Potential Bills: LB Bart Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 12:00 PM EST
in Buffalo Bills Opinion
Email
Print
During the process of identifying the Buffalo Bills' biggest positional needs, the Buffalo Rumblings community nearly unanimously listed a pass-rushing defensive end as the one spot where the Bills most desperately needed an upgrade. Tight end, center and outside linebacker closely followed. We have already begun the process of profiling potential Bills free agents; for reference now and in the future, all of these profiles will be available at this link.
With the NFL's free agent signing period set to begin less than one month from today (midnight on February 27), we here at Rumblings are now starting the process of profiling several top-notch free agents that the community has identified as potentially worthy of donning the red, white and blue in 2009. Even after signing LB Kawika Mitchell as an unrestricted free agent last off-season, the Bills still have a need for an athletic playmaker at outside linebacker (especially since Angelo Crowell's return is unlikely). One of the more interesting and hard-to-define names amongst this year's free agent crop is Ravens linebacker Bart Scott. Though he plays second fiddle to some of the league's greatest defensive players in Baltimore, Scott has quietly enjoyed a very productive seven-year career after making the cut as an undrafted free agent in 2002. At 29, however, major questions surround Scott, particularly regarding his ability to be a good player outside of Baltimore.
Bart Scott
Age 29 at start of 2009 season
6'2", 240 pounds
7-year NFL veteran out of Southern Illinois
With LB Angelo Crowell an unrestricted free agent and likely on his way out of Buffalo (despite his recent public comments), the Bills will once again be searching for an outside linebacker to play in front of the often-overmatched Keith Ellison. With several viable options available at outside linebacker this year, Baltimore's Scott could be one of the first to switch teams. Scott is an inside linebacker in Baltimore's general 3-4 defensive front, and many believe that his stats are inflated as Ravens opponents key on his interior teammate, the great Ray Lewis. Still, Scott has played on very good defensive teams and has had some impressive statistical seasons, and though he's pushing the age of 30, he's probably got some years left in the tank.
I'm no authority on the Ravens, but Rexx of Baltimore Beatdown most certainly is. SB Nation's Ravens blogger has some nice things to say about Scott and his time spent in Baltimore, but offers some words of caution as well...
On Scott's future in Baltimore
"Of all the high profile free agents that the Ravens stand to lose, this one looks to be the favorite to part ways with the team that signed him as an undrafted free agent seven years ago out of Southern Illinois. However, if he is willing to accept less with the Ravens they would gladly keep him. At the same time, this team has been the NFL equivalent of Penn State's "Linebacker U" and we have a few great prospects waiting for a chance to take over in the wings."
On whether Scott is a "product of the system"
"Scott to me is a product of the Ravens great system and on another team, may turn out to be relatively invisible, save for his mouth. Most teams focused on keeping Ray Lewis from making tackles, along with Terrell Suggs, and that left Scott free to do his damage. His stats have been off for the past few years since his awesome 2006 season."
Does Scott "Fit the Bill"?
I'm going to come right out and say it: I don't want to see Scott in a Bills uniform. For one, he's less equipped than some of the other linebackers we've covered (or are going to cover) in playing the strong-side in our 4-3 scheme; his coverage skills aren't outstanding and he doesn't have the bulk that you'd like to see in that type of prospect. At age 29, he's not exactly a wise long-term investment, either, particularly considering he'd be asked to do far more outside of Baltimore, not to mention make a position switch. The one positive he would add to Buffalo's defense would be some attitude, but balancing that with his motor mouth and his penchant to take dumb penalties, I'll pass on this guy in every way possibly imaginable. There are just smarter ways to get better defensively, and the fact that this guy played for the Ravens does nothing to convince me that he'd be good in any other NFL city.
Any thoughts on Scott that you'd like to add? Take a gander at his stat line below, vote in the poll, and let's talk some about Bart Scott this afternoon. Many thanks to Rexx for the valuable insight!
| Year | G | Tk | Sk | INT | FF | PD |
| 2002 | 16 | 20 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2003 | 16 | 22 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2004 | 13 | 21 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 16 | 94 | 4.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2006 | 16 | 103 | 9.5 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| 2007 | 16 | 94 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| 2008 | 16 | 82 | 1.5 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| TOT | 109 | 436 | 16.0 | 3 | 2 | 22 |
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’ve said for a while that he was a product of the system and having good defenders around him (Lewis). He does bring things to the table that we could use – experience, size, attitude – but I’m just not sure that he could be as productive in Buffalo. Thats my concern.
He doesnt’ seem to make a lot of “playmaker” type plays – and if you’ve been reading my comments lately i’m basically pining for some sort of playmaker on our defense. He doesn’t provide that and his coverage skills leave something to be desired.
I’d like them to pass
Maybe now you'll never slime a guy with a positron collider
He definitly is a product of the system. He won’t succeed outside of Baltimore. It is the same with all the USC players, they may be good, but not as phenomenal as everyone would like, because of the high talent level of the team. Baltimore’s D has the same “problem”, they are extremely good because of Rey Ryan and his system. There are very good defenders in Bmore, RayRay – Reed – Suggs – Ngata, but most of the players on this D are products of the system. Like Leonhard is.
So, NO, i don’t want to have Scott in a Bills uniform.
this is the kind of thing that really angers me
If you look at this stat line and take away 2006, this guy is not as good as Angelo Crowell. If we don’t get Vilma, Dansby, Curry, Clay Matthews or Maualuga then letting Crowell walk will just be the most infuriating thing imaginable.
Quick comparison:
2007: Crowell – 126 tackles, 2 sacks, 1 Int / Scott – 94 tackles, 1 sacks, 0 Int
2006: Crowell – 82 tackles, 2 sacks, 2 Int / Scott – 103 tkle, 9.5 sacks, ) 2 Int
2005: Crowell – 119 tackles, 3 sacks, 2 Int / Scott – 94 tackels, 4 sacks, 0 Int
If our coaching staff lets Crowell walk because they don’t like him or because they think he is dumb then they are the biggest load of losers to ever field a football team. His stats don’t reflect him being too stupid to make plays and I highly question if a guy like Scott is any smarter.
Sorry to go on a Crowell rant but I still can’t believe we’re going to let a cheap, effective, productive player, and one of the few we have, just walk away because the coaches don’t think he can sit down and discuss Gramsci’s social theories with them. What the hell.
Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.
What I don’t understand is how you can turn latent fan interest on a blog as a starting point for a rant about the coaching staff. There is NO proof that the Bills are or aren’t interested in a guy like Scott. Maybe the guy they want is, you know, actually better than Crowell. And, for the millionth time, stats aren’t the be-all, end-all to grading a player.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
um, I did it because you asked how we would feel if we got Scott
and I gave you my answer. Sorry if you don’t like how it reflects on the coaching staff . You ask if Scott “fits the Bill”, this is my answer, no because he’s not as good as Crowell.
And how are his stats not the be all Brian? All you guys here complain about defensively is you know, the lack of QB pressure and big plays from guys ranging from Kelsay to Whitner. Kelsay had 10 sacks over his last 3 seasons (which include an abnormal 5.5 sacks in 2006) and Crowell almost meets that number with 7. At the same time, Whitner has 2 interceptions over his three seasons compared to Crowell’s 5!
What I don’t understand is how you can let your loyalty to the coaching staff override your correct criticism that we don’t get enough pressure on the QB or make enough big plays. If the Bills replace Crowell with Scott I believe I would be righteous in my anger. You don’t always have to jump to the coaching staffs defense. Why doesn’t Crowell earn your loyalty?
Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.
You don’t always have to jump to the coaching staffs defense.
sometimes it seems to me that if anyone makes a negative comment about the coaching staff someone blows it out of proportion. you were just making a comment – thats what these blogs are for i thought
Maybe now you'll never slime a guy with a positron collider
by J2 on Feb 4, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
That’s probably the case, but it wasn’t the intention here. I just didn’t understand how talking about one player the team may or may not actually be interested in logically led back to “they are the biggest load of losers to ever field a football team”. Call it whatever you want – defending the coaching staff, et al – I’m just trying to get on the same page.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
I think Crow is better than Scott – i’m sure the coaching staff does too.
Maybe we just dont’ know why the coaches aren’t in love with him. but that doesnt’ mean they won’t try to take him back.
i know your not defending the coaches – just probably a little sick and tired of that conversation is all. plus – as i’ve been around sbnation more and more i definately think you have the toughest job i’ve seen. most fans sites rarely have comments or fanposts – these rumblers are on top of everything – suggestions, posts, comments, ageements, disagreements – best site i’ve been to for sure. and you do a good job of keeping us in line
Maybe now you'll never slime a guy with a positron collider
by J2 on Feb 4, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe we just dont’ know why the coaches aren’t in love with him.
The reason they aren’t in love with him is because they don’t think he has the drive for the game that the rest of his teammates do. The quote I keep hearing is “Put Ellison’s brain in Crowell’s body and you have an All-Pro linebacker”. Their view is that when Crowell decided to have surgery, that cemented their “he doesn’t have the drive” belief. Therefore, even for a player in his prime, they don’t think he’s going to get better on the field.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
You know, this reminds me of something I remember reading Dr.Z write about what Bill Walsh told him. I will paraphrase as closely as possible:
“The problem, Z, is that the guys you would draft would all look great chasing the opponent over the goal line.”
This is a perfect description of the Jauron-drafted/led Buffalo Bills.
LOL whoa, buddy. I wasn’t jumping to the defense of the coaching staff, though I’ve done it enough times to understand why you might think that.
First of all – When I said that Buffalo’s coaching staff doesn’t think highly of Crowell, I really hoped that folks wouldn’t turn “he lacks football IQ” into “he’s stupid”. That’s not the case. Crowell is a good player. That’s how Buffalo’s coaching staff feels. He’s good, but he doesn’t have the drive to be great. That’s a misinterpretation of what I’ve heard, and it needs to be plainly stated. The Bills coaching staff doesn’t hate Crowell, which is the common misconception. They’re just not in love with him.
Second of all – stats. Comparing Crowell to Whitner and Kelsay isn’t exactly the best way to sell us on him, number one. Number two, we have no idea what kind of stat line Scott could put up in a defense where the “big plays” aren’t gobbled up by the likes of Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs and Ed Reed. It’s likely that he’d be invisible, as Rexx alluded to, but it’s also possible that he could become a late-bloomer superstar.
So basically what I’m saying is, the base logic of your Crowell rant – i.e. the staff hates him and thinks he’s stupid – is off base. I’m also not disagreeing with a large portion of what you’re saying, so I don’t really understand why you jumped down my throat. This is a discussion. Am I not allowed to disagree with you?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
of course you are
but it didn’t seem like you were disagreeing with my points about Crowell, it appeared like you reduced my opinion into a simple attack on the coaching staff, which led me to jump down your throat about always coming to the defense of the coaching staff. As J2 pointed out, sometimes it does feel like any negative reflection of the coaching staff is immediately rebuffed, even if it is a subtle and secondary point to a different argument. Also, you do an excellent job about being as professional as possible for a blog, so I never have a problem with your disagreeing, I just happen to be one Bills fan who is still upset that one of my favorite players is about to walk out the door and as I said in my comment above “IF” they let him walk then yes I will lose respect for them. So if my rebuttal came across as a little harsh, understand its because Crowell’s potential departure is still something I’m a bit edgy about.
Ok, now in response to your points:
1. Doesn’t it bother you that our coaching staff thinks Crowell is a good player but they aren’t in love with him and that is reason enough to let him walk. As coaches you are not going to love all your players. Your job as a coach is to be first and foremost a teacher and second you have to win. Neither requires them to love Crowell. Most talented players have big egos, if you want to love all your players than you are going to get unproductive, hustle players like Kelsay at every position. Do you think the coaching staff will love a big-mouthed, come from a winning team so he likely won’t have the utmost respect for a losing coaching staff, guy like Scott?
2. Of course I have no idea what kind of stat line Scott will have here but he just doesn’t seem like a serious upgrade and he will cost more. In a business sense Crowell makes more sense and in a football sense Crowell makes more sense. You say you don’t want Scott here in your piece. So are you telling me that if we let Crowell walk and replace him with Scott you wouldn’t be upset? I thikn you would and I think its because you know that he’d be more expensive and not as good as Crowell.
Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.
by poz on Feb 4, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
So if my rebuttal came across as a little harsh, understand its because Crowell’s potential departure is still something I’m a bit edgy about.
Gotcha. That’s the part I was unaware of. I’m sure I’d have similar feelings were Trent Edwards to be ousted. :)
And I didn’t mean to reduce your opinion, I just was more inquiring about one particular aspect of it. But again, I now understand said aspect.
And now I’ll respond to your responses to my points. :)
1. It does, in fact, bother me that the coaching staff isn’t enamored with a guy based on one factor. But in Crowell’s case, it’s a pretty freaking important factor. I don’t want Buffalo’s coaching staff to have mushy feelings about all the players on their team if it means sacrificing talent. But there’s a balance between having talent and wasting it. To the Bills, Crowell falls on the same side as McCargo, albeit with much better production. Also, I never said that their feelings for Crowell would prevent his coming back to Buffalo. I just don’t view it as likely.
2. You’re half right on my opinions on Crowell’s OLB spot. I would be upset with a Scott signing because I don’t think it’s a smart investment. But I’d also be upset with a Crowell re-signing because of the strained history and the fact that I think there are much better options available, both via free agency and in the draft. I agree with you that re-signing Crowell is a better business decision, but I think either of these guys would be equally bad football decisions. I’ve never been a huge fan of Crowell’s, even before this giant controversy went down.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, last question
What about Crowell never made you a fan? I’ve always been a Crowell fan because every season (except that surgery thing this year) you could rely on him to always be the guy on defense making plays. Considering the lack of consistency from every other position on the team since 2005 save Terrence McGee’s CB position, I always felt like Crowell was the one guy on defense who no matter what wasn’t going to let me down. And on a team that hasn’t even made the playoffs, having a guy on your team that wasn’t going to let you down was important, because just about everything else about the Bills for almost half my life has been a let down.
Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.
by poz on Feb 4, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
If it comes down to the coaching staff thinking Crowell won’t get any better and feels Ellison is worthy of a spot over him, then i’m perplexed. Crowell’s supposed half-realized potential is twice as strong as Ellison’s best day. That’s where stats count: Ellison might understand the game and have the drive, but he doesn’t have the ability to make the crazy stats. I do not see Ellison becoming the next James Harrison.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 4, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
They only view Ellison worthy of a spot as a depth player. They’re not happy with him starting, which is another common misconception.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
I understand Ellison got his promotion only because of Crowell’s surgery. I guess i just can’t get my head around them letting him walk, just to sign (realistically) a player of similar grade.
I’ve somehow talked myself out of liking most available LBs this year. Seems to be a case of too much money or too much risk.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 4, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
exactly
My problem is that the only linebackers who would be true upgrades over Crowell in FA would be Dansby and Vilma, both very expensive and may not even hit the market and the only upgrades in the draft would be Curry, Maualuga, or Cushing with our #11 pick and Clay Matthews with our round 2 pick, IF hes even there. Considering I also want to address C and DE with those picks, resigning Crowell would make life much easier and provide us with better talent unless we made OLB our prime need. I’m sure the DE and C fans would have problems with that .
Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.
by poz on Feb 4, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
I always considered Crowell an average player on a very poor defense. I think he had the chance to be very good, but he’s not always been the healthiest of players. I just was never overly impressed, particularly with his coverage skills.
He’d be better in a more traditional 4-3 set. Our linebackers are asked to cover too much, and that’s Crowell’s ultimate weakness. He’s just “meh” in my book – I can live with him, I can live without him.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Great discussion, Brian and Poz.
This Crowell topic deserves to be hashed out, finally. For the longest time I thought I was insane and quite possibly the only person on the plant that likes Crowell’s game. Replacing Crowell with an inferior player, such as Ellison or Scott or whoever, won’t fly with me.
Great plays don't make great players; great players make great plays.
I think we need to have this topic addressed on its own, again. I’m a big fan of Crowell’s and hope something works out for him to remain with the team.
Poor Bart, getting overshadowed here by a guy on IR.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 4, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I’m a big fan of Crowell’s and hope something works out for him to remain with the team.
If he re-signs here, the good news will be that he and the coaching staff have come to some sort of reconciliation. I think that the fact that he made it publicly known that he’s interested in staying here is a hint at some sort of reconciliation in and of itself. Maybe he and the staff are on the same page again… who knows?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Feb 4, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
Reconciliation or not
I just think it makes the most business sense to keep him at a relatively affordable price. Then get someone in the draft, and let Crowell compete for his job. That should get Crowell fired up. If he plays well, then good for the Bills, and at worst he is a better backup than Ellison. Ellison is not a capable backup. We need an upgrade there anyhow, and Crowell makes the most sense.
Bills fan half way around the world
I’m more in support of drafting a guy to fit their mold than signing a FA. It’s just so rare that a free agent signing impacts the team as much as fans think it will. Even Jared Allen didn’t get the Vikings any further.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 4, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Regarding free agents
in general, I agree with your assessment. External free agent signings seem to work out 50/50, at best. However, in Jared Allen’s specific case, not only did the Vikings win more games and make the playoffs with him, I think Allen made a big impact in his first year with the Vikings. I’m not sure where the Vikings would have ended up in 2008 without Allen’s 14.5 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, run defense, and all the opponent’s blocking attention that goes with it. Whether or not he continues to perform at a high level is a different story. In most cases I prefer to draft and develop. It’s typically better, younger, and cheaper.
Great plays don't make great players; great players make great plays.
Someone I think we might consider (not an FA, I don’t think) is DJ Williams. Over at Mile High Report, they’re thinking that they’ll be moving to a 3-4 this year, and Williams might not be the best fit. Poses an interesting question, and I think we need to consider legitimate trade prospects since the FA fits don’t seem to be ideal.
Originally,
I wanted them to sign Scott. Now, not so much. I’ve stated all along that their best option is still a part of the team: Crowell.
I know many of you either dislike the thought of him staying or feel it’s already written in stone that he’s a goner. His play speaks louder than his team commitment/perceived intelligence and I, too, think the organization needs to step back a bit and analyze him for more than they have.
Major upgrades would be Suggs or Dansby, but the cost is too great because of their other needs.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Feb 4, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions
I think Crowell is clearly better than Scott
Scott played average to above average while being surrounded by probowlers. Crowell had similar results with no help the past few years. Crowell might not be the best option in FA, but I think he might be the best bargain assuming he settled the differences with the coaching staff. He will make much less coming off an injury, knows the system, and is a young veteran that could play for many more years without the learning curve of a rookie. I won’t be upset if he leaves as long as we replace him with someone better and Scott isn’t that guy.
Don't forget to pay the troll toll...
At least lets be sure that we get a 4-3 SAM linebacker
remember Jeff Posey as our 12:01 signing to play Sam —-except he was a 3-4 OLB.
Vilma, Scott, Crowder, ect are all inside backers who have not played SAM.
Dansby could. Crowell can.
In the draft only Curry and Cushing are sure #1’s who have actually played there.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
