CJ Spiller the starter

[homeslice5484]

Spiller tops depth chart

By Chris Brown - Posted September 6, 2010 – 7:32 pm
C.J. Spiller is sitting atop the Bills depth chart in their first weekly game release of the season.

Though it is listed as the unofficial depth chart it is a change from preseason depth charts, which had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch ahead of the rookie. Jackson and Lynch are both listed as the backup with a slash separating their names.

Spiller led the NFL with three rushing TDs in the preseason as he carried the ball 26 times for 122 yards.

Guess we’ll find out officially on Wed. from head coach Chan Gailey if Spiller will be the starter Sunday against the Dolphins

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/09/06/spiller-tops-depth-chart/

[BillsWin]

You don't draft a player that electrifying and not give them the rock a good amount. This doesn't surprise me.

[homeslice5484]

We will see Freddy still, especially on passing downs....prob both of them a lot.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Spiller>Lynch>Jackson

[Turf]

I hope he is otherwise sitting him was meaningless. No brainer to start him with his explosiveness. Even as a decoy he opens up the field. Miami will have to game plan just for him, when the last time that's happened?

[X-Era]

Spiller tops depth chart

By Chris Brown - Posted September 6, 2010 – 7:32 pm
C.J. Spiller is sitting atop the Bills depth chart in their first weekly game release of the season.

Though it is listed as the unofficial depth chart it is a change from preseason depth charts, which had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch ahead of the rookie. Jackson and Lynch are both listed as the backup with a slash separating their names.

Spiller led the NFL with three rushing TDs in the preseason as he carried the ball 26 times for 122 yards.

Guess we’ll find out officially on Wed. from head coach Chan Gailey if Spiller will be the starter Sunday against the Dolphins

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/09/06/spiller-tops-depth-chart/
Like we talked about a week ago, I wondered if this would happen. It may just be due to injury and not permanent. But, if Spiller lights it up, he may never give the job back.

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=195033&highlight=spiller

[BertSquirtgum]

dude is going to be spectacular. can't wait to watch him in person on sunday.

[k-oneputt]

Does this mean he get's more then 12 touches, isn't a role player, or split time and carries with rb's that can't touch him ??????

[huck1974]

He is an amazing talent.

[OpIv37]

Our coaches would be idiots if they DIDN'T start him. I'm 99% sure he was the best player on our team the second we drafted him.

[Philagape]

Our coaches would be idiots if they DIDN'T start him. I'm 99% sure he was the best player on our team the second we drafted him.

But they were idiots for drafting him right? :D

[Michael82]

It's probably because Fred Jackson is still hurt....

[TacklingDummy]

Spiller>Lynch>Jackson

That's funny considering Jackson has out played Lynch the last 2 years.

[Lexwhat]

Our coaches would be idiots if they DIDN'T start him. I'm 99% sure he was the best player on our team the second we drafted him.


Huh?? I thought you were pissed off that we drafted a RB with our first pick?

[Crisis]

how on earth does anyone think lynch is better than jackson at this point?

what games have you all been watching?

[BertSquirtgum]

It's probably because Fred Jackson is still hurt....

i think i would rather have spiller start than jackson.

[Michael82]

i think i would rather have spiller start than jackson.
I wouldn't want to rush into it with Spiller. If Jackson is healthy, he should start out the season, IMO.

[G Wolly]

Spiller>Jackson>Lynch

Fixed

[Dujek]

As has been said it's probably because Jackson hasn't fully recovered, the depth chart earlier yesterday had Jackson then Spiller then Lynch, so it makes sense that Spiller is the starter if Jackson's not healthy.

[Jan Reimers]

Spiller is great, and a future super star, but Freddie will probably go back to number 1 when he is healthy.

[Night Train]

He's starting because he's a better weapon than Jackson & Lynch combined.

Luxury pick, my ass.

[Luisito23]

Luxury pick, my ass.



We should of drafted Bulaga! [sarcasm] :birds:

[billsfanryan]

I just put him on my bench in my fantasy league. I might have to move him back in since the dolphins d is banged up.

I hope he lights the dolphins up since i will be at the game

[OpIv37]

But they were idiots for drafting him right? :D

no, they're idiots for leaving us with no QB, LT, LB's, or WR's.

[Stewie]

I hope he is otherwise sitting him was meaningless. No brainer to start him with his explosiveness. Even as a decoy he opens up the field. Miami will have to game plan just for him, when the last time that's happened?

This is exactly what I thoguht when he was drafted. Players like spiller create fear in defenders, and keep DC's worried up at night. We haven't had that in... 20 years.

[ublinkwescore]

Spiller tops depth chart

By Chris Brown - Posted September 6, 2010 – 7:32 pm
C.J. Spiller is sitting atop the Bills depth chart in their first weekly game release of the season.

Though it is listed as the unofficial depth chart it is a change from preseason depth charts, which had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch ahead of the rookie. Jackson and Lynch are both listed as the backup with a slash separating their names.

Spiller led the NFL with three rushing TDs in the preseason as he carried the ball 26 times for 122 yards.

Guess we’ll find out officially on Wed. from head coach Chan Gailey if Spiller will be the starter Sunday against the Dolphins

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/09/06/spiller-tops-depth-chart/

Didn't he catch a pass for a td too?

[Johnny Bugmenot]

We should of drafted Bulaga! [sarcasm] :birds: Even at RT, I still maintain he's an upgrade over what we've got. No knock against Spiller, but this team still needs a good tackle.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Lynch complements Spiller better than Jackson. Lynch is a power basck that tires a defense down with his power. Wears em down. Then Spiller goes Vroom see ya later TD. Spiller n Lynch are a better combo, regardless if Jackson is a better pure RB. Lynch style of running towards contact helps Spiller more. Thunder and Lightning

[Beebe's Kid]

no, they're idiots for leaving us with no QB, LT, LB's, or WR's.

Don't forget NT or TE.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

The reason edwards has looked so good in the preseaon and will in the regular season is because of the fear spiller puts in the defense. look, nfl coaches and players are not stupid, theres a reason they are professionals.... anyone with a brain can see how dangerous spiller is so you have to play a little more conservative, back on your heels a bit or run blitz etc... the defense has to make adjustments with spiller, they dont have to with jackson or lynch or any other normal runner... bottom line, the defense must repsect the run everytime spiller gets the ball or they playaction or fake a pass to him because it could be 6. the lions went to the playoffs year after year with the same situation in the 90s with barry, he made scott mitchell, rodney peete and erik kramer look really good... spiller changes a defenses philosophy, big time!

[NOT THE DUDE...]

just look at how the bengals were playing spiller they were playing extremely hard against the run and then when spiller burned them for 20 yards they played more tentative, then spiller took a draw play 20 yds for a td... spiller scares the hell out of a defense even if he isnt even carrying the ball.... this is why the spiller pick made so much sense...

[k-oneputt]

Jauron was stupid. Other then that right on.

[ublinkwescore]

I don't remember the lions going to the playoffs year after year in the 90's - I remember them sucking then too, but to a lesser degree. (they made the playoffs like twice didn't they?)

[Beebe's Kid]

Lynch complements Spiller better than Jackson. Lynch is a power basck that tires a defense down with his power. Wears em down. Then Spiller goes Vroom see ya later TD. Spiller n Lynch are a better combo, regardless if Jackson is a better pure RB. Lynch style of running towards contact helps Spiller more. Thunder and Lightning

I feel this is a misconception that a lot of people have.

It is the need for a "Thunder and Lightning" tag team sort of thing, I guess.

Jackson has been more elusive, more of threat in the passing game, and less likely to dance around and lose yards for two straight years.

Jackson is a weapon that you need to plan for...that is easy if there is not other weapons...add Spiller, who is a similar player, in that he is true duel threat to run/catch. Oh yeah, they both can throw too.

While it is a romantic notions to have "Beauty and the Beastmode" on the field, I feel Jackson and Spiller present a lot more matchup problems. Put them on the field with 3 receivers...uh oh.

[TacklingDummy]

Spiller is great, and a future super star, but Freddie will probably go back to number 1 when he is healthy.If Spiller turns out to be a stud those first couple of games there will be no reason for Jackson to be the #1. Jackson can come in to give Spiller a breather.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

I don't remember the lions going to the playoffs year after year in the 90's - I remember them sucking then too, but to a lesser degree. (they made the playoffs like twice didn't they?)

they went to the playoffs like 6 times in the 90s including a nfc championship game in 91...

[trapezeus]

they went to the playoffs like 6 times in the 90s including a nfc championship game in 91...

how many times was it during the wayne fontes year where they blew the first 8 games and then got the ultimatum to either make the playoffs or get fired. then they'd make the playoffs and get blown out in the first game.

[Night Train]

they went to the playoffs like 6 times in the 90s including a nfc championship game in 91...
In 1991, they beat Dallas in the divisonal round, then got killed by Washington

That's 1 playoff win in 53 years. This just in. That's bad.

[justasportsfan]

the fins are going to plan to stop the run and Nolan will blitz on obvious passing downs. Manning has been able to read blitz's and make D's pay when they do. I hope Trent has learned

[justasportsfan]

no, they're idiots for leaving us with no QB, LT, LB's, or WR's.

you mean we should have drafted a QB, LT, LB's, or WR's with our first pick? We only have one pick in the first round you know. You're blaming the wrong coaches for that. The current coaches tried to address those positions but it's not their fault that they couldn't address them all in the first round.

Besides, if we drafted ANY of the positions you mentioned , none of them would automatically be the best player on the team unlike Spiller.

[Buffalogic]

I expect 2 tds from Spiller on Sunday and nothing less. Get him in your fantasy lineups!!

[OpIv37]

you mean we should have drafted a QB, LT, LB's, or WR's with our first pick? We only have one pick in the first round you know. You're blaming the wrong coaches for that. The current coaches tried to address those positions but it's not their fault that they couldn't address them all in the first round.

Besides, if we drafted ANY of the positions you mentioned , none of them would automatically be the best player on the team unlike Spiller.
Really? They tried to address those positions? How? Oh right- with late round draft picks and 3rd tier FA's- just like the previous staff that you're complaining about.

[baalworship]

Got him 4th round in a 12 team PPR fantasy league and everyone cried, "Reach!" Unlike national pundits and fantasy experts I knew who was getting the ball in Buffalo.

Saw an experts draft where he went third round so I don't feel bad about him as my RB2.

[justasportsfan]

Really? They tried to address those positions? How? Oh right- with late round draft picks and 3rd tier FA's- just like the previous staff that you're complaining about.


How else were they going to address it with one pick in the first round? How many 1st round picks do you think we had? 10?

THey TRIED. That doesn't they didn't, like you are implying. Again you are blaming the WRONG coaching staff. They cannot address every position YOU want in one draft. Any FO that cannot fix every position in one draft must be an IDIOT in your world. That would mean every team in the NFL.

Poilan must be an idiot because he too can't address every position in a single draft.

You'd find a way to ***** if they drafted the OL you wanted, Davis. He wouldn't be the best player here if they did.

[OpIv37]

How else were they going to address it with one pick in the first round? How many 1st round picks do you think we had? 10?

THey TRIED. That doesn't they didn't, like you are implying. Again you are blaming the WRONG coaching staff. They cannot address every position YOU want in one draft. Any FO that cannot fix every position in one draft must be an IDIOT in your world. That would mean every team in the NFL.

Poilan must be an idiot because he too can't address every position in a single draft.

You'd find a way to ***** if they drafted the OL you wanted, Davis. He wouldn't be the best player here if they did.

This is your problem: you are assuming that the only way to address a position of need is with first round draft picks.

**** "trying". Every FO we've had for the last 10 years has tried. I'm not giving anyone any more credit for effort- only for results. I'm taking the Yoda mentality from Star Wars: "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'".

I know they can't fix EVERY position, but this team had numerous glaring holes going into the draft: QB, LT, NT, WR, LB to name a few. And they approached them ALL with the same "band-aid on cancer" approach as the previous staffs. Yes, I'm well aware that it's asking too much to fix all of that in one off-season. But the season is about to start, and we have question marks at best at ALL of those positions still. Fixing NONE of them is simply inexcusable.

[justasportsfan]

This is your problem: you are assuming that the only way to address a position of need is with first round draft picks.

**** "trying". Every FO we've had for the last 10 years has tried. I'm not giving anyone any more credit for effort- only for results. I'm taking the Yoda mentality from Star Wars: "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'".

I know they can't fix EVERY position, but this team had numerous glaring holes going into the draft: QB, LT, NT, WR, LB to name a few. And they approached them ALL with the same "band-aid on cancer" approach as the previous staffs. Yes, I'm well aware that it's asking too much to fix all of that in one off-season. But the season is about to start, and we have question marks at best at ALL of those positions still. Fixing NONE of them is simply inexcusable.


haha! Every rebuilding team has not been able to fill every position. Not Polian, not Bill Bellichick. So that makes them idiots because they couldn't do it in their first year. Your logic , not mine.

Anyone who thinks that a rebuilding team can fill every position in their first year is NOT being REALISTIC.


I think you should go back to learning what it takes to rebuild a team.

Since you are smarter than our idiot coaches who couldn't fill every spot in their first year, you should apply to be a GM or a coach.

[OpIv37]

haha! Every rebuilding team has not been able to fill every position. Not Polian, not Bill Bellichick. So that makes them idiots because they couldn't do it in their first year. Your logic , not mine.

Anyone who thinks that a rebuilding team can fill every position in their first year is NOT being REALISTIC.


I think you should go back to learning what it takes to rebuild a team.

Since you are smarter than our idiot coaches who couldn't fill every spot in their first year, you should apply to be a GM or a coach.

I'm not complaining about not filling every position- YOU'RE saying that, not me.

I'm talking about not satisfactorily filling ANY one of our 5 biggest needs. Taking Troup in the 2nd round doesn't fill our need at NT no matter how many times you say it does.

[psubills62]

I'm not complaining about not filling every position- YOU'RE saying that, not me.

I'm talking about not satisfactorily filling ANY one of our 5 biggest needs. Taking Troup in the 2nd round doesn't fill our need at NT no matter how many times you say it does.

Why doesn't it? It may not completely fill it this year, as he obviously isn't a starter yet, but all the signs are there that he'll fill it in the years to come.

So let me ask you this: who could they have taken in round 2 that would have satisfactorily filled one of our big needs? Because from what you're saying, it sounds like only first round picks can appropriately solve problems.

I don't see this regime doing the "band-aid on cancer" approach at all. They took guys who may not contribute a lot right away, but could and should be the long-term answers to certain positions. Isn't that the way to build a team? I know you're sick of hearing about potential, but that's a fact of the draft. For a rebuilding team, it's almost always a good idea to pick guys who have high upside as opposed to guys who are fairly polished, but have a low ceiling.

[justasportsfan]

I'm not complaining about not filling every position- YOU'RE saying that, not me. .



that is whats implied when you post this. They left us with none of the positions you mentioned? THey inherited the players from Dick. You just don't cut every player you inherit without seeing what they can do.


no, they're idiots for leaving us with no QB, LT, LB's, or WR's.


I'm talking about not satisfactorily filling ANY one of our 5 biggest needs. Taking Troup in the 2nd round doesn't fill our need at NT no matter how many times you say it does.

while you may be right there is no way of knowing until they play.

You have said several times that Dick sucks. We all know that our players were set up to fail under Dick. So how is it you know who can play satisfactorily under a new coaching staff without even seeing them play under a better staff than Dick? YOU DON'T. No one does.

We should drop Byrd because he was a 2nd tier player huh?

[OpIv37]

Why doesn't it? It may not completely fill it this year, as he obviously isn't a starter yet, but all the signs are there that he'll fill it in the years to come.

So let me ask you this: who could they have taken in round 2 that would have satisfactorily filled one of our big needs? Because from what you're saying, it sounds like only first round picks can appropriately solve problems.

I don't see this regime doing the "band-aid on cancer" approach at all. They took guys who may not contribute a lot right away, but could and should be the long-term answers to certain positions. Isn't that the way to build a team? I know you're sick of hearing about potential, but that's a fact of the draft. For a rebuilding team, it's almost always a good idea to pick guys who have high upside as opposed to guys who are fairly polished, but have a low ceiling.

Let's put it to you this way: right now, what positions on the field are better than they were last year?

RB and.... RB.

Yes, some of the picks may make us better next year or the year after, but by then we'll have new holes and we'll pick other guys who will be ready in 2-3 seasons.... it's a never ending cycle. I realize rebuilding is a process, but it has to be done faster than a rate of one position a year.

[justasportsfan]

. I realize rebuilding is a process, but it has to be done faster than a rate of one position a year.

but it's too early to be calling anyone idiots especially when they inherited players that were fit for a crappy system.

If Dick had players made for the 3-4 then the transition would have been easier . If Dick had an LT and a proven QBthen it would have been easier. Dick was a qb killer and that is hardly the current coaches fault. It's not Gaileys fault that Trent had to learn how to play vs. the 3-4 this offseason when Trent could have done that under Dick.

Our current coaches didn't draft Maybin.

Dick left us with NO ONE and that doesn't make our current coaches idiots.

[psubills62]

Let's put it to you this way: right now, what positions on the field are better than they were last year?

RB and.... RB.

Yes, some of the picks may make us better next year or the year after, but by then we'll have new holes and we'll pick other guys who will be ready in 2-3 seasons.... it's a never ending cycle. I realize rebuilding is a process, but it has to be done faster than a rate of one position a year.

I find it ironic that you're basically looking for the band-aid solutions. All you can think about is right now. They're building a team that will be strong for a long time, not just win one or two more games right now.

As I asked before - who could they have picked in the 2nd round that would have satisfactorily filled a positional need? Feel free to name some names.

Yes, it's a never-ending cycle, but that's part of the NFL. It's part of managing a team to build a core of players who you can count on for years to come, extend their contracts, and fill in around them with role players or draft picks. We have to have a core first - who from last year would you say qualifies as a core player? I don't know if we truly have any from last year. So they need to get guys who can become a core on the team.

You accuse this regime of using band-aid fixes, but then you accuse them of not improving the roster right now. If they were using band-aid fixes...they would have improved the roster in the short term.

You're judging long-term picks (Wang, Carrington, Easley, Batten, Moats) on what they've been able to do in a few months. This regime can be appropriately judged in a few years, not right now.

[OpIv37]

Dick left us with NO ONE and that doesn't make our current coaches idiots.

I agree, but our current coaches had an ENTIRE off-season to address 5 major needs plus a bunch of smaller ones. And they largely failed. That makes them idiots.

I do think they are doing some other things right, and in fact I don't even blame them for not finding a QB because the available options simply sucked. But as far as LT, NT, WR, and LB, it's absolutely inexcusable that we couldn't find a definite upgrade at even ONE of those positions.

[justasportsfan]

I agree, but our current coaches had an ENTIRE off-season to address 5 major needs plus a bunch of smaller ones. And they largely failed. That makes them idiots.

I do think they are doing some other things right, and in fact I don't even blame them for not finding a QB because the available options simply sucked. But as far as LT, NT, WR, and LB, it's absolutely inexcusable that we couldn't find a definite upgrade at even ONE of those positions.


what facts do you have to support this ? Are there any facts out there about Trent under Gailey that proves they failed at the qb position or are you using what happened under Dick to support your calling them idiots? NONE.

[Jan Reimers]

I think the FO took a balanced approach to upgrading several positions. We took an NT in Troup in the 2nd round of the draft; brought in veterans Davis and Torbor, and drafted Moats and Batten, at LB; drafted Easley at WR; and were satisfied with Bell at LT, but still drafted a developmental guy in Wang.

They also realized that Maybin and Ellis would be better OLBs, and Poz a better ILB, in the 3-4; at DE, they drafted Carrington in the 3rd round, picked up Edwards in FA, and moved Stroud, Johnson and McCargo.

It may not be fast enough for any of us, but the FO is addressing our needs.

[justasportsfan]

I think the FO took a balanced approach to upgrading several positions. We took an NT in Troup in the 2nd round of the draft; brought in veterans Davis and Torbor, and drafted Moats and Batten, at LB; drafted Easley at WR; and were satisfied with Bell at LT, but still drafted a developmental guy in Wang.

They also realized that Maybin and Ellis would be better OLBs, and Poz a better ILB, in the 3-4; at DE, they drafted Carrington in the 3rd round, picked up Edwards in FA, and moved Stroud, Johnson and McCargo.

It may not be fast enough for any of us, but the FO is addressing our needs.

well said.

[OpIv37]

I find it ironic that you're basically looking for the band-aid solutions. All you can think about is right now. They're building a team that will be strong for a long time, not just win one or two more games right now.

As I asked before - who could they have picked in the 2nd round that would have satisfactorily filled a positional need? Feel free to name some names.

Yes, it's a never-ending cycle, but that's part of the NFL. It's part of managing a team to build a core of players who you can count on for years to come, extend their contracts, and fill in around them with role players or draft picks. We have to have a core first - who from last year would you say qualifies as a core player? I don't know if we truly have any from last year. So they need to get guys who can become a core on the team.

You accuse this regime of using band-aid fixes, but then you accuse them of not improving the roster right now. If they were using band-aid fixes...they would have improved the roster in the short term.

You're judging long-term picks (Wang, Carrington, Easley, Batten, Moats) on what they've been able to do in a few months. This regime can be appropriately judged in a few years, not right now.

I'm not looking for band aid solutions at all. I'm looking for guys who can fill immediate holes. Like I said, we're not going to fill every position with an adequate player in one year. It just doesn't work like that. But these things aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you're filling some positions with long term answers doesn't mean you can't find immediate solutions for other positions at the same time.

And in the same vein, band-aid solutions aren't always bad. So maybe we bring in an aging LT who is better than Bell until Wang develops. Would that be such a bad thing? Wang is hurt, so you can't even make the argument that it would be costing him reps.

To me, rebuilding means "slowly getting better." It would be wrong to expect improvement at all those positions right off the bat. I just think we can do better than what we did this off-season.

[OpIv37]

what facts do you have to support this ? Are there any facts out there about Trent under Gailey that proves they failed at the qb position or are you using what happened under Dick to support your calling them idiots? NONE.

Huh? It appears as though you're asking for me to prove that Trent isn't an upgrade over Trent.

[justasportsfan]

Huh? It appears as though you're asking for me to prove that Trent isn't an upgrade over Trent.


The problem here is you calling people idiots with nothing more than just your opinion. You yourself keep talking about how bad of a coach Dick was. Maybe we didn't need a change in players in some areas but instead maybe we just needed a coach to put these guys in a position to succeed.

Maybe Trent will succeed under Gailey , maybe he won't . Same goes with the other players that Dick set up to fail. Things is, I don't know until a snap is played before I start calling people idiots.

[justasportsfan]

And in the same vein, band-aid solutions aren't always bad.

Band aids are nothing but 2nd/3rd tier players too. I'd rather give the experience to the young players or those young 2nd-3rd tier players. Those 3rd tier players from the draft aren't alsways bad too. See Byrd. You're just trying to replace 3rd tioer players from the draft with older 3rd tier band aids. You're solution was just as idiotic and the coaches if thats your solution.


FYI, theres also competition from other teams for those band aids. So stop acting like it's just easy to find and deal band aids .

[psubills62]

I'm not looking for band aid solutions at all. I'm looking for guys who can fill immediate holes. Like I said, we're not going to fill every position with an adequate player in one year. It just doesn't work like that. But these things aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you're filling some positions with long term answers doesn't mean you can't find immediate solutions for other positions at the same time.

And in the same vein, band-aid solutions aren't always bad. So maybe we bring in an aging LT who is better than Bell until Wang develops. Would that be such a bad thing? Wang is hurt, so you can't even make the argument that it would be costing him reps.

To me, rebuilding means "slowly getting better." It would be wrong to expect improvement at all those positions right off the bat. I just think we can do better than what we did this off-season.

You kept framing your arguments in the context of the here and now. That's not what this offseason was about.

LT is not a position that you can just find a stopgap and play him. Bell would be just as good as most stopgaps.

They also did exactly the sort of things you're mentioning, just at other positions. Andra Davis was brought in to help develop Moats. Torbor was brought in to help develop all the LB's. Dwan Edwards was brought in to help Carrington. They did bring in a band-aid or two - but they were guys who can help the young players develop.

I understand where you're coming from, but there's only so much this regime can do. They obviously value draft picks significantly, so I doubt we see them trade any away for players. They'll build this team as best as they can, and this year that meant grabbing who may not improve the team right away, but should in the long run.

One additional thing: I think something you're overlooking is the coaching staff. I don't think it's any coincidence that barely any of our draft picks developed at all under Jauron. The coaches are responsible for 1) using the players appropriately, and 2) helping the players reach their potential. I don't think Jauron did any of that. So no, talent-wise, we may not have improved. But as everyone could see in the preseason - our offense showed significant improvement over last year. There are a lot of little things besides simply who we added to the roster that can improve this team.