have looked serviceable this off-season so it could work. Rotating safeties would be a bad idea with our current personnel.

[OpIv37]

Your interpretation of the Tampa 2 DT is amazing exclusive, his job is not only to provide pressure on the QB on passing plays, but also to hold up at the POA and either maintain his block or collapse the pocket on the play. Of course we'd all like to see him in the backfield every play but the fact that he is holding up is atleast a sign of improvement, is it not?

Sign of improvement, maybe, but what I saw still isn't good enough. Half the job may be more than what he was doing but it still isn't where we need him to be.

[DraftBoy]

You may not. I do.

Hence our differences and the accuracy in my predictions and expectations vice those of others.

Naturally then, if you see a 17-year old bully beating up a 10-year old girl, you're impressed then at how that bully handles himself?

Apparently you would be in applying the same logic.


The fallacy in your logic in the comparison is not only bad its down right hilarious. I dont really care about your perdictions and the fact is that they are only slightly worse than my own. Ive only been one game off each of the last two years (I perdicted 6-10 both years {5-11 05, 7-9 06). So if you really want to talk about accuracy in perdictions then please feel free to compare. If you want we can also start pulling out draft perdictions about who would be unsuccessful and who would shine and see whose record is better at that to. I hope you see my point. And no Wys I dont want to take your offer of a bet, Im sure you'll ridicule me for that, and go on some rant about if I was that confident in my perdictions, yadda, yadda, yadda but to be honest its not worth it to me. Also why did you post this post, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand but to rather try to disprove my logic (which you fail to do) by using your own illogical fallacy. Debate McCargo and his play, not my mental breakdown process.

[DraftBoy]

Sign of improvement, maybe, but what I saw still isn't good enough. Half the job may be more than what he was doing but it still isn't where we need him to be.

Agreed, but he still is showing improvement which is more than we can say for some people. Your negative view of him, even with your admission of improvement is somewhat baffling. Ive never maintained he's where we need him, but he is getting better and Ill take that for now.

[OpIv37]

Agreed, but he still is showing improvement which is more than we can say for some people. Your negative view of him, even with your admission of improvement is somewhat baffling. Ive never maintained he's where we need him, but he is getting better and Ill take that for now.

The DL is clearly the weakest position on this team. All off-season, when I said we did nothing about the DT situation, the response I got was "not true- we have McCargo back!". While he's better than Anderson and Jefferson, he still hasn't become the player that we need him to be. Maybe he will, maybe he won't- time will tell. But at the moment, this guy alone is not going to make the DL noticably better.

[DraftBoy]

The DL is clearly the weakest position on this team. All off-season, when I said we did nothing about the DT situation, the response I got was "not true- we have McCargo back!". While he's better than Anderson and Jefferson, he still hasn't become the player that we need him to be. Maybe he will, maybe he won't- time will tell. But at the moment, this guy alone is not going to make the DL noticably better.


You know I was right there with you all season complaining about us not touching the DL, but seeing McCargo improve is a good thing and hopefully will continue. He will not and cannot save this D, but he makes one less need.

[OpIv37]

You know I was right there with you all season complaining about us not touching the DL, but seeing McCargo improve is a good thing and hopefully will continue. He will not and cannot save this D, but he MIGHT make one less need.

add the one word and I agree with you.

[mysticsoto]

what experience does McCargo have? 6 games last year and 2 preseason games this year? Saying guys improve is psychic- some go through sophomore slumps. Josh Reed has been in one for 4 years. Some predictions should carry more weight than others. I based my comments on McCargo on what I actually saw- you're basing yours on a blanket statement that "young players improve". Well, if that's the case, explain Tim Anderson, Mike Williams, I could keep going but you get the point.

Our front 4 rotated last year- they still gave up 7 minute drives in the final quarter. Rotating LB's is not a bad idea if we have the personnel to do it. I'm not convinced that we do, although Wire and to a lesser extent DiGiorgio have looked serviceable this off-season so it could work. Rotating safeties would be a bad idea with our current personnel.

You're just helping me prove my point...McCargo has had 6 games last year and 2 preseason games this year...so on that account, how can you declare that he is washed up and a bust? Seems to me like it should be impossible to declare this and that it is unlikely that we've seen him anywhere close to what his pinnacle might be.

[DraftBoy]

add the one word and I agree with you.


Fine he might make one less need, but...

You do know this means that you have to admit that McCargo looks improved, no ifs ands or buts about it

[OpIv37]

You're just helping me prove my point...McCargo has had 6 games last year and 2 preseason games this year...so on that account, how can you declare that he is washed up and a bust? Seems to me like it should be impossible to declare this and that it is unlikely that we've seen him anywhere close to what his pinnacle might be.

I never said he was a bust. I said our DL sucks and he hasn't shown anything that makes me think he's gonna make it better, at least not in the 3 weeks until the season starts.

[OpIv37]

Fine he might make one less need, but...

You do know this means that you have to admit that McCargo looks improved, no ifs ands or buts about it

Improved over the first preseason game, I'll give you that.

[DraftBoy]

Improved over the first preseason game, I'll give you that.


no, no copouts, he didnt look like this last season and you know it, come on be fair

[OpIv37]

no, no copouts, he didnt look like this last season and you know it, come on be fair

I honestly don't remember and I don't have the games to watch them again, but I definitely wasn't impressed with him in those games. And while I wasn't impressed with him on Friday, even in my *****ing I admitted he made some plays.

ok, fine, he looks like he's improved.

[DraftBoy]

I honestly don't remember and I don't have the games to watch them again, but I definitely wasn't impressed with him in those games. And while I wasn't impressed with him on Friday, even in my *****ing I admitted he made some plays.

ok, fine, he looks like he's improved.


Thank you, thank you, thank you very much :bf1:

[mysticsoto]

Thank you, thank you, thank you very much :bf1:

Honestly. It's like pulling teeth!!!

:whew:

[John Doe]

How come you guys always find things that I never stated within my statements?

You quote me, there's absolutely nothing in there about "cutting McCargo," yet you seem to be reading that?

'splain please.


Well, its like this:

You think that McCargo absolutely stinks.

Terrible.

Injury prone with no talent even when healty.

Of no value to the team.

If that is the case, then the logical thing to do would be to cut him - show that you can't tolerate that kind of physical ineptitude.

Cut him right now - without delay. He has nothing to offer.

You already know that he can't possibly improve, so what is the point of keeping him? There must be a ton of guys better than McCargo just hanging around, right? Why not give one of them a chance right now, because we already know that McCargo stinks and can't get better. Why waste reps on the guy. Just let him go. He is so bad that he has no value whatsoever.

Am I mis-representing your viewpoint here?

[patmoran2006]

Personally, I've been saying it on here to anyone who would listen (not many apparently) since before training camp started that McCargo was the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER on this football team.

Not the second best, but the second most important behind only Losman. I stand by that comment still.

IF this defense is to be ANY GOOD and make plays at the DT position, it has to come from McCargo. Other than the once it a blue moon, it aint coming from Tripplett or Williams, and it sure as hell aint coming from Anderson/Jefferson.

McCargo is the lone DT on the roster with the TALENT to make a difference at the position.

Having said that, at this point there are no adjectives to describe how UNSOLD I am on him. He seems like he's a walking injury and I'm not convinced he can stay healthy. I'm also not convinced he can be effective over a four quarter game.

But I do admit he has the ABILITY to be a good player, and maybe he'll find what it takes. This DL better hope so.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

1.)* McCargo's performance at NC State is absurdly overrated.
2.) * He has an extensive injury history dating back into college too.

3.) * He's haled as a "pass rusher" but had only one sack in his last 16 games there or something like that, and on a QB that has no chance of play in the NFL and that was on an equally bad offense.

He played absolutely no differently in limited time last season either.

So if you want to expect more, feel free, but he's not going to deliver it.

How can you say that Wys? 4.) * Well, he hasn't yet other than the statements of a throng of draft talent evaluators yet conspicuously absent many stats indicative of their reviews.

If I produce a pig, and tell you that it looks like a black lab, does that make it a black lab. Clearly not.

5.) * McCargo is what he is, not what a bunch of people that don't want to ruin their reps by being different say about him just because that happened to be the going mantra at the time.

6.) * McCargo will never be considered anything but a sub-par starting DT in this league, if he even stays healthy.

So if you want solid play, look elsewhere. A couple of plays against a team like Atlanta in the preseason does not a player make.

1.) McCargo was credited with 134 tackles, 29 TFL, 4 sacks and 35 QB pressures in 30 appearances in his 3 years at NC State. His first season he had the second highest number of tackles for a loss on the team, his second year he had the 3rd highest number of QB pressures, while his last season he had 35 tackles, 10 for a loss and seven QB pressures in less than 6 full games. His college coach was quoted as stating that having McCargo in the middle helped to free up M.Williams and M.Lawson as pass rushers. Compare those statistics with the stats of E.Dorsey of LSU, who M.Kiper has called the best prospect in this year's senior class and a sure top 5 pick: through his first 3 years, Dorsey has logged 110 tackles, 14.5 tackles for a loss, with 6 sacks (LSU doesn'tlist QB pressures). While Dorsey has played in a rotation with better DTs at LSU than McCargo did at NC State, McCargo's numbers, except in sacks, where Dorseyhas all of 2 more, are superior.

2.) McCargo played all 13 games his first year at NC State and all 11 his second year. The only season that McCargo missed significant playing time after his redshirt season was his last year, when he suffered his foot injury. A significant injury to be sure, but to say that he had an extensive injury history is stretching it a bit. If he continues to be hampered by injuries and misses a significant amount of playing time again in the near future, that may be an accurate assessment, but it is a bit premature to say that yet.

3.) While it may be accurate to say that McCargo isn't a sack artist, the number of QB pressures and tackles for a loss that he was credited with at NC State does indicate that he has shown the ability to get into the backfield and also to rush the passer from the DT position.

4.) If the throng of draft evaluators that we are talking about are men working as professionals in the field in the NFL, then, I tend to give their opinions on the potential of a given player more weight than I would the opinions of amateur "draftniks" who often base their opinions on what they read on one another's websites and let alone those of "wannabe" GMs with an axe to grind. Lots of folks on messageboards like to denigrate the abilities of NFL personnel people, especially when criticizing their decisions, but fail to realize that these are people who not only do that job for a living, but who want to win just as badly or more than the fans do and whose livelihoods and careers are at stake when they fail or make bad decisions. That doesn't mean that they can't or don't make mistakes, but it does mean that they have a whole lot more on the line and, as a result, are likely to do a lot more research on a player when they are evaluating his potential than an amateur who has little, other than his fan loyalty, at stake when throwing around comments about how good or bad a player is or may become.

5.) Frankly, Scarlett, I don't really give a d**m about rep points or maintaining my reputation when I post my thoughts here or, when I can, write an article for the front page of the BZ--God knows that there have been enough complaints about the length of my posts that I would certainly write a lot less and more succinctly if I did! :lol: If I have a decent reputation here it is because I don't think that I am smarter than the folks who work at OBD and, rather than automatically criticising their decisions, I try to read between the lines and analyze what it is that they see and are perhaps trying to do in a given situation or with a given player.

6.) Right now, as has been previously stated, McCargo is little more than a rookie DT who has shown flashes of the talent that some NFL evaluators saw in him, but, in part due to injuries and in part due to inexperience, little more. I don't know what kind of player John McCargo is ultimately going to become--and I don't think anyone else really does either, including, in all likelihood, the Bills' coaches. McCargo has shown that he has some size, speed, quickness, and potential, but he's still got a long way to go and his injury has set him back a year in his development. I don't know John McCargo well enough to know if he has the "fire in the belly" and the work and study habits that turn ability and talent into greatness in the NFL--and I doubt anyone else on this MB does either. What I do know is that a lot of people who thought that T.Spikes was a "warrior" for the way that he worked to come back from his Achilles injury are not even taking into consideration the work that McCargo has had to do to be on the field after having not one, but two surgeries on his foot in this past year. Can McCargo ultimately be the standout DT that the Bills need him to be? Considering that the kid has just recovered enough from the surgery that he had back in, what, March(?) and has been showing some improvement as training camp has progressed, well, as I said, McCargo has potential. Can/will he be that player this year? IMHO, it is doubtful. While he has shown ability and potential, McCargo still has a lot to learn. With little depth at DT behind him, K.Williams and Tripplett at DT; with the DE rotation being disrupted by the injury to Denney and Hargrove's suspension; and with opposing offensive coordinators licking their chops anticipating all of ways that they can take advantage of a weak Bills run defense that is further weakened by those losses and inexperience, it is very likely that McCargo (and Posluzny, too) is going to end up learning some lessons the hard way--and perhaps even very painfully for him and for Bills fans. But, it is going ot be what McCargo (and the other young Bills) does with those hard lessons that is going to matter. I'm not going to stand up here and say that he will or will not stand up to and master them--because I don't know what is inside of him or what he will do. But, neither does anyone else--and IMHO anyone who says that he does is either a fool or a liar--because that is why they play the season and why some players develop and some don't.


....Why is it that we always seem to be drafting using "preemption" as a strategy?

Good GMs and personnel organizations, in the mode of good negotiating, do not "have to have a single individual player."

How many times do we have to learn that lesson:

Kelsay, Denney, McCargo now on your say so.

Further incompetence from the FO. And if you are going to apply such methods, then at least have people understanding why at some point. Clearly not the case with us. Clearly.

Obviously you haven't read the article I wrote for the BZ front page after last year's draft or many of my posts. Let's see if I can answer you without boring those who have to tears yet again:

For his own reasons, whatever they may have been, Ralph Wilson decided to "ride off into the sunset" of semi-retirement after the "Music City" Blown Call and turned the management of his team over to T.Donahoe, who had a positive reputation in some quarters around the NFL and certainly in some parts of the media. The ego-centric, tyrannical Donahoe proceeded, as you correctly pointed out in some of your articles, to destroy not only the foundations of the team, but also the organization that he inherited so that he could rebuild it his way and, ultimately (I'm sure he hoped), take credit for doing so.

The end result of this was the disastrous season of 2005.

It would be difficult to overstate how bad things were at the end of that season. As bad as the team looked to us fans on the field, apparently things were even worse off the field.

We all know that Donahoe had alienated a lot of the fans in WNY with his arrogance and, from a business perspective, "the chickens were about to come home to roost". That's why R.Wilson reassumed financial control of the team: the man is no dummy, he managed to get rich selling insurance (not owning a big insurance company, but by selling insurance) and at 87 years old, I'm sure he would have liked to have been able to spend his time doing other things than dealing with the finances of his NFL franchise. You don't have to like R.Wilson or agree with how he has decided to spend the money he has and that is generated by his NFL team. Just recognize that he saw the financial situatino of the team at that point as being bad enough that, in his view, it required him to take back at least financial control of the team.

The situation in the lockerroom was worse: veteran players were going to the media complaining about their teammates (something that anyone who has ever played a sport knows is verboten!) and coaching decisions; players were openly defying the coaches during games; and, worse of all, the team quit on itself.

When it comes to a team sport, that is pretty much "rock bottom".

Were some of the players right that some of the decisions of the FO and coaching staff were flat out bad? Were some of the complaints of the older, veteran players justified? No doubt.

But, that doesn't matter. Because, no matter how right those players might have been, no matter how much talent and experience some of those veterans might have had, no matter how much game some of those older players might have still had left, they had poisoned the atmosphere, set a bad example, and demonstrated that, as a group, they did not have what it takes to be a winning team.

Now, there is only one thing that an owner can do in that circumstance: bring in a GM who has the credibility to "clean house" and, hopefully, create a new atmosphere that will allow for a winning team to be built. The guy that R.Wilson brought in was M.Levy.

When he was first hired, Levy talked with M.Mularkey, Moulds and some of the vets and, guess what?--he proceeded to usher them right out the door as politely as he could, making as few waves in the lockerroom and amongst the Bills fan base as possible. Then, he went out and hired a guy who was smart enough to figure out what he was doing, that he could talk to, and was patient enough to see a rebuilding process through, to install a totally different offense and defensive system, which would give Levy the freedom to continue to get rid of any remaining players who weren't willing to get with the new program.

Now, of course, Wilson and Levy were not going to announce what they were doing to the media--that would be like the President of the US giving a speech to the UN declaring that the US is going to fight WWIII against Islam or giving a press conference declaring economic war on China because the Chinese are refusing to adjust their currency the way we want them to. You just don't do that these days--especially not if you are running a business--and never forget that, to them, the Bills are a business, first!--and you don't want to lose your customers.

So, naturally, Wilson and Levy and Jauron told everyone who would listen that, as they saw it, the Bills were not rebuilding, but looking to win now. What else were they going to say? Not only did they need to say that to their fans and customers, but, also, to the players. As Herm Edwards famously stated, "You play the game to win!" No matter how bad the players or the team is, the players have to go out on the field and play to win, even if they really don't have a chance at victory. And, if you are trying to build a team that will ultimately be capable of winning, you want players who are going to play to win regardless of the odds, the score or whether they are equipped, in terms of talent and/or experience, to win. Those are the players who form the core of winning teams (the Ted Johnsons, Tedy Bruschis, Troy Browns--who may not be the most talented players ever, but who won't give up or give in, even when they are on a losing team).

Say what you will about them, but R.Wilson and M.Levy (and even D.Jauron) have been around the game of football long enough to know that you can't turn around a bad team and a bad organization in the NFL overnight--not unless you can find some team that is willing to trade 11 draft picks to you for one player (and even then, it will still take a year or two for that team to mature and develop). It takes three good drafts to put together a young core of players that can grow up and mature into a cohesive unit together that is capable of making a sustained run at a title and attracting the few premium free agents (like a J.Lofton, C.Haley, etc.) that are capable of putting a team into a SB title game.

The Bills are entering Year Two of this process and it has not yet been determined whether this year's draft has been a good one yet. One thing is certain, however: this year's Bills team will be a very young team compared to the competition. And, as a result, there are going to continue to be growing pains as their young players develop. That is a given and is something that has to be accepted as being part of the process.

You ask why the Bills are not using the same methods that the best organizations in the NFL are using. The answer is obvious and, yes, painful: because the Bills are not yet a top organization or team. While the Bills are trying to turn things around after the disaster of 2005, that is still a work in progress. It is unfair to compare the Bills to where the Pats or Colts are now or to expect them to be able to do the same things that the Pats and Colts can do at present. Compare them to where the Pats and Colts WERE when they finally started to turn their organizations around and began to build the teams that you see now. For example: for all of his pass rushing prowess at Arizona, Tedy Bruschi entered the NFL as an undersized DE who struggled at first to make the transition to LB--nobody knew that he would ultimately develop into the LB and leader that he ultimately became. Look at those Pats teams; look at those Colts teams that struggled despite having P.Manning and M.Harrison, etc. They were on their way to becoming successful, but it sure didn't look like they were when you looked at their rosters or play on the field at the time.

I know the Bills haven't made it to the playoffs since 1999. God knows it has been posted here often enough. Fine. But, the team and organization was being run by different people with a different way of doing things for most of the time since then. The current GM and coaching staff have only been working for the team for a year and a half now. Give them a chance to do their jobs: Levy has only just had a chance to get rid of the last of the players who weren't interested in getting with the new program in the last few months and hasn't even had a chance to replace them all yet. Stop expecting mere mortals to perform miracles and then crucifying them when they don't turn water into wine on demand.

As far as last year's draft is concerned: Once you understand that M.Levy's first job upon becoming GM was to "clean house" and restore order within the lockerroom after the disaster of 2005 and recognize that the method that he chose to accomplish this task was to bring in a head coach who would install a new offense and defense that would be so different that it would require different personnel from the players already on the team's roster, what the Bills set out to do in last year's draft becomes clearer.

In going to a Tampa-style Cover 2 defense--which Levy admits that he is the one that decided that this was the defense that the Bills would play--Levy was not only copying a defensive style that had been successful elsewhere in the most important statistical category of all on defense--scoring defense (as you, yourself, pointed out in an article a couple of years ago)--he was also creating a situation where he could get rid of certain players (like S.Adams, L.Milloy, T.Vincent, etc.) that he saw as contributing to the disaster of 2005, without creating too much of a stir in the media or amongst the paying customers, the fans.

But, the players he got rid of had to be replaced with players who would fit in the new defense that he was bringing in. And, those new players had to be players who could fill certain critical positions in the new defense.

Strong safety is one of the most important positions to the success of a Tampa Cover 2 defense. You need to have an outstanding player at that position for the defense to work: see J.Lynch with the Bucs, M.Brown with the Bears, B.Sanders with the Colts (check out the records of the Colts and Bears with and without Sanders and Brown respectively). An aging L.Milloy was not going to be the man that the Bills could build their new defense around.

At the same time, with the departure of S.Adams and J.Bannan, the Bills had T.Anderson and J.Jefferson as the only DTs on their roster. While Levy has stated that he would have re-signed P.Williams and Williams would have been a good fit in the Bills new defense, Levy could not undo the mistake that his predecessor had made. All he could do was use the draft and free agency to bring in new people who fit the new system. With R.Pickett turning down mega-bucks from the NY Giants to sign with the team that he wanted to be with and K.Clancy getting a big money deal with Arizona, with Philly and Tampa Bay sending C.Simon and A.McFarland to the Colts even as the Bills were talking trade with them, Levy had few options after at least getting L.Tripplett. The Bills needed to get two DTs out of last year's draft just to have enough bodies to have a rotation--any kind of rotation--at the position.

Given what the Bills still had on their roster and what the needs of their defense were, the Bills had to get a strong safety and a DT at the top of their draft to build their new defense around. Now, you can argue the merits of going to that new defensive system all you want, but, once they had made the committment to do so, this was what they needed to do (assuming that JP Losman was going to get a chance to show if he could be their starting QB, which, it has been reported that R.Wilson wanted).

As I have pointed out in previous posts, given this situation, the Bills first two picks were a "package deal": they were trying to get the best combination of both SS and DT that they could. Their roster was not good enough to take a "best player available" approach, nor could they afford to take the best individual player at one position and risk missing out on filling the other spot. They had to get both.

Despite the expected denials, there is plenty of evidence that D.Whitner would not have lasted more than five picks further had the Bills not taken him with the 8th pick in the draft--Baltimore admitted that they were considering taking him and St.Louis immediately traded out of their pick after Whitner was taken and ended up using a converted LB ato fill their need at SS with disastrous consequences. While the Bills might have taken Ngata or Bunkley with their first pick, had they done so, at best they would have ended up with D.Bullocks who went to Detroit and did not have nearly the kind of season Whitner had in a similar defense.

Once the Bills went for a safety first, they had to get a DT next at the top of their draft. As I have stated before, McCargo was much more highly rated by NFL personnel departments than by the draft "gurus". Pat Moran can back up my assertion that the NY Giants were poised to take McCargo until the Bills traded up to get him. Now, as I've said, I don't know what kind of player McCargo will turn out to be, but he was part of a "package deal" to fill the Bills two biggest needs on defense.

To understand just how important the Bills felt that it was to try to fill some of their needs at DT in that draft, you must recall that M.Levy told the media that the Bills were prepared to take K.Williams with their 4th Round pick, but changed their minds when K.Simpson was still on the board. But, ONLY changed their minds after some considerable discussion because they did not want to lose out on K.Williams (this was also reported on BB.com in their "warroom" coverage).

If another team--say Dallas or New England--had traded up into the bottom of the first round to snatch a player that one team--say Chicago or KC--was planning to take a couple of picks later, and no other player was taken at that position for the next 40+ picks, everyone would be saying what a brilliant coup it was, a masterful stroke.

But, when the Bills trade up to grab McCargo away from the Giants, who are then stuck starting 5th round pick T.Cofield at DT, and everyone passes on DTs until C.Wroten gets taken, Mel Kiper goes nuts (because his mock draft has been ruined), the media decides that M.Levy is senile, and you derisively refer to Levy and Jauron as the "Ivy League Duo" as if the fact that they both have degrees from Ivy League colleges makes them morons when it comes to football knowledge (do I sense a bit of envy in your derision, hmmmm?).

You ask why the Bills are using "pre-emption" in their draft strategy as if making a pre-emptive strike was something to be avoided at all costs. Hardly.

If you were to look at the Bills roster, first at the end of the 2005 season, then prior to the 2006 draft, then, at the end of the 2006 season, and, again, at the beginning of the 2006 draft, you would see that this was an aging, veteran team that needed both a head and a heart transplant; that, while you couldn't do everything at once, the old players and old leaders had to go and new players, capable of becoming new leaders, had to be brought in. To keep some semblance of order, their had to be some carry-over of young players who were willing to become new leaders as the old leaders were being ushered out the door. But, it's not easy to find quality players to build into a core group of players who are also capable of being the leaders that others will follow. And, talent isn't always what determines whether a player will be a leader that others will follow--it can be, but isn't always because you also have to have guys leading that the less talented guys can identify with. Hence, you get the signings of guys like Kelsay, who, with Schobel quietly behind him (read what Schobel said about Kelsay and his contract), has stepped up to a leadership role, Denney and Reed, two guys who aren't gang-busters, but have worked hard to overcome their struggles and lead by example.

I have often pointed out that there is often more to a re-signing or a free agent signing than meets the eye. Money is one factor, but not the only one and sometimes other factors are decisive. For example, the Bills are a very young team, an older, veteran player who wants to have a shot at a Super Bowl now before his career is over, may not want to sign with the Bills for any amount of money--whereas, if the team starts to win in a couple of years, a similar player might be willing to take a discount to sign with them as A.Thomas and R.Moss are reported to have done to sign with the Pats.

There are things that happen in the lockerroom, the classroom, the weightroom, and on the practice fields that fans don't see that can determine whether a coach or GM wants to keep a player around or not and how much a team is willing to pay to keep a player. For example, by all accounts, J.Leonard, while not nearly a physically gifted player, is a coach in the making who knows the responsibilities of everyone in the defensive backfield and is quite willing to help out his teammates--this is the kind of player that a coach, especially if he has a young team, is likely to want to keep around unless and until some far more gifted player comes along and forces the coach to keep him instead of Leonard.

As eager as we all are to see the Bills get to a Super Bowl and win one, IMHO it is important to keep one's desires, frustrations, hopes and concerns in check and try to view the team with some perspective and realistic expectations. No team wins all of the time, no matter how loaded their roster is: the Pats and Colts haven't, the Yankees and Red Sox haven't in baseball, despite having the most talented roster in football in many experts' opinion, San Diego didn't even make it to the AFC championship game last year. As good as the Bills were in the early 1990s, they were worse by the end of the 2005 season--rock bottom. It's going to take more than a year and a half or two years for M.Levy (or any GM for that matter) to clean out the Augean Stables and build a core of players that can win consistently on a sustained basis. Some of that core is in place, but more playmakers and talent need to be added and more leaders need to begin to emerge. And, many of the young players, McCargo included, but not alone, need time to develop and become more consistent. This is a team that is still a work in progress, not a finished product by any means.

But, that does not mean that they are a bunch of bums, either. Anyone who watch that 2005 team quit on itself and then watched the 2006 team fight its guts out even when the odds were against it and it was being pounded by Chicago and the Pats should know that--the difference should habve been obvious.

Depending on what happens with injuries, who they are able to bring in as replacements (if anyone), how certain players develop or don't develop, and how the ball bounces, I can see this team winning anywhere between 5 and 9 games. I agree with Pat Moran that John McCargo is probably the most important player to watch this season--although I also think that Posluzny will be another one to watch closely as well. But, regardless of how things go, I expect this team to continue to play hard all season and for there to be a noticeable improvement in the team as the season progresses so long as it is not ravaged by injuries. And, if that happens, IMHO, it will be another step in the right direction, even if the team ends up with a losing record or a worse record than last season. I'm not looking just at the W-L column, I'm looking to see how many foundation stones for a successful team will be put in place by the end of this season. If enough are in place, then, the Bills can start to operate like other, more successful teams.

[Wys Guy]

Well, its like this:

You think that McCargo absolutely stinks.

Terrible.

Injury prone with no talent even when healty.

Of no value to the team.

If that is the case, then the logical thing to do would be to cut him - show that you can't tolerate that kind of physical ineptitude.

Cut him right now - without delay. He has nothing to offer.

You already know that he can't possibly improve, so what is the point of keeping him? There must be a ton of guys better than McCargo just hanging around, right? Why not give one of them a chance right now, because we already know that McCargo stinks and can't get better. Why waste reps on the guy. Just let him go. He is so bad that he has no value whatsoever.

Am I mis-representing your viewpoint here?

I wonder what it's like to live in a black and white world. Can you please tell me. ;)

Allow me to explain in spite of considering this to be an utter waste of my time, and yours if you would merely stick to what I actually do/did write;

First of all, that still doesn't answer the question. You (or anyone) making such assumptions still render them exactly as such and no more, assumptions, not actual statements of mine. Therefore, they still extrapolate or assume my positions.

McCargo I believe will be a bust, yes. No secret there. The reasons for which do not need to be rehashed.

However, what has also typically gone along with my statements are notions that those building this team, at one level or another, are ignorant of what it takes to build a solid football team as well as incompetent, negligent, or some combo of the two.

We cannot cut McCargo! Wow Wys, did I hear you correctly? Yep.

But why not Wys? Well, it's kind of like this; Let's say that you had a car that was costing you money. Every month you had to put well beyond an average amount of money into it merely to keep it maintained. But you needed that car to get to work. And you didn't have enough money to afford a good one.

Well, it's obvious that the entire non-blind world knows that you have a heap of junk with wheels, so their advice is to merely take it to the scrap yard and collect your $200. But you can't do that? Why not? Tough question I realize.

Frankly, if we had competence in our personnel departments we never would have signed Tripplett to that outrageous contract, never would have drafted Anderson in the 3rd, and never would have drafted McCargo at all. Kyle Williams is fine as a former 5th.

Either way, our entire DT rotation is nothing more than a stable full of backup caliber talent at one level or another. Anderson is a 3rd stringer at best. Tripplett is a solid 2nd, not an inch more. McCargo at present is the same and will remain there if he can stay healthy. If not, then his days in the NFL are numbered.

I.e., in short, before you cut a player, you must make sure that you have at least a more promising one behind him. Sad, our DT situation such that we don't have anything worth even hoping for down the road. Besides McCargo that is, a player that will once again disappoint all those hoping that he'll emerge to anything other than a role-playing backup.

Otherwise, it's really not that difficult to figure out. Glad to be of assistance however. ;)

I also think that it's reflective of a really, really, really sad state of affairs for our personnel office that they simply cannot seem to grab any talent. Or perhaps its the marvelous coaching that we're blessed with that just can't seem to put it together. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

Who knows, who cares. But someone needs to take the heat for it yet few seem to be seeing things realistically here in order to first sense that this isn't a playoff caliber team or anything even close. Again, the reasons for which that have been discussed ad nauseum notwithstanding.

[FlyingDutchman]

Look at Broderick Bunkley. Hes barley seen the field and hasnt done much but im not ready to label him a bust already. If Mccargo can stay healthy, i see him as becoming a steady player.

[Wys Guy]

1.) McCargo was credited with 134 tackles, 29 TFL, 4 sacks and 35 QB pressures in 30 appearances in his 3 years at NC State. His first season he had the second highest number of tackles for a loss on the team, his second year he had the 3rd highest number of QB pressures, while his last season he had 35 tackles, 10 for a loss ....

You don't think that anyone else actually read all that, do you. LOL

OK, and I would love to talk with you in person some time on this. You going to be around Buffalo over the Labor Day weekend? Shoot me an e-mail if so. Perhaps we can go out over and order of wings and chat some football. I would enjoy that.

Anyway, here's my take on your statements. It was a nice summation of historical talking points, but little else. I noticed that there wasn't a single mention, not one, of what NFL experts and those that have been the most successful in the league in one capacity or another, will state that it is. Not one. Coincidentally I never hear it from our brain trust either.

And yes, in that way, really a very nominal thing, I do think that a good many lay people and fans are more knowledgeable about football than those leading our team, myself included as well as many here. This isn't brain surgery.

Assumptions that just because a coach or manager has arisen to a point of prominence in the NFL makes them good is lacking, seriously.

I can tell you this, that Levy w/o Polian never would have done anymore than he did at KC. Head coaches that make halftime statements that they want to run more in the second half to open up the pass when the halftime stats are 12 carries for like 16 yards, while the passing tally is ~ 200 yards, again, at the half, doesn't exactly exude geniusness to me. You can ask Levy which synapses weren't firing that day as he came out and ran three straight series 3-and-out prior to finally throwing the ball to success, barely losing the game in the end. A mark of intelligence to you?

As to the rest, it was merely a reiteration of info that the team and other sources that you poo-poo when it doesn't fit your argument, but then contrarily use in indirectly suggesting that you are the one that gets to choose which "media" and other football types have credibility.

I'll stick to those with winning as a track record, whether it boils down to staffing, coaching, whatever.

On top of that, you are wrong on a bunch of stuff. McCargo was haled as a pass rushing type DT. His run stuffing skills were both called into question by a good many, relatively speaking, and clearly subservient to his "pass rushing" abilities.

As to Wilson, perhaps he should have stuck to selling insurance. It doesn't seem as if you've read any of my articles either. Wilson's only tenure of success, outside of an isolated season or two, has been under Polian, a GM who "accidentally" got put into the role due to a heart attack to Bledsoe at the time and for no other reason.

I.e., sans Polian, Wilson's track record as an NFL owner differs not at all from the worst franchises of all time in the modern NFL. So pardon me while I suggest that it was Polian, for whom success has just "coincidentally" followed him throughout his career, most recently and notably winning the SB, finally, with a better coach to run his collection of talent, and not Wilson or Levy whose track records otherwise easily rate well below average.

As to your history of the team recently, again, clearly you haven't been reading my stuff either. If you go back, if you can find it online anywhere, perhaps here even, you'll see that I predicted exactly what is now occurring image wise for this organization as far back as beginning in '02. How can that be? Hmmm, a toughie. Nonetheless, I got mocked and laughed at even back then for not acquiescing and resigning myself to the fact that Donahoe was a genius. Rather, I took the stances, in advance often before even signing/hiring guys, that Donadope would be a disaster, he was. That Gilbride would be even more of a disaster, he was. That Bledsoe would do what he did, again, spot on. That Mularkey was a dope, again, where does this end?

Now I've taken the position, based on past research of methodologies, that Jauron is a horrible coach having only taken advantage of an absurdly easy schedule in one of the weakest divisions in the league for his only winning season in 7 or so now. Levy needs no explanation. At 80-something in his role for the first time, only an ignoramous would suggest that he's not going to to well.

This is child's play at this point predicting the team's future direction. And speaking of directions since you touched on it, you utterly fail to recognize that last year's strategy is a 180 from this year's. In your analysis you seem to assume that Levy has as long as he wants to rebuild this team. Otherwise why the complete change of course midstream. He already has one knock against him for wasting an entire season and offseason.

But hey, in your book I suppose we have to wait five seasons to see how it all pans out after all of our good players have left when their contracts are up.

Regardless, nice list of talking points shilling for the organization, but little else LBF. Sorry. Regardless, and in keeping with the philosophy of the organization, you utterly failed to mention the single most important aspect of NFL play in building a winner even once in your entire laundry list of stuff. Not once.

Regardless, I would love to get together with you to discuss in person. It would be fun and we could cover a lot more ground. Shoot me an e-mail if you want to get together, perhaps on Friday or Saturday of LD weekend. Let me know. I've gotta come to B-Lo to visit Ted's.

[John Doe]

I wonder what it's like to live in a black and white world. Can you please tell me. ;)

Allow me to explain in spite of considering this to be an utter waste of my time, and yours if you would merely stick to what I actually do/did write;

First of all, that still doesn't answer the question. You (or anyone) making such assumptions still render them exactly as such and no more, assumptions, not actual statements of mine. Therefore, they still extrapolate or assume my positions.

McCargo I believe will be a bust, yes. No secret there. The reasons for which do not need to be rehashed.

However, what has also typically gone along with my statements are notions that those building this team, at one level or another, are ignorant of what it takes to build a solid football team as well as incompetent, negligent, or some combo of the two.

We cannot cut McCargo! Wow Wys, did I hear you correctly? Yep.

But why not Wys? Well, it's kind of like this; Let's say that you had a car that was costing you money. Every month you had to put well beyond an average amount of money into it merely to keep it maintained. But you needed that car to get to work. And you didn't have enough money to afford a good one.

Well, it's obvious that the entire non-blind world knows that you have a heap of junk with wheels, so their advice is to merely take it to the scrap yard and collect your $200. But you can't do that? Why not? Tough question I realize.

Frankly, if we had competence in our personnel departments we never would have signed Tripplett to that outrageous contract, never would have drafted Anderson in the 3rd, and never would have drafted McCargo at all. Kyle Williams is fine as a former 5th.

Either way, our entire DT rotation is nothing more than a stable full of backup caliber talent at one level or another. Anderson is a 3rd stringer at best. Tripplett is a solid 2nd, not an inch more. McCargo at present is the same and will remain there if he can stay healthy. If not, then his days in the NFL are numbered.

I.e., in short, before you cut a player, you must make sure that you have at least a more promising one behind him. Sad, our DT situation such that we don't have anything worth even hoping for down the road. Besides McCargo that is, a player that will once again disappoint all those hoping that he'll emerge to anything other than a role-playing backup.

Otherwise, it's really not that difficult to figure out. Glad to be of assistance however. ;)

I also think that it's reflective of a really, really, really sad state of affairs for our personnel office that they simply cannot seem to grab any talent. Or perhaps its the marvelous coaching that we're blessed with that just can't seem to put it together. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

Who knows, who cares. But someone needs to take the heat for it yet few seem to be seeing things realistically here in order to first sense that this isn't a playoff caliber team or anything even close. Again, the reasons for which that have been discussed ad nauseum notwithstanding.

LMAO!

I did not say that you stated that McCargo should be cut.

I asked you if you advocated cutting McCargo. I worded my question very specifically.

A simple "No" would have sufficed.

You inferred that McCargo is the football equivalent of a "psycho woman":



These are the same types that keep dating psycho women and the like long after the writing's on the wall after they find out.


Why would you wonder where I got the notion that you might want to cut him?

Would you put up with a "psycho woman?" Apparently so - at least untill one who is less psycho comes along.



I.e., in short, before you cut a player, you must make sure that you have at least a more promising one behind him.


This point is moot in your analysis of McCargo.

According to you, he has no ability now and he holds absolutely no promise in the future.

A journeyman should fill the bill at a lower cost.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

You don't think that anyone else actually read all that, do you. LOL

Actually, at least one other person did--which was more than I expected.


OK, and I would love to talk with you in person some time on this. You going to be around Buffalo over the Labor Day weekend? Shoot me an e-mail if so. Perhaps we can go out over and order of wings and chat some football. I would enjoy that.

OK


Anyway, here's my take on your statements. It was a nice summation of historical talking points, but little else. I noticed that there wasn't a single mention, not one, of what NFL experts and those that have been the most successful in the league in one capacity or another, will state that it is. Not one. Coincidentally I never hear it from our brain trust either.

I deliberately chose not to make specific references to the views, opinions, statements, etc. of any other sources, except for those facts that have been reported in the media by at least two or more sources, for the sake of brevity and so as not to give you an opportunity to take exception to the value of any of the sources that I might cite that would disagree with you and, then, use that as an excuse to negate or dismiss my points.


And yes, in that way, really a very nominal thing, I do think that a good many lay people and fans are more knowledgeable about football than those leading our team, myself included as well as many here. This isn't brain surgery.

Assumptions that just because a coach or manager has arisen to a point of prominence in the NFL makes them good is lacking, seriously.

Herein lies the difference between us and, the reason that I have and will continue to take exception with many of your views about the team:

You seem to think that you know more about football, the team, what goes on behind closed doors at OBD, and what it is possible for the team and its owner to do than people who have spent their whole adult lives and much of their youth around the game, working in the business, and who are "on the scene" and privy to all of the information available.

Despite having played the game through college, albeit back in the "good old days", having spent a year working for the team (in a very menial capacity to be sure) where I was able to talk with players and coaches and observe how things were done on a daily basis, having done a little bit of coaching on a beginning level, and having been paid to play another sport that I was fortunate enough to have excelled at over some time, I have no such illusions when it comes to the Bills. I recognize that there are things that go on behind closed doors and factors that go into decisions that are made that are never reported or that only come out in dribs and drabs years later; that there are reasons why coaches and their staffs spend hours working and GMs sometimes are unable to get the players that that they want to acquire for their team, etc. And, that is why I tend to give more credence to those who have been there, working in the business, for years and try to use my intelligence to understand why they are doing what they are doing, than I do to the opinions of amateurs--like you or me--who aren't "on the scene" and are only observing things from afar.



As to the rest, it was merely a reiteration of info that the team and other sources that you poo-poo when it doesn't fit your argument, but then contrarily use in indirectly suggesting that you are the one that gets to choose which "media" and other football types have credibility.

I'll stick to those with winning as a track record, whether it boils down to staffing, coaching, whatever.

Where have you seen me "poo-poo" any sources that don't fit my argument? Please cite.

And, what sources do you cite to support your argument? I can easily argue that you are even more guilty of this charge than I am.


On top of that, you are wrong on a bunch of stuff. McCargo was haled as a pass rushing type DT. His run stuffing skills were both called into question by a good many, relatively speaking, and clearly subservient to his "pass rushing" abilities.

I cited stats, you, once again, cite your opinion. That's not a fact-based answer. A perfect example of you being guilty of what you accused me of above.


.... It doesn't seem as if you've read any of my articles either.

You're wrong. For better or worse, I've forced myself to read them even though I find your overall attitude and negativity depressingly difficult to deal with, even when I find merit in some of the things that you have to say. I try to read everything that I possibly can about the Bills and what is going on in the rest of pro football. While I don't read as much about college football, I try to watch as many college games as I can as well.



.... Wilson's only tenure of success, outside of an isolated season or two, has been under Polian, a GM who "accidentally" got put into the role due to a heart attack to Bledsoe at the time and for no other reason.

I'm sorry that you missed the Saban Eras, especially the first one. Sadly, in helping to save the AFL--which is really what has allowed Buffalo to have a franchise in the NFL for all of these years--Wilson also helped to transform the Raiders into a team that had some degree of success.

I find it very ironic that I find myself so often these days having to explain or defend some of the things that Wilson has done as an owner of the Bills because, for the most part, I am not and have not been a fan of his. I don't believe that he is a great owner, but I don't believe he is a bum, either.

It's funny how making one good choice and winning can change the perceptions of an owner. For example, by the time he died, a lot of people hailed Art Rooney as a great owner who built a dynasty and a great organization, forgetting that, for decades before he hired Chuck Noll, the Steelers were a joke, known more for beating teams up when they played them than for winning games, and that, after Noll left, the Steelers weren't very good until Bill Cowher's teams matured.



.... As to your history of the team recently, again, clearly you haven't been reading my stuff either. If you go back, if you can find it online anywhere, perhaps here even, you'll see that I predicted exactly what is now occurring image wise for this organization as far back as beginning in '02. How can that be? Hmmm, a toughie. Nonetheless, I got mocked and laughed at even back then for not acquiescing and resigning myself to the fact that Donahoe was a genius. Rather, I took the stances, in advance often before even signing/hiring guys, that Donadope would be a disaster, he was. That Gilbride would be even more of a disaster, he was. That Bledsoe would do what he did, again, spot on. That Mularkey was a dope, again, where does this end?

If you consistently take the position that whoever is running the team is going to fail, sooner or later you will be right. In Donahoe's case you were correct. But, I wouldn't crow about the accuracy of your predictions and analyses. If I had the time and inclination, I could go back and point to more than a few instances where you were wrong as well. I'll let mysticsoto's breakdown of the accuracy of your W-L predictions over the last five years in a previous post serve as just one example: I must say, though, that I thought that your article justifying how your prediction that the Bills would win 4-5 games last season was a brilliant exercise in sophistry--gotta tell those readers why you were right even though the facts said otherwise to keep them coming back to read your articles, right?


Now I've taken the position, based on past research of methodologies, that Jauron is a horrible coach having only taken advantage of an absurdly easy schedule in one of the weakest divisions in the league for his only winning season in 7 or so now. Levy needs no explanation. At 80-something in his role for the first time, only an ignoramous would suggest that he's not going to to well.

As with Levy--who we will never agree about--I have a different take on Jauron and why Levy hired him now that I have seen him at work for a little over a year.

You may be right about Jauron not being a coach capable of taking a team to the Super Bowl--I'm not sure about that myself, but what Jauron is and the coaches that he has brought in are is a teacher. If you notice, Jauron and everyone of the staff and even the players are always talking about teaching and learning. They even refer to their meetings and meeting rooms as "the classroom".

Not the usual sort of stuff, but, in many ways, precisely what a group of very young players--and the guys on the NFL Network and NFL.com have made a big point of saying what a very young team the Bills are--need from a coaching staff if they are going to learn and develop as NFL players. And, Jauron's calm, yet stern when he needs to be, demeanor may be just what the group of players that they are assembling need at this point.

Now, the question is, whether this will produce positive results going forward as these young players mature, gain experience, and are ready to step their game up? Here, I don't know and you may be right. If you look at what happened in Chicago, Jauron did a good job of bringing along their core of young players: Urlacher, Brown, Briggs, Kreutz, etc., but it took another coach, Lovie Smith, to take that team to the next level. I can see the Bills possibly taking a step back this year because of their youth and the holes that they still have to fill, but Jauron being given another draft class to work with and mentor next season. Then, depending on how that group does, I can see him either being given one more year to show that he can produce with that solid core of players or another head coach being brought in who will be expected to take the team to the next level.

I know that you and a lot of Bills fans don't want to hear about a "rebuilding process" and want the team to win now (I'd love to see them do that!!!), but what I see the Bills doing is something that I have seen other teams in the NFL do in the past on their way from being a really bad team to becoming a very good team that can be competitive on a sustained basis (Pittsburgh under Noll and Cowher, Green Bay in the late 80's and 90s, the NY Giants of the 1980s under Parcells, and, though aided by large infusions of money used for free agents along the way, the Dallas team of the 1990s and, to a lesser extent, the Pats--all of those teams took a couple of years to become winners and were built on a core of young players acquired through the draft and nutured by the team).


This is child's play at this point predicting the team's future direction. And speaking of directions since you touched on it, you utterly fail to recognize that last year's strategy is a 180 from this year's. In your analysis you seem to assume that Levy has as long as he wants to rebuild this team. Otherwise why the complete change of course midstream. He already has one knock against him for wasting an entire season and offseason.

But hey, in your book I suppose we have to wait five seasons to see how it all pans out after all of our good players have left when their contracts are up.

What you fail to realize is that, as long as R.Wilson is alive and Levy wants the job, Levy can have this job for the rest of his life, especially if this process begins to produce results on the field.

I don't believe that there has been a change of course. Actions speak louder than words and, regardless of what he may have said, Levy came in determined to clean house and rebuild the team around a core of young players: proof of this is that the Bills got rid of all of the old, veteran players (many of whom thought that they knew more than the coaches and/or stated that they wanted to win now and were unhappy with the direction that the team was taking, etc. and were not likely to want to sit around and be taught how to play the game by the teachers that Levy hired to coach the team) and replaced as many as he could with young players who were willing to be taught and to learn.

Because you can't turn over a roster overnight in the NFL the way you can in the NBA, he brought in some cheap young veteran players (Royal, Reyes, Price, the strong safety from Washington, etc.) hoping that if they couldn't resurrect their careers, they could fill roster spots and at least provide a better example to the young players than the veterans that he was getting rid of. You've seen this done a thousand times--sometimes it works and the team finds a couple of serviceable players and maybe one really good one; sometimes it doesn't and a couple of years later all of those players are gone (the Pats were praised for finding guys like this and how do you think that Otis Anderson ended up on the Giants, running all over the Bills in the Super Bowl?).

I think that after more than 40 years in the game, Marv Levy came into the job knowing that, historically, it takes three good drafts (and some luck in free agency and finding contributors on the waiver wire) to turn a team around. You like to point to how successful teams do things, I never see you look at how those teams were built and came to be successful in the first place: teams that already are successful or teams that have owners with deep pockets (DiBartolo and Jones used to give their players expensive gifts, above and beyond their contracts, that allowed their teams to retain and attract players in free agency--which, of course, helped their teams continue to be successful: it was widely reported in the NYC area press that, one year, DiBartolo promised his players that he would take them and their families to Hawaii if they beat the NY Giants in the playoffs and he did) can afford to do things that teams that are trying to rebuild--like the Bills after the disaster of 2005--simply cannot do. For example, a Keyshawn Johnson last year or a Randy Moss this year would not consider signing with the Bills as a free agent, no matter how much money was offered, because the the Bills have not yet assembled a core of players that is ready to compete for a title even with such a player.

I hate to say it folks, but, given the schedule this year, barring injuries, it is going to take another draft and probably another full season for the Bills to put together a strong enough core of young players to make a sustained run at a title. Barring injury, if they have another good draft class next year and can add maybe one or two solid free agents at key positions, they could be a solid playoff contender next season. IMHO, they are headed in the right direction, but, coming back from the disaster of 2005, it is a long row to hoe and they have not arrived yet, although I think that they ultimately can.


Regardless, nice list of talking points shilling for the organization, but little else LBF. Sorry.

After what I have just said about where I think the team is at above (which you obviously ignored when I said it in my previous post), I hardly think that the Bills would consider me shilling for the organization.

Yes, I am a fan and I have a positive outlook--it keeps me alive--and I won't apologize to anyone for that.

But, I hardly think that I have said nothing. You may wish to dismiss what I have written as mere talking points because you really have no way of answering except to restate the same repetitive, tiresome negative opinions of the organization and its management that manage to build all of your articles around. That may pass as a constructive response or critique to you, but it is the last refuge of someone who can only repeat the same mantra over and over again.


Regardless, and in keeping with the philosophy of the organization, you utterly failed to mention the single most important aspect of NFL play in building a winner even once in your entire laundry list of stuff. Not once.

I haven't forgotten the line play. It is one of my great concerns this season and one of the reasons that I do not believe that the team is ready yet to step up and be serious contenders for a playoff berth.

Contrary to some who expect the off-season signings on the offensive line to have an immediate impact, I expect the O-line to follow the pattern of many of McNally's better lines: to get off to a slow start where they are decent to good in one area (either run-blocking or pass-blocking) but awful in the other; after about a third of the season, to be improved in both areas so that they are good in the one area that they were better in at the start and decent in the other area; then, to be good to pretty good in the last third of the season.

I'll tell you right out that I'm not sold on D.Preston at RG--and from what I've been able to pick up from comments that have been made, I don't think D.Jauron is either. I think B.Butler is the guy that they want to see in that spot, but he has been set back by his injury in training camp and may not be ready to take over the job by the start of the season. It would not surprise me, however, to see a change at the position, most likely with Butler taking over as the starter, at some point by the middle of the season. Because of this, I don't think that this line will be as good as a lot of people expect this season, although I do think it could turn out to be pretty good next year if they are able to keep everyone together (which I think they will try to do).

As for the defensive line, I think that is still very much a work in progress and that this will hurt the Bills at times this season. There have been reports that the Bills have been looking at a number of DTs this offseason and I wouldn't be surprised to see them add one before the season starts. I think that Denney's injury and, even more, the number of DTs who have been injured already this preseason will make it difficult for the Bills to obtain anyone who can be anything more than a stop-gap answer at the position.

I think the Bills will look to see how much they can get out of McCargo and K.Williams this season and, based on that, will target the position in next year's draft. At this stage it appears that there could be a some pretty good DTs in this year's draft in addition to G.Dorsey. With the draft picks that they have, I would expect them to take a DT fairly high to fit into their rotation with McCargo, K.Williams and Tripplett. DEs that fit this system are a little easier to find, so, depending on Denney's injury, that could end up being a lower priority.

We'll just have to see how things play out and develop this season. As I have said before, I think the team is entering the second season of a three season rebuilding process and will try to retain and extend the contracts of those players that they see as being critical to the core of players that they are looking to build around. I think the "house cleaning" is over and that the process of assembling the key parts of the team that they are trying to build still has a way to go and the defensive line is one of the places where more work still needs to be done.

Taking such a critical view of the lines is hardly "shilling" for the organization, in my view. But, unlike you, I don't think it necessary to trash the organization because the team still has holes to fill in order to give an honest, realistic assessment of where the team is at and what it needs to address in order for the team to improve. And, that, too, is a big difference between us and our points of view.

[John Doe]

LTBF is consistently the best poster on this board.

Hats off to you.

[mysticsoto]

I wish everyone had LTBF's humbleness!!!