Value of an Elite CB

[Mahdi]

I think this game highlighted the importance of an elite CB. Before Woodson went out of the game the GB defense was in control and stopping the Steelers cold. Once he went out of the game it opened things up for the Steeler offense.

On the other side, although the Steelers had arguably the best front 7 in football they couldn't stop Rodgers.

I'm not saying you can't win without an elite CB, but for me, an elite CB can make your defense go from good to great.

For those who don't want Peterson, take a look at Woodson because he is that good and can allow our defense to do so many things we couldn't do before.

[Forward_Lateral]

Pretty sure the Packers just won the superbowl without their top CB and safety for half the game.

[The King]

Tramon Williams is pretty friggin good too.

[Forward_Lateral]

It all comes down to pressure. If you can't pressure the QB, he'll pick you apart. WRs will get open, eventually, no matter who is covering them.

[tampabay25690]

I think this game highlighted the importance of an elite CB. Before Woodson went out of the game the GB defense was in control and stopping the Steelers cold. Once he went out of the game it opened things up for the Steeler offense.

On the other side, although the Steelers had arguably the best front 7 in football they couldn't stop Rodgers.

I'm not saying you can't win without an elite CB, but for me, an elite CB can make your defense go from good to great.

For those who don't want Peterson, take a look at Woodson because he is that good and can allow our defense to do so many things we couldn't do before.

A top CB or shutdown CB is a definite plus.

[Mahdi]

Pretty sure the Packers just won the superbowl without their top CB and safety for half the game.
That was my point though, the Packers defense was in control in the first half but allowed Pittsburgh back in the game when Woodson went out.

[Mahdi]

It all comes down to pressure. If you can't pressure the QB, he'll pick you apart. WRs will get open, eventually, no matter who is covering them.
Agreed. But Woodson allows the Pack to be multiple on defense. He is one of their better blitzers because at 34 he is still their top athlete, he also allows them to send more blitzers because he doesn't need help on the back end.

That's the difference between selecting an elite talent and a player who fills a need.

[Forward_Lateral]

Yes, but how many corners in the NFL are there like Woodson? Woodson is Pollamalu, only he plays corner. There aren't many, if any, corners who can do what Woodson does.

[ddaryl]

I would choose a DE like Bruce Smith over a shut down corner. Anytime you can get all-pro production on the DL trumps a shutdown corner IMO because disrupting the QB with a pass rush can produce plenty more turnovers then just a shut down corner.

Although I wouldn't complain about a shutdown corner on our team... I firmly believe this team needs more talent and production on their front 7 1st.

[DraftBoy]

Tramon Williams is pretty friggin good too.

He is but he's also feast or faminine. He can be beat because he's so aggressive.

When Collins and Woodson got hurt the game completely changed and Pitt started to make it interesting.

[Mahdi]

Yes, but how many corners in the NFL are there like Woodson? Woodson is Pollamalu, only he plays corner. There aren't many, if any, corners who can do what Woodson does.
Well that is the report on Peterson. Best CB since Woodson came out. Similar size and elite level athleticism, speed and most importantly his body control for any player let alone a guy who is over 6'1 222 is unreal.

Returns kicks just like Woodson and just has that ability where he clearly stands out as the best athlete on the field whenever he plays

[Mahdi]

I would choose a DE like Bruce Smith over a shut down corner. Anytime you can get all-pro production on the DL trumps a shutdown corner IMO because disrupting the QB with a pass rush can produce plenty more turnovers then just a shut down corner.

Although I wouldn't complain about a shutdown corner on our team... I firmly believe this team needs more talent and production on their front 7 1st.
I 100% agree. And the closest thing to that in this draft is Bowers. And he's not close.

[Oldbillsfan]

Pretty sure the Packers just won the superbowl without their top CB and safety for half the game.

Man I don't know dude, I see the Pac as a team that wins no matter who they plug in. Great coaching. The only way it gets done now.

[Forward_Lateral]

Well that is the report on Peterson. Best CB since Woodson came out. Similar size and elite level athleticism, speed and most importantly his body control for any player let alone a guy who is over 6'1 222 is unreal.

Returns kicks just like Woodson and just has that ability where he clearly stands out as the best athlete on the field whenever he plays

It's hard to compare someone to Woodson. I agree, if Peterson is the best player available, the Bills should take him, but I don't know if he's going to be a game changer right away. Playing corner in the NFL is a lot different than playing corner in college. Even Woodson took a few years to develop into what his is now.

[madness]

It's a petty argument. A dominate DL gives a CB less time to have to cover and a dominate secondary, gives the DL more time to get to the QB. No team wants to go one way or the other it just balances out that way unless your fortunate to have both.

As much as I would love to have Peterson, I don't see him falling past Denver.

[psubills62]

It also showed the value of the draft. I think the Packers had something like 13% of their roster drafted by other teams, which is a very low percentage. For comparison, the Bears had 32% of their players drafted by other teams.

[EDS]

To me this game showed the value of depth. The Pack have lost a ton of key guys since early in the season (Grant, Finley, Barnett, Jolly, etc.) and during the game (Driver, Woodson, Shields, etc.) and they still roll out guys who can get the job down.

Is there a difference in performance from a guy who is a former defensive MVP versus a third stringer like, Bush, sure.

[cgbm]

It's hard to compare someone to Woodson. I agree, if Peterson is the best player available, the Bills should take him, but I don't know if he's going to be a game changer right away. Playing corner in the NFL is a lot different than playing corner in college. Even Woodson took a few years to develop into what his is now.

Good point. i was just about to say that. i know i stress the importance of an elit QB but there is a stong point here. if you have an elite level CB it helps the d alot and can make a QB have to use other players. only problem is that teams now have multiple big threats at WR so idealy we need two elite CB's. but one would be great. peterson may be a helpfull answer to our defence needs.

there also is a stong argument for the need for an elite person in the front 7, especially on the edge. those guys make huge impacts. just like peppers, freeney, suh, and guys like that set the tone for the D.

[DraftBoy]

It's hard to compare someone to Woodson. I agree, if Peterson is the best player available, the Bills should take him, but I don't know if he's going to be a game changer right away. Playing corner in the NFL is a lot different than playing corner in college. Even Woodson took a few years to develop into what his is now.

I would take Woodson's 5 INT's as a rookie if we took Peterson.

[Ickybaluky]

To me this game showed the value of depth. The Pack have lost a ton of key guys since early in the season (Grant, Finley, Barnett, Jolly, etc.) and during the game (Driver, Woodson, Shields, etc.) and they still roll out guys who can get the job down.

That points to their from office and coaching staff, and the ability to find guys who can be effective if needed and teaching them their responsibilities.

The Packers have put together a very good team and should be in the mix for the championship for several years.

[Extremebillsfan247]

I would take a solid front 7 over an elite CB any day. If you can't get to the QB on pass plays, or stop the run, all the elite CBs on the planet wouldn't help your defense. JMO

[Mahdi]

I would take Woodson's 5 INT's as a rookie if we took Peterson.
I would also take the fact that as a young CB he was barely thrown at. Locking down one side of the field, whether you make plays or not, is a huge advantage for any defense.

[Mahdi]

I would take a solid front 7 over an elite CB any day. If you can't get to the QB on pass plays, or stop the run, all the elite CBs on the planet wouldn't help your defense. JMO
I agree, but having an elite CB, and when I say elite, I'm not talking Assante Samuel, I'm talking rare breed, Charles Woodson, Nnamdi, Revis category CB, gives you 2 dimensions instead of one.

Take the Jets, they don't have 1 dominant pass rusher, but because they have Revis they can throw more guys at you that you can block, both in the pass and run game. And if you manage to block them, they have an elite CB and another good one that you still have to beat.

Whereas, if you only have a good front 7 (Steelers) and a weakness at CB, once you get those guys blocked it's an easy completion for a good QB (Rodgers).

I would rather have an Elite CB that can shut down any top receiver in the NFL and play an aggressive defense in front of him.

[EDS]

I agree, but having an elite CB, and when I say elite, I'm not talking Assante Samuel, I'm talking rare breed, Charles Woodson, Nnamdi, Revis category CB, gives you 2 dimensions instead of one.

Take the Jets, they don't have 1 dominant pass rusher, but because they have Revis they can throw more guys at you that you can block, both in the pass and run game. And if you manage to block them, they have an elite CB and another good one that you still have to beat.

Whereas, if you only have a good front 7 (Steelers) and a weakness at CB, once you get those guys blocked it's an easy completion for a good QB (Rodgers).

I would rather have an Elite CB that can shut down any top receiver in the NFL and play an aggressive defense in front of him.

It would really suck to have a defense like Pittsburgh. Let's hope the Bills don't fall into that trap.

[Extremebillsfan247]

It would really suck to have a defense like Pittsburgh. Let's hope the Bills don't fall into that trap.lol That was one of the best defenses in the league this last year. They didn't get to the Super Bowl by accident. Let's not kid ourselves here. If the Bills defense were even half as good as Pittsburgh's, we wouldn't be picking 3rd in the draft.

[HAMMER]

Peterson will be the pick if he is still on the board, as he should be. Talk about return game. Parrish, McGee, McKelvin, Spiller, Peterson, and Jackson if desired. Whoa.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Peterson will be the pick if he is still on the board, as he should be. Talk about return game. Parrish, McGee, McKelvin, Spiller, Peterson, and Jackson if desired. Whoa. A hunch, but I'm pretty sure he will be in a Denver uniform next season.

[Mahdi]

A hunch, but I'm pretty sure he will be in a Denver uniform next season.
Denver is a team that is really starving on the DL. I hope they use the need strategy and take a DL and leave Peterson for us.

[tomz]

lol That was one of the best defenses in the league this last year. They didn't get to the Super Bowl by accident. Let's not kid ourselves here. If the Bills defense were even half as good as Pittsburgh's, we wouldn't be picking 3rd in the draft.

Dude, looks like a little sarcasm there. You bit!

But seriously, the Steelers 'D' this year was statistically one of the best EVER. And indeed, the secondary was its Achilles heel, if there was one. So much pressure up front makes a pretty good secondary look great. It starts with the line but 'elite' is the criterion they are using for the pick. Gotta be happy either way if they live up to that expectation.

Could be one of the D-lineman, Peterson or Von Miller. Gotta start somewhere. If they feel that a lineman is available at #3 who is at Suh's or Bruce Smith's level, they obviously need to do that. It's BOTH pass rush and stop the run that are needed--someone disruptive in all aspects. Linebackers and corners are an every year thing.

Besides, maybe they'll make a run at Nnamdi. Also recall that Nix focused on inside LB in his comments.

[madness]

Denver is a team that is really starving on the DL. I hope they use the need strategy and take a DL and leave Peterson for us.

Except they get Elvis Dumervil back after missing all last year and will probably not resign Champ Bailey. Unfortunately chances don't look good.

[trapezeus]

Peterson will be the pick if he is still on the board, as he should be. Talk about return game. Parrish, McGee, McKelvin, Spiller, Peterson, and Jackson if desired. Whoa.

why worry about punt returns if the defense isn't going to get the other team to punt.

i absolutely hate a bad defense picking a CB first. unless the bills actually nail FA and upgrade significantly across the board up front, we'll have another day 1 starter at a peripheral position.

[EDS]

why worry about punt returns if the defense isn't going to get the other team to punt.

i absolutely hate a bad defense picking a CB first. unless the bills actually nail FA and upgrade significantly across the board up front, we'll have another day 1 starter at a peripheral position.

A day one starter at a peripheral position would be an improvement over last years draft.

[Dr. Lecter]

Peterson will be the pick if he is still on the board, as he should be. Talk about return game. Parrish, McGee, McKelvin, Spiller, Peterson, and Jackson if desired. Whoa.
How many returners can be in the game at one time???

[Philagape]

Before Woodson injury: 21-3 Packers
After Woodson injury: 22-10 Steelers

[Dr. Lecter]

Before Woodson injury: 21-3 Packers
After Woodson injury: 22-10 Steelers


Correlation does not equal causality.

[justasportsfan]

I'm not saying you can't win without an elite CB, but for me, an elite CB can make your defense go from good to great.


You keep telling us that our front seven gives the opposing qbs all day to burn Whitner who you think is top 5 in the league. So there you go. Without a front 7 , your top db's will get burned as well.

FYI , I wouldn't hate the Peterson pick. Just stating you need both a front 7 and a good db's corps. We can all argue about what is missing more with this team between pressure sacks or coverage sacks. At the end of the day, the front 7 needs to stop the run and get to the qb.

As for the premise of you thread , see the NE vs. giants. It was all about getting to Brady.

[DraftBoy]

I think the issue here is that people dont see this as a two-way street.

Its goes both ways, more pressure helps out your DB's, but better DB's buys your pressure more time to get to the QB. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Bill Cody]

that game depressed the hell out of me. It made me realize there's no doubt the Packers subs could beat our starters and that includes Rodgers sitting and watching. Ted Thompson is the Packers MVP.

[EDS]

I think the issue here is that people dont see this as a two-way street.

Its goes both ways, more pressure helps out your DB's, but better DB's buys your pressure more time to get to the QB. They are not mutually exclusive.

If the Bills can't stop the run it does not matter how good they rush the passer or cover the other teams receivers. Unless you are playing from ahead (like the Colts are designed to do), there is no way the team is going anywhere without investing assets to stop the run.

[djjimkelly]

I would choose a DE like Bruce Smith over a shut down corner. Anytime you can get all-pro production on the DL trumps a shutdown corner IMO because disrupting the QB with a pass rush can produce plenty more turnovers then just a shut down corner.

Although I wouldn't complain about a shutdown corner on our team... I firmly believe this team needs more talent and production on their front 7 1st.


yup football is pretty simple actually


rush the passer protect the passer

once a team can do both you have a chance

[THATHURMANATOR]

I think this game highlighted the importance of an elite CB. Before Woodson went out of the game the GB defense was in control and stopping the Steelers cold. Once he went out of the game it opened things up for the Steeler offense.

On the other side, although the Steelers had arguably the best front 7 in football they couldn't stop Rodgers.

I'm not saying you can't win without an elite CB, but for me, an elite CB can make your defense go from good to great.

For those who don't want Peterson, take a look at Woodson because he is that good and can allow our defense to do so many things we couldn't do before.
You know who was much more valuable? The Franchise QB Aaron Rodgers. They won WITHOUT the CB and I highly doubt the same would be said if Rodgers broke his collarbone!

[Mahdi]

You keep telling us that our front seven gives the opposing qbs all day to burn Whitner who you think is top 5 in the league. So there you go. Without a front 7 , your top db's will get burned as well.

FYI , I wouldn't hate the Peterson pick. Just stating you need both a front 7 and a good db's corps. We can all argue about what is missing more with this team between pressure sacks or coverage sacks. At the end of the day, the front 7 needs to stop the run and get to the qb.

As for the premise of you thread , see the NE vs. giants. It was all about getting to Brady.
Yeah, our front 7 needs a pass rusher though. A guy off the edge, and we should have that in Merriman and an improving Moats and Batten.

My overall point is that you take the best player regardless. And Peterson would allow us to send 5 instead of 4 and 6 instead of 5. That would be huge for a defense that lacks a star.

Now, if Merriman gets back to normal, we add some beast ILBs and our DL improves even more then Peterson would be the missing piece. But IMO, adding a player like Dareus would only provide a marginal upgrade over Edwards and Carrington considering the difficulty of most DL players adjusting to the NFL.

Whereas, Peterson would come in and instantly be our best player in the secondary.

[Mahdi]

You know who was much more valuable? The Franchise QB Aaron Rodgers. They won WITHOUT the CB and I highly doubt the same would be said if Rodgers broke his collarbone!
But what does that have to do with our first pick? If you are suggesting drafting Newton then I am not totally against it. Would like to see him compete at the combine though and show he isn't afraid ala Suh. Or at least light up the combine with the physical stuff and then have a strong pro day throwing.

[Beebe's Kid]

yup football is pretty simple actually


rush the passer protect the passer

once a team can do both you have a chance

I thought it was run and stop the run?

So if we go with a hybrid, it would be something like: Be good on offense, and good on defense.

Wow...this is simple!!!

The worst part is that bull**** like this is passed of as profound everyday around here.

[ServoBillieves]

I'm not even gonna read the rest of this thread. I'm just going to say what I said to all the Steeler fans I was with last night.

"Did anyone hear Hines Ward's name before Woodson left?"

Didn't think so.

Yes, it's pressure, it's taking away the running game... but, you take a big weapon away, it's all pieces of the puzzle.

[justasportsfan]

Yeah, our front 7 needs a pass rusher though. A guy off the edge, and we should have that in Merriman and an improving Moats and Batten.

My overall point is that you take the best player regardless. And Peterson would allow us to send 5 instead of 4 and 6 instead of 5. That would be huge for a defense that lacks a star.

Now, if Merriman gets back to normal, we add some beast ILBs and our DL improves even more then Peterson would be the missing piece. But IMO, adding a player like Dareus would only provide a marginal upgrade over Edwards and Carrington considering the difficulty of most DL players adjusting to the NFL.

Whereas, Peterson would come in and instantly be our best player in the secondary.

I agree but if you were to ask me if Dareus = Ted Washington and Peterson = Reevis, I'll take Ted Washington (in their primes)

[THATHURMANATOR]

But what does that have to do with our first pick? If you are suggesting drafting Newton then I am not totally against it. Would like to see him compete at the combine though and show he isn't afraid ala Suh. Or at least light up the combine with the physical stuff and then have a strong pro day throwing.
It means I want a QB selected at 3.

[psubills62]

I think the issue here is that people dont see this as a two-way street.

Its goes both ways, more pressure helps out your DB's, but better DB's buys your pressure more time to get to the QB. They are not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely right. That's why you get things such as "coverage sacks" (which was exactly what Zombo's sack was last night).

[cookie G]

Woodson has been with them since 2006.

Their defense has only been consistently good when they got Raji, Matthews and have had Cullen Jenkins playing consistently.

He didn't make an average front 7 good. Improvements to the front 7 made the front 7 good.

Peterson won't make a below average front 7 average.

the only reason it wouldn't be a pick of idiocy is if the new CBA turns the NFL into a flag football league.

Is there an aversion people have to taking a first rate big guys?

[mikemac2001]

Woodson has been with them since 2006.

Their defense has only been consistently good when they got Raji, Matthews and have had Cullen Jenkins playing consistently.

He didn't make an average front 7 good. Improvements to the front 7 made the front 7 good.

Peterson won't make a below average front 7 average.

the only reason it wouldn't be a pick of idiocy is if the new CBA turns the NFL into a flag football league.

Is there an aversion people have to taking a first rate big guys?


and a top D cord helps also

Updated: January 19, 2009, 8:33 PM ET
Packers hire Capers to run defense

i think a scheme with the right players also help

[cookie G]

and a top D cord helps also

Updated: January 19, 2009, 8:33 PM ET
Packers hire Capers to run defense

i think a scheme with the right players also help

A good DC definitely helps.

That's another thing on our shopping list.

We might be OK if people would get off the candy aisle.

I'm still waiting for the last-first-round-DB-will-make-our-defense-better Leodis McKelvin to make our defense better.

[Mad Max]

A good DC definitely helps.

That's another thing on our shopping list.

We might be OK if people would get off the candy aisle.

I'm still waiting for the last-first-round-DB-will-make-our-defense-better Leodis McKelvin to make our defense better.

I remember the homers waxing poetically how mushmouth was going to to beast, when some of us wondered about the pick and mentioned his lack of INTs.

It's to the point where I wonder if we could extract some benefit out of him by moving him to safety.

[cookie G]

I remember the homers waxing poetically how mushmouth was going to to beast, when some of us wondered about the pick and mentioned his lack of INTs.

It's to the point where I wonder if we could extract some benefit out of him by moving him to safety.

We had a perfectly good corner in Jabari Greer, but he was supposed to be the "lock down" corner.

They had the 2nd rated pass D in 2009 (without him), one that also had over 20 INTS. And it wasn't because people could run on them in 09.

If you keep trying to improve on a strength while ignoring an uber glaring weakness you get...well, a decade without playoffs.

[DraftBoy]

We had a perfectly good corner in Jabari Greer, but he was supposed to be the "lock down" corner.

They had the 2nd rated pass D in 2009 (without him), one that also had over 20 INTS. And it wasn't because people could run on them in 09.

If you keep trying to improve on a strength while ignoring an uber glaring weakness you get...well, a decade without playoffs.


What strength are you referring to? Last I checked we couldn't stop people on the ground or through the air.

[dannyek71]

CBs arent worth a darn. We didnt even GO to the superbowl with Chris Watson.

[Mad Max]

CBs arent worth a darn. We didnt even GO to the superbowl with Chris Watson.

That's only because he wasn't a CB but rather only a PC (Punt Catcher).

[Dr. Lecter]

Yeah, our front 7 needs a pass rusher though. A guy off the edge, and we should have that in Merriman and an improving Moats and Batten.

My overall point is that you take the best player regardless. And Peterson would allow us to send 5 instead of 4 and 6 instead of 5. That would be huge for a defense that lacks a star.

Now, if Merriman gets back to normal, we add some beast ILBs and our DL improves even more then Peterson would be the missing piece. But IMO, adding a player like Dareus would only provide a marginal upgrade over Edwards and Carrington considering the difficulty of most DL players adjusting to the NFL.

Whereas, Peterson would come in and instantly be our best player in the secondary.


How do you figure that Merriman "should" be a pass rusher? He has shown nothing for more than two years.

And Moats? he of 2.5 sacks last year? He showed some flashes, but has not shown that he will be the answer. Batten is not even going to be on the outside - he has moved inside.

And Dareus would be way better than the adequate at best Edwards.

This team needs 5 or 6 new front 7 starters. Badly.

[Dr. Lecter]

What strength are you referring to? Last I checked we couldn't stop people on the ground or through the air.
3rd in the AFC in pass defense.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=PASSING_NET_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1


Granted that was due in part to the horrendous run defense, but it is still pretty damn good.

[cookie G]

What strength are you referring to? Last I checked we couldn't stop people on the ground or through the air.

In 2009, the Bills D finished 2nd in the league in pass D, 2nd in Ints, 2nd in opposing pass rating, 4th in opposing passing 1st down % and 4th in TD's allowed.

That was despite having roughly the same amount of opposing pass attempts as the Jets, Ravens, Giants and Pats.

There was little, if anything wrong with the pass D, people just weren't paying attention.

In 2010, with an incompetent DC, and the loss of Schobel, and the brilliant move to switch to the 3-4, nearly every pass D category fell, as did every running D category.

There was nothing wrong with the personnel in pass D. There is nothing wrong with the pass D personnel. The guy who was running it last year was, and is, well....not very good.

And...a pass rush is needed. Perry Fewell knew how to blitz better out of a Cover 2 than George Edwards knows how to blitz in a 3-4. That doesn't say much for the latter.

Fix the front 7, learn how to get a pass rush, keep the DB's in a position where they can make plays and the pass D will take care of itself.

It isn't a personnel issue.

[Night Train]

Once again, you build from the lines out and so called elite CB's are not stocked heavily at the local store.

[YardRat]

If we can't get Dareus or Fairley, I'd be iffy with Bowers, but I'd definitely go with Peterson over any QB in this draft at #3.

[DraftBoy]

In 2009, the Bills D finished 2nd in the league in pass D, 2nd in Ints, 2nd in opposing pass rating, 4th in opposing passing 1st down % and 4th in TD's allowed.

That was despite having roughly the same amount of opposing pass attempts as the Jets, Ravens, Giants and Pats.

There was little, if anything wrong with the pass D, people just weren't paying attention.

In 2010, with an incompetent DC, and the loss of Schobel, and the brilliant move to switch to the 3-4, nearly every pass D category fell, as did every running D category.

There was nothing wrong with the personnel in pass D. There is nothing wrong with the pass D personnel. The guy who was running it last year was, and is, well....not very good.

And...a pass rush is needed. Perry Fewell knew how to blitz better out of a Cover 2 than George Edwards knows how to blitz in a 3-4. That doesn't say much for the latter.

Fix the front 7, learn how to get a pass rush, keep the DB's in a position where they can make plays and the pass D will take care of itself.

It isn't a personnel issue.

This isn't 2009 and we aren't running anything close to that scheme so to try and coorelate those results with some similar players is not very valid. Our pass defense (like our run defense) was brutal last season. Neither is a strength and we need 3 new starters in the back four, and as Doc pointed out 5-6 on the front 7.

[DraftBoy]

3rd in the AFC in pass defense.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&defensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=PASSING_NET_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-n=1


Granted that was due in part to the horrendous run defense, but it is still pretty damn good.

True, but also;
28th in INT
27th in Sacks-which you've alluded to
Allowed 62.2% cmp pct
Gave up 6th more TD's through the air

I cant just look at the ypg # and say it was a strength.

[cookie G]

This isn't 2009 and we aren't running anything close to that scheme so to try and coorelate those results with some similar players is not very valid. Our pass defense (like our run defense) was brutal last season. Neither is a strength and we need 3 new starters in the back four, and as Doc pointed out 5-6 on the front 7.

So...the idea is...when you have a very good pass defense...change the defense so it isn't so good, so you can then use the 3rd pick in the entire draft on a defensive back, plus 2 MORE starting DB's?

That's how you build a defense, is that what you're saying?


And people wonder why we haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.

[Mahdi]

So...the idea is...when you have a very good pass defense...change the defense so it isn't so good, so you can then use the 3rd pick in the entire draft on a defensive back, plus 2 MORE starting DB's?

That's how you build a defense, is that what you're saying?


And people wonder why we haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.
That's not how you build a defense, it's how you build a football team. When you choose 3 you pick a player that gives you not just a starter, not just a role player, not just a great player. You are choosing a player that gives you a dimension. A dimension you didn't have before.

Peterson gives us a dimension. A player that allows you to do something you couldn't before.... Like take away ANYONE's top WR, like send more players in blitzes than the opponent can block, like putting more players in the box to stop the run.

That is what you look for when you choose at 3. If we select Dareus, are we really changing the dynamic of our defense? Is Dareus going to come in and just blow away Dwan Edwards and Carrington and Stroud and Troup?

That is the difference between picking the best player on the board and picking a player that fills a need.

[cookie G]

That's not how you build a defense, it's how you build a football team. When you choose 3 you pick a player that gives you not just a starter, not just a role player, not just a great player. You are choosing a player that gives you a dimension. A dimension you didn't have before.

Peterson gives us a dimension. A player that allows you to do something you couldn't before.... Like take away ANYONE's top WR, like send more players in blitzes than the opponent can block, like putting more players in the box to stop the run.


That is the difference between picking the best player on the board and picking a player that fills a need.

Plug in McKelvin for Peterson and you'll find the same arguments when he was drafted. That's all people talked about...lock down corner, can be left alone with a WR, the best cover corner in the draft, etc. etc.



That is what you look for when you choose at 3. If we select Dareus, are we really changing the dynamic of our defense? Is Dareus going to come in and just blow away Dwan Edwards and Carrington and Stroud and Troup?

Probably. Carrington and Troup aren't first rate front 7 guys, no matter what people have been told to believe.

You build your team by fixing what needs to be fixed, not continuously redoing your strengths.

I'd have thought the last 10 years would have taught people this lesson.

[DraftBoy]

So...the idea is...when you have a very good pass defense...change the defense so it isn't so good, so you can then use the 3rd pick in the entire draft on a defensive back, plus 2 MORE starting DB's?

That's how you build a defense, is that what you're saying?


And people wonder why we haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.

Im not saying you take Peterson, Im not saying you don't. What I am saying is that what we did in 2009 is null and void. We dont run the Cover 2 scheme and wont next season so talking about it makes no sense. Our CB's don't fit the 3-4 scheme, and either does Whitner. Was the schematic change a good idea? No it wasnt and I said it when we did it, but what's done is done with that.

My point is based on the scheme we will run in 2011 (or 2012) we need 2 new CB's and a new SS. Our pass defense is not a strength, its pathetic and only made better by just how atrocious our run D is. Which just made me through a little in my mouth thinking about it.

You're arguing with me about the scheme change when neither one of us had any say or call on that. Im with you I never would of left the 4-3 system in the first place. And Edwards is a **** DC. We agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

[Mahdi]

Plug in McKelvin for Peterson and you'll find the same arguments when he was drafted. That's all people talked about...lock down corner, can be left alone with a WR, the best cover corner in the draft, etc. etc.



Probably. Carrington and Troup aren't first rate front 7 guys, no matter what people have been told to believe.

You build your team by fixing what needs to be fixed, not continuously redoing your strengths.

I'd have thought the last 10 years would have taught people this lesson.
Peterson is not McKelvin. McKelvin was arguably the best CB in his draft.

Peterson is the best CB to come out in 12 years. Maybe even best DB to come out in 12 years.

[TedMock]

Plug in McKelvin for Peterson and you'll find the same arguments when he was drafted. That's all people talked about...lock down corner, can be left alone with a WR, the best cover corner in the draft, etc. etc.



Probably. Carrington and Troup aren't first rate front 7 guys, no matter what people have been told to believe.

You build your team by fixing what needs to be fixed, not continuously redoing your strengths.

I'd have thought the last 10 years would have taught people this lesson.

We don't have strength in the defensive backfield or the front seven, so we can easily go best player available because we are guaranteed to fit a need. Like it, or not, we are running a new scheme. We need talent that fits the scheme. We don't have that. Not my opinion. It is what it is.

McKelvin was an intriguing prospect coming out and he is an insane athlete. He was nowhere even remotely close to being as polished or decorated as Peterson. This isn't said with hindsight either. He was looked at as a tremendous athlete with a lot of speed who should develop into a top notch corner. He was not starter-ready and most people knew that. To date, he has had a difficult time with the mental side, but he's still a great athlete. There's still hope. Peterson is literally the most regarded DB to come out in some time. He, like every other guy, may be a bust, but he's far more ready than McKelvin was.

The last 10 years, this team was not drafting the best player available. This is the problem. The team was reaching for need. The McGahee pick was the only exception. McGahee left and we had no RB (Jackson was undrafted and on the practice squad), so we took Lynch. We needed a RB. McKelvin, Whitner, et al were reaches based on needs because we had no talent at the position, or we had very talented guys who we chose not to re-sign. We reached for need instead of taking the best guy on the board. Part of this is above the coaches and scouting staff. Heck, it's above the GM. Some of it was upper management saying "screw them" about the players and letting them walk. It's been a long time with that. I really hope Buddy and Chan are able to break that trend. I really hope that if they honestly have a best player available belief, then they stick with it and stick to their convictions. The past 10 years were a disaster because we didn't stick with convictions and we reached based on need more often than not.

[EDS]

We don't have strength in the defensive backfield or the front seven, so we can easily go best player available because we are guaranteed to fit a need. Like it, or not, we are running a new scheme. We need talent that fits the scheme. We don't have that. Not my opinion. It is what it is.

McKelvin was an intriguing prospect coming out and he is an insane athlete. He was nowhere even remotely close to being as polished or decorated as Peterson. This isn't said with hindsight either. He was looked at as a tremendous athlete with a lot of speed who should develop into a top notch corner. He was not starter-ready and most people knew that. To date, he has had a difficult time with the mental side, but he's still a great athlete. There's still hope. Peterson is literally the most regarded DB to come out in some time. He, like every other guy, may be a bust, but he's far more ready than McKelvin was.

The last 10 years, this team was not drafting the best player available. This is the problem. The team was reaching for need. The McGahee pick was the only exception. McGahee left and we had no RB (Jackson was undrafted and on the practice squad), so we took Lynch. We needed a RB. McKelvin, Whitner, et al were reaches based on needs because we had no talent at the position, or we had very talented guys who we chose not to re-sign. We reached for need instead of taking the best guy on the board. Part of this is above the coaches and scouting staff. Heck, it's above the GM. Some of it was upper management saying "screw them" about the players and letting them walk. It's been a long time with that. I really hope Buddy and Chan are able to break that trend. I really hope that if they honestly have a best player available belief, then they stick with it and stick to their convictions. The past 10 years were a disaster because we didn't stick with convictions and we reached based on need more often than not.

Seems like the Bills are making a habit of drafting the "best athlete available" (i.e., McKelvin, Maybin, Spiller). This strategy has worked so well I don't see why they would stop.

[TedMock]

Seems like the Bills are making a habit of drafting the "best athlete available" (i.e., McKelvin, Maybin, Spiller). This strategy has worked so well I don't see why they would stop.

Maybin was another one I left off. Good point at them reaching for the pass rusher. That further proves the point. In all fairness, Spiller was the BPA at that spot. Hopefully he turns out. Point is, stick with BPA and stop reaching for need. Last year they did that for the first time in many, many years. Hopefully they made the right picks. We'll see.

[cookie G]

Im not saying you take Peterson, Im not saying you don't. What I am saying is that what we did in 2009 is null and void. We dont run the Cover 2 scheme and wont next season so talking about it makes no sense. Our CB's don't fit the 3-4 scheme, and either does Whitner. Was the schematic change a good idea? No it wasnt and I said it when we did it, but what's done is done with that.

My point is based on the scheme we will run in 2011 (or 2012) we need 2 new CB's and a new SS. Our pass defense is not a strength, its pathetic and only made better by just how atrocious our run D is. Which just made me through a little in my mouth thinking about it.

You're arguing with me about the scheme change when neither one of us had any say or call on that. Im with you I never would of left the 4-3 system in the first place. And Edwards is a **** DC. We agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

There's nothing illegal about running a zone coverage in a 3-4 alignment.
There's nothing illegal about playing your corners a little back in a 3-4 alignment and let them come forward to make a play.

And yes, you can still blitz. As stated, Perry Fewell knew how to blitz better out of the Cover 2 than Edwards did out of a 3-4. It just takes a little imagination and an ability to disguise.



We don't have strength in the defensive backfield or the front seven, so we can easily go best player available because we are guaranteed to fit a need.

Completely false, factually incorrect that we don't have strength in our defensive backfield. You just had a DC that didn't know their strengths or how to use them. I'm sorry, they proved themselves worthy before he ever got here.




Like it, or not, we are running a new scheme. We need talent that fits the scheme. We don't have that. Not my opinion. It is what it is.

McKelvin was an intriguing prospect coming out and he is an insane athlete. He was nowhere even remotely close to being as polished or decorated as Peterson. This isn't said with hindsight either. He was looked at as a tremendous athlete with a lot of speed who should develop into a top notch corner. He was not starter-ready and most people knew that. To date, he has had a difficult time with the mental side, but he's still a great athlete. There's still hope. Peterson is literally the most regarded DB to come out in some time. He, like every other guy, may be a bust, but he's far more ready than McKelvin was.

The last 10 years, this team was not drafting the best player available. This is the problem. The team was reaching for need. The McGahee pick was the only exception. McGahee left and we had no RB (Jackson was undrafted and on the practice squad), so we took Lynch. We needed a RB. McKelvin, Whitner, et al were reaches based on needs because we had no talent at the position, or we had very talented guys who we chose not to re-sign. We reached for need instead of taking the best guy on the board. Part of this is above the coaches and scouting staff. Heck, it's above the GM. Some of it was upper management saying "screw them" about the players and letting them walk. It's been a long time with that. I really hope Buddy and Chan are able to break that trend. I really hope that if they honestly have a best player available belief, then they stick with it and stick to their convictions. The past 10 years were a disaster because we didn't stick with convictions and we reached based on need more often than not.

Now gentlemen, you have this backward, and I'm amazed at how many coaches don't understand it.

Rule 1 of a coach: put your players in a position to succeed, highlight their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

The scheme is the product of their strengths, not vice versa.

Nearly every defensive scheme that has been copied for the last 30 years was created due to the personnel of the defense and was a creative solution of how to best use that personnel.

The original Cover 2 (the 70's Steelers) - the Steelers preferred quicker LB's who could tackle in the open field and who were good at dropping into coverage. They happened to have 2 good pass rushing DE's who could seal the edge on the run also. They also had Joe Greene, who could pretty much do what he wanted.

Bud Carson created the Cover 2 to use his LB's mobility.

The Bum Phillips 3-4: It was simple. He had more quality LB's than he had quality DL. He also knew it was harder to find quality DL than it was LB's. He also traded for Curly Culp, the original nose tackle (the nose tackle position itself was created because Hank Stram knew that Curly was a mismatch for Vikings center Mick Tingleoff in the Super Bowl. He knew that Curly would have to be doubled to be stopped.)

The 46: Bears LB's weren't very good at dropping into coverage, but loved hitting the QB. They also had 2 good cover corners who could cover a WR for 3 seconds. Rather than putting his LB's in a bad position by pass protecting, Buddy Ryan, psycho that he is, decided to send 7 and 8 people after the QB.

This is what a good coordinator is supposed to do. This is what good coordinators DO.

I'll put it this way. If I'm a head coach with a defense that was ranked 2nd in the NFL the year I took over, a secondary with 2 number 1 picks and 2 number 2 picks, a secondary that had over 25 INTs that year, a secondary that had an opposing passer rating in the 60's....

...and my coordinator says that he needs to replace 75% of the secondary, I'm showing him the door. Because that's a guy that doesn't know talent, or how to use it. And if he says, "well that's not the type of DB we really need", I'll know he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And I'm not going to waste high picks on a guy that doesn't know how to use talent.

[Prov401]

Bills are taking Peterson at 3.

[Billz_fan]

Bills are taking Peterson at 3.

Lets say they sign this kid and he makes a name for himself. It's gonna be hard as there is no pass rush so he is gonna be disadvantaged to start :laughter:

Next problem is if does make a name for himself he is gonna want big money after his first contract. The Bills do not pay there DB's big money and won't. He leaves.

Keep drafting DB's they keep leaving or busting.

Rinse and repeat.

[Prov401]

Lets say they sign this kid and he makes a name for himself. It's gonna be hard as there is no pass rush so he is gonna be disadvantaged to start :laughter:

Next problem is if does make a name for himself he is gonna want big money after his first contract. The Bills do not pay there DB's big money and won't. He leaves.

Keep drafting DB's they keep leaving or busting.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm not saying it's the right pick pal.

I'm just stating that I believe the Bills will draft him.

[Nighthawk]

A CB on a poor defense does not make a big difference...sorry.

[DraftBoy]

A CB on a poor defense does not make a big difference...sorry.

Well duh, no one player on any bad defense is going to make the difference. Like almost every other position, they need help.

[madness]

Well duh, no one player on any bad defense is going to make the difference. Like almost every other position, they need help.
Just like KW had arguably the best season for a DT this year and it didn't amount to squat.

[better days]

Well duh, no one player on any bad defense is going to make the difference. Like almost every other position, they need help.

Well a player like Bruce Smith or Ray Lewis can make a huge difference on a bad defense much more so than a great CB. Not saying there is a player like that in this draft though.

[TedMock]

There's nothing illegal about running a zone coverage in a 3-4 alignment.
There's nothing illegal about playing your corners a little back in a 3-4 alignment and let them come forward to make a play.

And yes, you can still blitz. As stated, Perry Fewell knew how to blitz better out of the Cover 2 than Edwards did out of a 3-4. It just takes a little imagination and an ability to disguise.



Completely false, factually incorrect that we don't have strength in our defensive backfield. You just had a DC that didn't know their strengths or how to use them. I'm sorry, they proved themselves worthy before he ever got here.




Now gentlemen, you have this backward, and I'm amazed at how many coaches don't understand it.

Rule 1 of a coach: put your players in a position to succeed, highlight their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

The scheme is the product of their strengths, not vice versa.

Nearly every defensive scheme that has been copied for the last 30 years was created due to the personnel of the defense and was a creative solution of how to best use that personnel.

The original Cover 2 (the 70's Steelers) - the Steelers preferred quicker LB's who could tackle in the open field and who were good at dropping into coverage. They happened to have 2 good pass rushing DE's who could seal the edge on the run also. They also had Joe Greene, who could pretty much do what he wanted.

Bud Carson created the Cover 2 to use his LB's mobility.

The Bum Phillips 3-4: It was simple. He had more quality LB's than he had quality DL. He also knew it was harder to find quality DL than it was LB's. He also traded for Curly Culp, the original nose tackle (the nose tackle position itself was created because Hank Stram knew that Curly was a mismatch for Vikings center Mick Tingleoff in the Super Bowl. He knew that Curly would have to be doubled to be stopped.)

The 46: Bears LB's weren't very good at dropping into coverage, but loved hitting the QB. They also had 2 good cover corners who could cover a WR for 3 seconds. Rather than putting his LB's in a bad position by pass protecting, Buddy Ryan, psycho that he is, decided to send 7 and 8 people after the QB.

This is what a good coordinator is supposed to do. This is what good coordinators DO.

I'll put it this way. If I'm a head coach with a defense that was ranked 2nd in the NFL the year I took over, a secondary with 2 number 1 picks and 2 number 2 picks, a secondary that had over 25 INTs that year, a secondary that had an opposing passer rating in the 60's....

...and my coordinator says that he needs to replace 75% of the secondary, I'm showing him the door. Because that's a guy that doesn't know talent, or how to use it. And if he says, "well that's not the type of DB we really need", I'll know he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And I'm not going to waste high picks on a guy that doesn't know how to use talent.

If I wasn't clear, I apologize. We're NOT in disagreement over a lot of this. I agree 100% that a good coach should put his guys in a position to succeed based on their talent. Don Shula changed philosophically based on talent. So did Joe Gibbs and others. I fall into that camp. There are other coaches who prefer certain schemes over adapting. That is what George Edwards is. Right or wrong, that certainly appears to be his way. If it is, the best thing to do (if he's not changing) is to find guys who fit his scheme. It's not that none of us "get it." It's that we're taking the current situation at its face value and stating what will need to happen for that philosophy to succeed. There seems to be a disconnect there. Hopefully that makes sense. As for the DB's. Your opinion is that they are good. That's your opinion and I respect it. My opinion is that they're a "ok," but overrated. McGee has been unable to stay healthy for long stretches and he's aging. McKelvin, whom I actuallly like, is grossly inconsitent and makes tons of mental errors. Florence has proven to be better in the slot and is getting older. I really don't see a true starting SS and Byrd has decent range and vision in space, but struggles when he has to make reads and struggles against the run. Just my opinion though.

[DraftBoy]

Well a player like Bruce Smith or Ray Lewis can make a huge difference on a bad defense much more so than a great CB. Not saying there is a player like that in this draft though.

Can they make a difference? Sure but they cant single handidly turn a D around. Both Bruce and Ray have/had tons of help around them.

[better days]

Can they make a difference? Sure but they cant single handidly turn a D around. Both Bruce and Ray have/had tons of help around them.

No Question both had good players around them, but look at Detroit. I think Suh helped them much more than Revis would have.

[DraftBoy]

No Question both had good players around them, but look at Detroit. I think Suh helped them much more than Revis would have.

So would I considering they had no shot to draft Revis....?

[cookie G]

If I wasn't clear, I apologize. We're NOT in disagreement over a lot of this. I agree 100% that a good coach should put his guys in a position to succeed based on their talent. Don Shula changed philosophically based on talent. So did Joe Gibbs and others. I fall into that camp. There are other coaches who prefer certain schemes over adapting. That is what George Edwards is. Right or wrong, that certainly appears to be his way. If it is, the best thing to do (if he's not changing) is to find guys who fit his scheme. It's not that none of us "get it." It's that we're taking the current situation at its face value and stating what will need to happen for that philosophy to succeed. There seems to be a disconnect there. Hopefully that makes sense. As for the DB's. Your opinion is that they are good. That's your opinion and I respect it. My opinion is that they're a "ok," but overrated. McGee has been unable to stay healthy for long stretches and he's aging. McKelvin, whom I actuallly like, is grossly inconsitent and makes tons of mental errors. Florence has proven to be better in the slot and is getting older. I really don't see a true starting SS and Byrd has decent range and vision in space, but struggles when he has to make reads and struggles against the run. Just my opinion though.

There's no need to apoligize, we're expressing opinions here.

But I'm confused, are we talking about what we will do, or what we should do?

What we should do is replace Edwards, because apparently, we'll have to replace 10-12 starters to fulfill his needs.

[insert Mr. Spock quote here about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one]

[better days]

So would I considering they had no shot to draft Revis....?

I'm saying if I had a choice between a Suh or a Ray Lewis or a Revis to add to a bad defense, I would take Suh or Lewis over Revis without question.

[YardRat]

There's no need to apoligize, we're expressing opinions here.

But I'm confused, are we talking about what we will do, or what we should do?

What we should do is replace Edwards, because apparently, we'll have to replace 10-12 starters to fulfill his needs.

[insert Mr. Spock quote here about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one]

I disagree that our secondary is a strength, but I'm pretty sure we both think the front seven could use upgrading before the secondary.

That being said and just out of curiosity, if Fairley and Dareus go in the first two spots and taking any trade-downs out of the equation who would you want to get with the #3 pick?

[cookie G]

I disagree that our secondary is a strength, but I'm pretty sure we both think the front seven could use upgrading before the secondary.

That being said and just out of curiosity, if Fairley and Dareus go in the first two spots and taking any trade-downs out of the equation who would you want to get with the #3 pick?

Bowers....easily.

[cookie G]

I disagree that our secondary is a strength, but I'm pretty sure we both think the front seven could use upgrading before the secondary.

That being said and just out of curiosity, if Fairley and Dareus go in the first two spots and taking any trade-downs out of the equation who would you want to get with the #3 pick?

But I will say this...I fully realize that DL players have a high rate of busting. Picking one isn't easy. Fairley, outwardly at least, seems to have the highest chance, but Bowers or Dareus could easily be busts. Playing to their potential, each in their own way makes this defense much better, better than any CB will.

I've maintained since the beginning that I take the least lazy of the 3. If the board shows 2 of the 3 aren't lazy, and both are gone, I'd look at another position.

I also say that if they feel there is a real franchise QB there, that's the choice, but I don't know if there is one there.

And taking a QB in the first is like getting married. If you're wrong, you're in for years of hurt. You better be damned sure of your choice.


I just look at it this way. The Chargers took Quentin Jammer no. 5 in 2002. Relatively big, fast, hard hitter, good cover corner.

2 years later their defense wasn't any better, and they were drafting no. 1 over all. They wasted a pick in the first the next year on Sammy Davis, Jr.

Their D got good when they got Castillo, Merriman, Olshansky and Price.

Strong
Fast
Mean

For THIS team, that's what they need.

[DraftBoy]

I'm saying if I had a choice between a Suh or a Ray Lewis or a Revis to add to a bad defense, I would take Suh or Lewis over Revis without question.

Id go;
Suh
Revis
Lewis

Though Im not sure I like Suh in a 3-4 at the 5 tech or NT, so I may take Revis first. No doubt Suh is the highest impact player but does he fit our scheme as well? Not sold on that.

[DraftBoy]

But I will say this...I fully realize that DL players have a high rate of busting. Picking one isn't easy. Fairley, outwardly at least, seems to have the highest chance, but Bowers or Dareus could easily be busts. Playing to their potential, each in their own way makes this defense much better, better than any CB will.

I've maintained since the beginning that I take the least lazy of the 3. If the board shows 2 of the 3 aren't lazy, and both are gone, I'd look at another position.

I also say that if they feel there is a real franchise QB there, that's the choice, but I don't know if there is one there.

And taking a QB in the first is like getting married. If you're wrong, you're in for years of hurt. You better be damned sure of your choice.


I just look at it this way. The Chargers took Quentin Jammer no. 5 in 2002. Relatively big, fast, hard hitter, good cover corner.

2 years later their defense wasn't any better, and they were drafting no. 1 over all. They wasted a pick in the first the next year on Sammy Davis, Jr.

Their D got good when they got Castillo, Merriman, Olshansky and Price.

Strong
Fast
Mean

For THIS team, that's what they need.

Jammer isn't even in the same world as Peterson was coming out. I dont disagree that we need help on the front 7 but Im not willing to over look a guy because he plays in the back 4 just because of that.

[Dr. Lecter]

Id go;
Suh
Revis
Lewis

Though Im not sure I like Suh in a 3-4 at the 5 tech or NT, so I may take Revis first. No doubt Suh is the highest impact player but does he fit our scheme as well? Not sold on that.
I have to disagree with you on this.

Ray Lewis not only brings his enormous ability to the field, but brings an attitude that is infectious and spreads to other players. He makes his teammates better players and makes them responsible. His leadership and lead by example attitude makes a world of difference on the field.

[Mahdi]

I have to disagree with you on this.

Ray Lewis not only brings his enormous ability to the field, but brings an attitude that is infectious and spreads to other players. He makes his teammates better players and makes them responsible. His leadership and lead by example attitude makes a world of difference on the field.
You don't think Revis is making the Jets better. Revis is what allows the Jets to do what they do. Why do you think the Jets can get away with sending so many guys at once?

[Dr. Lecter]

You don't think Revis is making the Jets better. Revis is what allows the Jets to do what they do. Why do you think the Jets can get away with sending so many guys at once?
I never said he did not.

What Lewis does is make individual players around him better. I am not talking about his ability changing schemes.

[cookie G]

Jammer isn't even in the same world as Peterson was coming out. I dont disagree that we need help on the front 7 but Im not willing to over look a guy because he plays in the back 4 just because of that.

Not now. He was considered a top 5 pick by many at the time and the best CB in the draft.