State of the Bills Roster: Defensive End
Super Bowl XLIV is in the books, and while the city of New Orleans takes the next two weeks to party like they've never partied before - you deserve it, folks - the rest of the NFL can now turn its full attention toward building toward the goal that the Saints achieved last night.
Back here in Buffalo Bills country, we're still reeling from last week's news that the team will be moving to a 3-4 alignment under head coach Chan Gailey and new defensive coordinator George Edwards. Few facts are known at this point, but what we do know is that Buffalo isn't anywhere close to being equipped to run a traditional 3-4, and that the front seven in particular will be subjected to a great deal of house cleaning.
Late last week, we talked about the team's current prospects at nose tackle and rush linebacker, the two most critical positions to any 3-4 alignment. Defensive end is not as critical in most 3-4 alignments, as they're usually gap-control positions at which average athletes can get you to the promised land. That's not to say good players can't be dominant factors from that position; I'm sure you all remember Bruce Smith fondly. Buffalo has a lot of candidates to play end in a 3-4; unfortunately, most of them, again, aren't snug fits.
What the new regime might be looking for
Again, this all depends on whether or not Edwards attempts to draw a distinction between 3-4 Over, which the Bills are most easily equipped to play at the moment, or the Bullough-Fairbanks 3-4, which he learned at the end of his tenure at Miami. The difference is that in the Over, ends are one-gap players, whereas in the more traditional setup, they're two-gap players.
Right not, the Bills have exactly one player that can play two-gap at the end position, and he's probably not an every-down player at that position. They have a few candidates for the one-gap scheme. If Edwards wants to transition to that two-gap front as soon as possible, the Bills will, obviously, be looking at two-gap ends, most likely via free agency or during the middle rounds in the draft.
Current personnel
We slotted in two players as nose tackle candidates, and a further four as rush linebackers. That leaves eight Bills defensive linemen that project best to the defensive end position in the 3-4, and in most cases, the fit is not snug.
Marcus Stroud. Stroud has been asked to do things he doesn't excel at in his two years as a Bill, switching between 1-technique and 3-technique on a Bills run defense that has, to be obvious, really struggled. At a minimum, the 3-4 switch helps Stroud in that it gets him back to what he does best - occupy two gaps and free up other defenders. He's not a perfect fit as a two-gap end, because he's lost some athleticism over the last couple of years, but as a run defender in this defense, he should really excel. And no, folks - he is not a nose tackle.
Contract status: Entering year two of a four-year, $28M ($12M guaranteed) extension.
Spencer Johnson. He's a good athlete and he's got long enough arms and enough anchor to play two-gap, but he'd be excellent as a one-gap end that can penetrate and disrupt, which has always been his forte. In a one-gap system, he could start and be pretty solid in that role; in a two-gap system, he's probably better as a situational player, with the ability to make plays against both the run and the pass.
Contract status: 3 years remaining. Owed $9M in base salaries.
Ryan Denney. Denney has spent his entire career in the 4-3 defense, but he might actually have more value in the 3-4. The 6'7" Denney might need to add a pound or two of muscle, but he's got the long arms and enough anchor to control blockers, and enough athleticism to be a factor as a pass rusher from the 3-4 end, a position not traditionally utilized in that capacity. He's a UFA, so the Bills would need to sign him back; that's a move that I, personally, believe would be worth the short-term investment.
Contract status: Unrestricted Free Agent.
Chris Kelsay. This move looks like the end to Kelsay's career in Buffalo. He seems pretty specific to the 4-3 at this point in time; he doesn't have the athleticism in space to play outside (and unlike Aaron Schobel, doesn't possess the pass rushing ability to make up for his lack of athleticism), and lacks enough bulk and anchor to play up front. He could certainly be asked to add weight, but at a hefty salary and with just one year left on his deal, it might be better for the Bills to simply cut him loose and explore other opportunities, particularly with Denney a more realistic option.
Contract status: 1 year remaining. Owed $3.7M in base salary.
John McCargo. The short, squatty McCargo has been a major disappointment as a 2006 first-round pick, and in no way does his penetrating style fit into the traditional 3-4 system. He's got one year left on his deal at a cheap price tag, but that's not likely to save him with a complete re-build about to take place.
Contract status: 1 year remaining. Owed $685K in base salary.
Corey Mace. Was re-signed last year thanks to his familiarity with Buffalo's defensive scheme. That's obviously now not a factor for Mace, who isn't tough enough or long enough to play end in a 3-4. Good luck, sir.
Contract status: Undisclosed. Not listed as a free agent by BuffaloBills.com.
Rashaad Duncan. In the same mold as the two previous names on this list - very much a 4-3 defensive tackle ideally. Spent part of '09 on the Bills' practice squad, and has little to no ties to the current regime. Could get a look in mini-camps or even during training camp.
Contract status: Signed a reserve/future contract on 1/5/10.
Marcus Smith. Actually has the measureables to play in this system - in fact, he broke into the league with Baltimore, a 3-4 team - but spent much of the past two seasons injured. Not a lock to stick by any means, even as a training camp body, but might be worth a look now that he's in a system better suited to his talents.
Contract status: Undisclosed. Not listed as a free agent by BuffaloBills.com.
Who stays? Who goes?
Stroud and Johnson aren't going anywhere, because they're good players under contract for a while. I think it'd be a smart investment to re-sign Denney, who has the length to be a solid player as a pass rusher from the end position in any 3-4. The rest of the names, with the possible exception of Smith, don't have a ton of value in the 3-4, and could lose roster positions because of it.
If I were a betting man (and no, I'm not)...
I'd bet that things play out as described above. Stroud is penciled in as a starter and Denney is re-signed to team with Johnson as, at worst, depth players at end. Kelsay and McCargo get released outright, and the younger guys (excepting Mace) are given a look during camp as fourth quarter bodies.
Names to keep an eye on
These are all names that Der Jaeger told us to keep an eye on as five-technique end prospects via free agency, and they're easy (and cheap) enough to roll with: Dwan Edwards, Nick Eason and Alfonso Boone. In terms of the draft, under-the-radar prospects worth keeping an eye on include Tyson Alualu, Alex Carrington, Brandon Deaderick, Jeffrey Fitzgerald and Will Tukuafu, among a few others.
Previous installments of the State of the Bills Roster series: QB, RB, WR, TE, OT, G/C, NT, OLB.
1 recs |
56 comments
|
Comments
No arguments here
Stroud and Johnson are at the very least, short term holdovers until a full transition can be made. I still think Stroud will struggle as a DE, but if he can play the two-gap role, he can have some success for us. We cannot expect him to do any kind of penetration though; his athleticism and quickness are almost gone.
Johnson will be a good rotational guy no matter what his role is.
I like the idea of re-signing Denney for depth on a short term deal, but he’ll need to add at least a little bulk.
Bring Smith in as a camp body and let the other PS scrubs go. Go after a bunch of UDFA’s that might fit the scheme and bring in at least one experienced vet like a Dwan Edwards, as well as a mid or late round selection like Deadrick.
Am I forgetting anyone? :)
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Feb 8, 2010 11:50 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Corey Mace says hello :-)
When we win, I'm so happy I eat a lot. When we lose, I'm so depressed, I eat a lot. When we're rained out, I'm so disappointed I eat a lot. - Tommy Lasorda
by norcaliangelsfan on Feb 8, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
I totally agree with Kurupt for once
strange days. lol
I completely agree
And I would really like Denney to stay, I thought for a while he was going to be gone next year, but the 3-4 helps him. I really like a) price b) that hes a vet and c) his versatility. I am sure Moorman will be glad if they keep his favorite receiver, haha.
I like Stroud starting, and I think Spencer might also end up getting the nod, but I would prefer to have another vet fight it out. Denney is definitely reliable as a reserve.
I was born in Buffalo, and NO, it's not a suburb of New York City
Stroud
I think Stroud is going to surprise a lot of people playing DE in this system. He’s a great football player and hasn’t been used the way he should during his time in buffalo (not saying a 3-4 DE his is best fit but…) But i say keep an eye on Stroud because i think he can do really well on the outside.
by Blobillsfootball on Feb 8, 2010 1:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Summarizing this series
No one to play NT.
Stroud and Johnson to learn new positions moving to DE. Stroud was nagged by injuries last year, Johnson a career backup Denney needs to be re-signed.
Schobel and Maybin to play OLB, except Schobel can’t cover, and who knows about Maybin. Both have been DE’s exclusively.
Poz and Mitchell at ILB, Mitchell coming off knee surgery.
Our Pro Bowl DT Williams gone because he isn’t suited for this defense. Same with Kelsay, an experienced and solid, but overpaid DE. All other LB’s on the roster are too small or slow for the scheme.
But we’ll build through the draft, and free agency with has beens, never wases and never will be’s.
Except we also have an offense that’s been a trainwreck and needs a couple more years of TLC with the draft.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Thank you. Now I can take a week off with no new posts here. Enjoy it while I’m gone. :)
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 8, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Kyle?
I’m not so sure I’d write Kyle Williams off as a 3-4 DE. I know he has short arms and doesn’t have the athleticism of a prototypical defender at that position; however, the guy is sure disruptive and can handle himself against the big boys on the other side of the ball. I’d at least give him a look before kicking him to the curb.
"They're Killin' Me Whitey. They're Killin' Me" -- Lou Saban
Quite the pessimist aren't you?
Listen it’s good to be a pessimist every once in a while, especially now when we clearly do suck. Bein a pessimist can sometime help you keep perspective. But you can’t just go over our roster and say “We’re F’ed”. You have to remember that this is a REAL rebuilding process, not the half assed efforts that we’ve seen in the last 10 years. You also have to look at who is running the rebuilding effort: Buddy Nix. Look at the man’s track record; before he was involved in SD they sucked more than we did (remember how they signed Doug Flutie to be their starter and try to rebuild their franchise?). Then Nix helped rebuild the team into the Chargers that we know today.
What i mean to say is that yes right now things do look grimm, but you can’t just say that everything in going down the crapshoot. Nix helped rebuild the Chargers by rebuilding everything about the Chargers. And I believe that the only way that we can rebuild the Bills is to rebuild everything about the Bills. That is to say that you keep the few gems on the roster that fit into the system that you are trying to put in place (i.e. Lee Evans, Marcus Stroud, Paul Pozluszny Freddie Jackson) and you dump everyone that doesn’t fit into your ultimate goal and you get the whatever you can for them (i.e. Kyle Williams). And yes that does mean that you are going to go threw a full year of utter putridness (next year will SUCK), followed by a year or two of being average at best. But in the long run you end up being better for it.
The Bills do suck right now. Some of the moves that Nix and Gailey are doing garantees that we will suck next year. But in the long run I truly believe that we will be better for it. This isn’t a “hire a new coach and keep the same losing system” rebuild, it’s a “dump most of the team and build from the ground up” rebuild. And history has proven that only the later actually works. It’s the most painfull move for the fans, but ultimatly it is also the right move. We will be better for it.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 9, 2010 1:00 AM EST up reply actions
"rebuild"
I think the pessimist is trying to say we’ve been rebuilding for years, just wondering when it’s gonna pay off. I’m not gettin any younger!! I kinda wonder as well..
by buffalobacker on Feb 9, 2010 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
Ok I think we have different deffinitions of rebuilding.
I honestly think that the Bills haven’t sucesfully rebuilt since the Bruce Simth/Thurman Thomas years. That rebuild was followed by ten years of success, which was followed by one rebuild under Donahoe. Ater Donahoe we basicly just kept the same system, kept the same players, kept the same mediocraty, but changed the coaches. Everything after Donahoe was an attempt to adjust, not rebuild.
Nix is rebuilding, not adjusting. There is a BIG difference.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 9, 2010 2:35 AM EST up reply actions
rec'd
It’s time to see the post-2000 Bills as they are, not what what we would like them to be (i.e. a few personnel moves short of the playoffs). In many ways, Donahoe took us down a blind alley. It seems that Ralph woke up and grabbed himself a strong cup of Nix.
"They're Killin' Me Whitey. They're Killin' Me" -- Lou Saban
logic would dictate
that the new coaches have thoughts that there is some sort of “skeleton” of a 3-4 existing in present personnel. Denney,Stroud, and Johnson might be 3 of those bones.
Then again, “logic” and the “Bills” have not been used in the same sentence for quite some time.
"In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria"
by fansince60 on Feb 8, 2010 1:43 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
A question
I understand why we don’t think Stroud can be a NT, but isn’t the role of a NT typically to soak up blockers?
As Brian wrote:
At a minimum, the 3-4 switch helps Stroud in that it gets him back to what he does best – occupy two gaps and free up other defenders.
Wouldn’t that mean his strengths would suit him well as NT? Again, I get that he isn’t a prototypical NT, but I guess I’m just a lil confused.
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
2 Gap NT is different from two gap DE
The NT is constantly getting hit from the center and one of the guards.
The DE isn’t taking quite a beating all the time. He may see a OT-G combo at times, but most of the time offenses want to keep guards and TE’s away from the DE, to either double the nose tackle or get to the LB’s.
If Stroud is seeing constant double teams at the DE position, then the LB’s are going to have plenty of opportunity to make plays.
thanks DJ!
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
by JPH on Feb 8, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Side note
What did you think of the Saints (a 4-3 team) playing most of the SB using 3 down lineman (3-4 and 3-3-5)? Kind of makes many of the reasons why the Bills can’t do it ring hollow. Also throws a wrench in the “players, not scheme matters” argument. Williams used his 4-3 players effectively in a 3-4 scheme…..why can’t the Bills do it again?
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
They used their Ruby package as a pressure/coverage package. If they’d used it as their base defensive alignment, it might in some way be relevant.
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 8, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
Not so speak for Joe P., he may tell me Im way off...
but I think he was referring to the success of the defense working with less-than-ideal players (scheme-wise), so in that vein, I believe it to be relevant to the discussion at least.
Your point is still valid of course, it worked that game, but through out the season, the story may be different.
by NorCal BillsFan on Feb 8, 2010 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
BINGO!
The NFL is a QBs league. As you get deeper into the playoffs, your defense needs to be able to slow down the elite QBs of this league. The Saints, a 4-3 base team, choose to move away from the 4-3 to a 3-4 variation in the SB no less. It was the difference in the game.
So my point was two fold. First that a 3-4 can be run effectively with 4-3 personnel. Two that coaching and scheme is at least as important as the players, especially once you reach the post season. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that certain players are a better fit in each scheme than others, just that those that are convinced that this transition will be a disaster because of the player personnel might want to reconsider.
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
First that a 3-4 can be run effectively with 4-3 personnel.
It showed that a 3-4 can be run effectively by good 4-3 personnel. That’s different, and it also answers your question of “why not the bills?”
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
by JPH on Feb 8, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
But we don't have good 4-3 personnel either, so that can't be a reason not to change to a 3-4 like so have said
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
oh no i agree that's our personnel was no reason not to change to a 3-4.
but it is a reason why our D won’t be a good 3-4 next season..
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
by JPH on Feb 8, 2010 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
I think we agree....our D was not going to be good either way :-)
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
I’ll choose to leave the coach/scheme thing alone, because that’s been re-hashed so often that a) it doesn’t need to be here, and b) I’m sure you, or at least someone here, knows how I feel on the subject.
First that a 3-4 can be run effectively with 4-3 personnel.
No. The Saints did not prove that. They proved that they can line up three linemen and make a quarterback wonder vaguely if he’s ever seen that before. Not sure if you noticed, but the Saints were absolutely GASHED on the ground; I’m certain that game would have had a different outcome, even if it was just a bit closer, if Manning had decided to keep feeding the rock to Joseph Addai.
Yes. It’s good to be able to show different looks; hell, Perry Fewell gave Brees three-man lines in Week 3. No, you absolutely cannot run a 3-4 as your base defense with 4-3 personnel.
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 8, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
But that was the game plan....make the Colts beat you with running game
Williams said in the post game that they were willing to give up 5 yds per carry. And it worked. As for the rest, I assume you are trying to say that the base defense for a game is different than for the year? The point is Manning is arguably the best QB in the league and he was confused by what Williams was able to do, which mostly was done out of rushing 3 down lineman.
No, you absolutely cannot run a 3-4 as your base defense with 4-3 personnel.
Which is why I said
Now that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that certain players are a better fit in each scheme than others, just that those that are convinced that this transition will be a disaster because of the player personnel might want to reconsider.
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
I don't think this proved anything...
First that a 3-4 can be run effectively with 4-3 personnel.
I don’t see how one game proves anything. The Saints D played well, with their variety of looks, but in no way can one performance prove anything one way or the other.
All this proved is that switching up defensive looks worked for the Saints last night. It doesn’t even mean that if the two teams played next week that a similar strategy would have any success.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
You can never get the kind of proof you are looking for
I never said “proved” by the way, just as I never said it would be a good idea to run a base 3-4 without any variation the entire season.
So my point was two fold. First that a 3-4 can be run effectively with 4-3 personnel. Two that coaching and scheme is at least as important as the players, especially once you reach the post season. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that certain players are a better fit in each scheme than others, just that those that are convinced that this transition will be a disaster because of the player personnel might want to reconsider.
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
they didn't use the 4-3 as their base defense that game....they played 3 down lineman most of the game
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
Belichick
Belichick used a 3-4 going into the game against the Bills in SB25. He modified the defense into a 2-4-5. Does that somehow lessen the ability of a 3-4? Not really…. Williams simply modified a game plan for a specific opponent. And they did play 46 against Indy on non-passing downs.
Not all of them....how many snaps? Not many....and one of the few times they did line up in a 4-3, Addai gashed them for his biggest run of the night
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
New Orleans’ defense isn’t that good. They finished 20th in scoring defense, 25th in yards allowed, 21st in rushing yards allowed, and 26th in yards-per-rush allowed.
That’s why Addai gashed them… it had nothing to do with formation.
NO was second in turnovers. That’s what won them games defensively.
Wait a minute....so after what they did to the Vikes, N.O. doesn't have a good defense?
Isn’t forcing turnovers an important part of what makes a good defense? And like I said before, Williams said that they were willing to allow 5 yds per attempt….it was part of the plan…..had everything to do with formation as it pertains to scheme.
If we end up with Vick, T.O., Richie I., and Porter….that is really pushing the dbag density limit for one team.
between favre and peterson
…that was an implosion waiting to happen. New Orleans plays nice and aggressive and that makes them an okay defense, but they give up a ton of yards and a ton of points. Just because two of the most turnover prone players in the league turned the ball over against them in a big game doesn’t change a season of being slightly below average.
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
Was that Favre interception “forced”? I mean, yeah, Favre forced it…
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 9, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions
Turnover ratio
The Saints gave up 31 first downs, 165 rushing yards, and 310 yards passing, and allowed 4 TD’s by the Vikings. That’s good defense?
They took the ball away five times, and only turned it over once.
For the entire playoffs, the Saints took the ball away 8 times and committed a turnover once.
The Saints got out-rushed by the Vikings and Colts. Both the Vikings and Colts had more first downs and total yards than the Saints.
The Saints were not very good on defense. It doesn’t matter what type of defense they played… they weren’t going to be very good. They don’t have a bunch of great players on defense.
What the Saints did do was commit to pressuring the QB and gambled on interceptions. Live by the sword, die by it. They ended up living because their offense had only one turnover.
I wouldnt mind seeing Stroud at one end and Spencer Johnson at the other end with Denney and FA/Rookies to fill out the backups. DE might be one of the later positions on D that OBD tries to take care of. LB’s and NT are much more important for our 3-4 transformation. Plus you can do alot worse than Stroud and Johnson.
"Be a wuss at home! Be a man on Rumblings!" - Kurupt
Schobel is way to small to be a 3-4 DE. He’s also always been a 1 gap gu, attacking on the outside. He’s also WAY underweight to be a 3-4 DE. His speed and pass rushing ability serve him much better as a pass ruhing OLB then they do as a 3-4 DE.
by CanadianBillsFan on Feb 9, 2010 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
Good post...
I agree with the assignments and players who may/may not be kept. They are not ideal, but they should be okay for the time being.
I also really like the idea of Tyson Alualu at DE…that guy was great for the Cal Bears this year and we run a 3-4 already, so he is ahead of the curve in that aspect. He is 6’3" 295lbs and could still be there in the 3rd.
yeah he'd have to put on 40 lbs to be a 3-4 DE.
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
by JPH on Feb 8, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
Huh?
Alualu is already 290+ lbs….
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
i was talking about schobel...
i meant to reply to the post above….
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
Yeeaaahhh BUT
I think that was a little hasty to dismiss McCargo like that. I’d bet he stays on because he’s cheap and needed badly for depth.
"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
"If I had to do it all over again, I'd do it all over again."
I think they can bring in any run-of-the-mill free agent for depth and get more bang for their buck.
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 8, 2010 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
Brian...
What exactly is Big John’s issue (referring to why he will be worth less to the team than say, Marcus Smith)? He does have some talent, right? Or have we been sold a piece of crap and told it was a Snicker?
by NorCal BillsFan on Feb 8, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
He does have some talent, right?
he must, or else they wouldn’t have drafted him. The problem has always been effort, and it appears that even being completely irrelevant doesn’t seem to bother him.
...so I guess now I root for chan gailey...
by JPH on Feb 8, 2010 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
Smith has the size and length to play the five-technique as a 3-4 end. McCargo does not.
Buffalo Rumblings. On Twitter.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. --Wayne Grezky" --Michael Scott
by Brian Galliford on Feb 8, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions

by 





























