Bills Still Searching for Offensive Impact

by Brian Galliford on Mar 6, 2008 2:44 PM EST in Buffalo Bills Opinion

Lynch stood alone as offensive playmaker in '07 (BuffaloBills.com)

252 points - less than 16 per game. 20 offensive touchdowns. Held without an offensive touchdown in a whopping five games - nearly a third of the team's schedule. In 2007, the Buffalo Bills' historically anemic offense achieved all of this, despite playing behind a vastly improved offensive line that only gave up 26 sacks. It's been discussed nearly to death this off-season, but remains an issue for the Bills: the team still lacks playmakers at the offensive skill positions.

We know that there are building blocks. There just aren't enough of them. Running back Marshawn Lynch, last year just a rookie, was easily Buffalo's most consistent performer (from anywhere on the roster) last season, rushing for 1,115 yards and accounting for eight scores, or 40% of the team's touchdown production. We can still count WR Lee Evans as well, even if his 2007 production of 55 receptions and five scores was mediocre compared to seasons past. That's it. Two building blocks. Two players that opposing defensive coordinators actually have to think about when game-planning for Buffalo's offense.

We can talk about Buffalo's defensive upgrades all we want - and we should, because they're exciting and will make the team better. But until the Bills can find more weapons offensively, this team will not compete with the New England Patriots. That still has to be goal number one.

An Alarming Lack of Depth
The scariest aspect of Buffalo's offense is that outside of the team's top two threats, Lynch and Evans, there isn't one player that can make an impact on a consistent basis. Receivers Josh Reed and Roscoe Parrish have had their moments, but they're role players at best. Robert Royal has a game or two each year where he's a factor in the passing game. Backup running back Fred Jackson had an impact late last season and deserves more touches, but it remains to be seen how he can hold up during a full season's worth of third down work.

That's five more names of role players that the Bills have - players who can have big games any given week, but who will never command the attention of opposing defenses. No game-changers. The team has been entertaining players such as WR Bryant Johnson and TE Ben Troupe on the free agent market, but until proven otherwise, they're not game-changers either. They would boost depth and take some pressure off of Lynch and Evans. Both players would help this team immensely, as they have skills that the Bills' skill players don't currently possess. But they're not enough.

What Great Offenses Have
Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Laurence Maroney. Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Joseph Addai. LaDainian Tomlinson, Antonio Gates and Chris Chambers. Marion Barber III, Terrell Owens and Jason Witten. Heck, you can even include Ryan Grant, Donald Driver and Greg Jennings in that group if you'd like. The best NFL offenses have at least three playmakers. A triumvirate of players that can beat defenders in multiple ways at any point on the field. Having that type of playmaking has made great quarterbacks greater (see: P. Manning, T. Brady, B. Favre) and young quarterbacks mature quickly (see: P. Rivers).

Buffalo is two-thirds there. Lynch and Evans are two such players. What's missing is that elusive third piece - and it may take the Bills a while to find it.

Where to Find the Missing Piece?
I'll say it again: Bryant Johnson and Ben Troupe would be steps in the right direction, but they don't solve the problem entirely. The cold reality is that Johnson and Troupe are the best of the rest in this year's free agent class, and it's unlikely that a rookie wideout can have the same impact at his position as Lynch did last season. Bottom line: this offense is still at least a year away from having the look of functioning well on its own. There's still a possibility that it can be forced into a playoff-ready mode by the time training camp breaks, but challenge the Patriots? Not yet.

What does all of this mean? Personally, I'm now fully endorsing the Bills drafting Oklahoma wideout Malcolm Kelly in the first round this April. I was never a huge fan of drafting a receiver in the first round, but when push comes to shove, the Bills need to find a difference-making receiver as quickly as possible. Kelly has the look of a player who can hurt defenses at any point on the field, and while it's unlikely that he'd be a big factor in his rookie season, he'd look great coming out of the slot in his rookie season. There would be a place for him in this offense immediately, and there'd be plenty of room for him to grow. Whether it's Kelly or another player, the Bills must find their third difference-maker, likely via the draft, and do it as soon as possible.

Keep all of this in mind as we progress through the rest of the off-season and approach draft day. Keep in mind, also, that one name was (purposely) not mentioned: Trent Edwards. When you're leaving your second year starting quarterback out of an analysis such as this, one begins to see exactly how far we have to go.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

UGH

"Personally, I'm now fully endorsing the Bills drafting Oklahoma wideout Malcolm Kelly in the first round this April."

When I read that, I got a chill up my spine and tasted my breakfast again.

Not at 11. If the Bills traded down, picked up some extra picks and then took the best receiver available (Kelly, Sweed, Thomas, whomever) I MIGHT be able to live with that.
I would almost rather see Kenny Phillips.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 6, 2008 9:52 AM EST reply actions

I should have clarified

Yes. If the Bills target Kelly, as I hope they do, I'd much, much, much rather seem them do it after pick 17. I just think that the team needs to get the top wideout, and Kelly is that player. I don't care how they do it, I just think it needs to happen.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 6, 2008 10:05 AM EST up reply actions

its about time

we started talking about our receiver need more seriously. I've noticed this website has been defense oriented for quite some time now and that is a good thing. However the fact remains that we added great pieces at DT and LB, making WR much more important than DE or CB. It is not going to matter how good our defense is if our offense remains as wretched as it is. The fact is Edwards does not have weapons to throw to because Evan can be smothered all day while our role players fail to make an impact. It is NECESSARY that receiver is our main priority now. That being said, there are still some rumors out there of some great receivers who want out of their clubs with a trade. If we want to use #11 on defense, I'd be for it if we make a trade for a playmaker. Otherwise, bring Kelly to town, he's going to be a great player

CB, DLine in FA WR, WLB in Draft

by poz on Mar 6, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

One more thing

I agree that Kelly would make a great slot receiver in his rookie season. Heck that is where Josh Reed had a huge impact when Moulds and Price were on the outside. But how many slot guys can we have? If Reed and Parrish are there, where would Kelly play?

I think you may be right. When looking at what is left in the free agent market, if the Bills want a play-making receiver they might need to look towards the draft, and maybe I need to be more patient and let that guy develop, I just don't want to pin the Bills hopes on a rookie WR.

Don't forget some of the guys you named are TEs. The Bills could add a solid pass-catching TE and have a similar affect.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 6, 2008 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

WR draft depth

I don't know about Kelly, especially if they are forced into picking at No. 11 with the midset of taking a wideout.

This WR class is deep; and lets be honest, no position is more of a draft crapshoot than WR (save maybe LT - thanks for reminding me about Williams yesterday sireric. BTW, best QB from that draft was David Gerrard, taken in the 4th). First round busts happen all the time in that position. For example, 2005 saw Braylon Edwards (3) and Roddy White (27) sandwiching an extremely disappointing Mike Williams (10) and a pedestrian Mark Clayton (15?). Look at arguably the last WR super draft (2004) and take a look at the first rounders: Roy Williams (good), Reggie Williams (meh), Lee Evans (you debate) Mike Clayton (nasty, then meh), Mike Jenkins (meh), Rashaun Woods (who?).

I know that by nature, the draft in and of itself is a crapshoot, but WR in the 1st is risky any year, IMO. I think this year that's the case even more so considering the plethora of draft gurus offering that there are about 10 WRs who get round 2 grades (Nelson, Thomas, Hardy, Manningham, ect.) while a few are getting the round 1-2 (Sweed and Kelly).

I guess all I am saying is that there is value to be had in round two and we should be grab the best available player in round 1. I would ideally like to see them hit up DE (sireric, you have convinced me) or CB first.

by DCRumbler on Mar 6, 2008 10:29 AM EST reply actions

Don't you have to go tight end soon?

Nobody's going to argue that the next T.O. or Moss would be wonderful, but I don't read or hear anybody touting a player like that in the draft (definitely not in free agency) this year. Maybe he's there, maybe not. Let's stick to what we know.

Trent feels comfortable throwing to the tight ends. It's a good option when the home run just isn't there with Lee or Roscoe.

Sign Troupe and draft a big kid with potential. Let's not make the mistake we made with J.P. and try to make this kid into the next Bret Favre. Work to his strengths, capitalize on what he already brings to the table - his intelligence, his ability to avoid the big turnover, his willingness to check down to the tight end or Marshawn, or tuck it and get 3 or 4 yards. Work with what you've got and he'll eventually develop.

It starts with some decent tight ends that can catch and get some run-after-catch yards. Some blocking ability wouldn't hurt either.

by garymallow2004 on Mar 6, 2008 10:39 AM EST reply actions

USC TE or?

Is he worth #11, or is there playmakes in the second rd. Kid from Purdue and others look promising in a deep class. That veron davis is not a top 5 te and he was drafted 6 or 7. Maybe next year but we need immediate impact. but its hard to tell becuae offensive startegy and other factors determine a players effectiveness

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Mar 6, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

Trent feels comfortable throwing to the tight ends

I think it all starts at quarterback. Trent Edwards' game is methodical, rhythm, timing, short, quick, accurate, low-risk, and over-the-middle passing. Edwards does not have the arm strength to consistently throw outside the numbers or to the sidelines.

Last season Trent was forced into a vertical passing scheme where the WR's typically operate on the outside and work the sidelines. However, Trent's strength is throwing to the middle of the field, not outside the numbers or to the sidelines, so it was only natural for him to favor the TE because the TE was aligned in the middle of the field. Instead of saying that Trent favors throwing to the TE, it may be more accurate to say that Trent favors throwing over the middle. For Trent, it may be more about the location on the field than the position (TE versus WR).

For better or worse, the Bills have completely hitched their wagon to Trent Edwards and promoted Turk Schonert to be their offensive coordinator. I expect Schonert to incorporate his background in designing the offense, while maximizing Edwards' strengths and minimizing his weaknesses. This means West Coast offense.

Also, Schonert was coached by Bill Walsh. To me, the Edwards-Schonert marriage sounds like an ideal West Coast offense combination. Yes, every team does run some West Coast plays and concepts. However, I believe the Bills will be taking it a step further this season and in the future. Watch for the deep outs and comebacks to be replaced by quick slants and crossing routes. Again, maximizing Edwards' strengths and minimizing his weaknesses. Typical West Coast wideouts are big and can run after the catch. They catch a lot of passes over the middle, which is where Edwards thrives. To the Bills, that elevates the importance of wide receivers. Conversely, if Edwards was forced into a vertical passing scheme where the wideouts typically work outside, I think the tight end would be a higher priority than wide receiver.

Based on the quarterback (Edwards), the scheme (West Coast), and what the Bills need the most (YAC, red zone threat, not blocking ability), a great WR can do everything that a great TE can do (with better YAC and deep threat ability to boot), WR is a higher priority need than TE.

Due to the neccessity to generate big, explosive plays (gains of 20+ yards) in the passing game, YAC is more important in an Edwards/West Coast offense than a Losman/Vertical offense. When you make the change from Losman/Vertical to Edwards/West Coast, YAC becomes a necessity instead of a convenience.

In addition, the supply (available college and pro personnel) better meets the demand at WR than at TE.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 6, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

Doesn't have the arm strength?

I could go on about yours, and many others', incorrect and dismal approach to commenting on the qb situation, but I won't.

Suffice to say WR is always a bigger need than TE, and furthermore we need one top level playmaker in each position. How the Bills do it is the only thing worth arguing, and how. We should only demand elite players, so the Bills can be an elite team. They are in a position to get both, so we should speculate what they will do, because is it established that this is a need.

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Mar 6, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

Why Kelly?

Why not Sweed? Or even Hardy later in the 1st?

I don't think he's the consensus #1 WR, though he may indeed be. I think Kelly and Sweed are very close and if we decide to go WR in the 1st, I hope it's after trading down to get one of those guys.

I can get on board with a WR in the 1st, though DE is still my choice. Sweed or Kelly would be excellent additions, but I just don't like using #11 for one of them. There has to be a trade partner in the 5-8 picks following ours for the likes of Mendenhall, Harvey, and McKelvin/Jenkins, so it would be wise to move down if we can before selecting one of the WR's. I just hope that if we draft a WR in round 1 he can provide an instant impact. I'm not talking a 1000 yard season, but rather, actually providing a threat at the position giving us a redzone option and someone to take pressure off Evans.

by Kurupt on Mar 6, 2008 11:45 AM EST reply actions

A few comments...

First, Brian I'm "re-borned" as well, with taking a WR in round 1. Not that I think it would be the best value at number 11, so I trade down would be best. People talk about the WR depth, but I think CB has much more depth. As for DE, well I've said my peice and I guess I'll say it again.

Second, did I miss hte meeting where everyone around here drank the DE Kool aid? This team has only 3 legitimate WR's on the roster. Same with CB. They still need a pass catching TE and the O-line depth is banking on critical.

Lastly, I think you make a good point Brian. A lot of good role players but still an overall lack of playmakers. Will a WR like Kelly or Sweed make a difference right away, maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't mean you don't try. I would love to see the Bills pick up Bryant Johnson and then trade down and add Sweed or Kelly.

To address your point Sireric, assuming that the Bills add Johnson, yes, Kelly would play the 3rd WR, but not in the purest sense. I think he would be the first guy off the bench on the outside, but Josh and Roscoe would still be the primary targets in the slot.

John I.

by jri111 on Mar 6, 2008 12:19 PM EST reply actions

Meeting

Yes,you were noticeably absent from the Kool-aid meeting.
Yes there are only 3 WRs and 3 CBs on this team right now,I'm not saying don't draft a CB or a WR, just that you can do so after you draft a DE in the first.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 6, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

Wait

Get a DE in the first next year after we see how additons in the middle, and an improved Williams and McCargo help out are DEs now. Pick one up later for depth, but go for gold next year.
I do agree with may that maybe trading out would be good, I just want impact from the first three picks, in no particular order, TE, CB, WR. Who is there, and what is the best strategy is what is key.

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Mar 6, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

Why wait if you don't have to

you listed TE, CB, WR. O.K. lets go:

then you don't have to settle for next year.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 6, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions

Hey

Stop stealing my draft board

Harvey
Cason/Flowers
Jordy
Finley/Davis

by Kurupt on Mar 6, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

Now thats how the draft.....

Should look. I would love everyone of those picks.

Playoff Bound in '08!

by SP @ Buffalo Rumblings on Mar 6, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

The thing is

it is so common to find good WR's in rounds 2-4 but it is just so hard to find ones that "get it." earlier than others. I mean look at last year and a guy like James Jones for the Packers. Nothing great but he was a 1st year impact at least. Dwayne Bowe for the Chiefs, drafted 23rd last year had a 1st year impact with a shaky QB and he was the 3rd WR taken after C. Johnson and Ted Ginn Jr.

I am more inclined to taking 2-3 offensive weapons. A combination or WR/TE and a WR/KR type guy I think. I just hope they can find the right "guy." It is a hard thing to do. I definitely don't want to see them take a WR at #11. In fact unless a stud falls to them at #11, I want them to trade out of that no matter what if they can. There is not a player that fits there needs that makes sense at #11 for the right value.

I can't believe the draft is still like 8 weeks away!

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Mar 6, 2008 12:34 PM EST reply actions

At Least Three Playmakers

Since I have been a member of this outstanding community, I have consistently stated that the Bills need to acquire an elite playmaker in the passing game first and foremost, WR or TE, as long as he is a great player. If I must decide between the two positions, my choice is WR for the reasons noted above. This would complete the requisite trifecta (Lee Evans, Marshawn Lynch, New Elite Playmaker) for a potentially dominant offense.

I am is still grimacing in pain from the lack of offensive production in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007? I've had enough. I can't count the number of times and number of games where the Bills offense didn't show up, didn't hold up their end of the bargain, and left the defense out to dry last season. We've already seen how far great defenses in 2003 and 2004 have taken the Bills (zilch, nada, zip). Additionally, the best way to complement the Cover 2 defense and help your run defense is with an explosive offense. Does Dick Jauron and Trent Edwards have it in them to be explosive?

Brian has mentioned before that he believes in having an elite offense. However, Brian seems to be emphasizing this more in this thread than he has in his previous threads, diaries, postings, and comments.

My question for Brian is: Why are you all of a sudden sold on Malcolm Kelly? Didn't you say that he lacked toughness? You seemed to concur with Mike Mayock that no wide receiver in this draft will likely receive a first round grade (but may still be selected in the first round). What transpired recently to make you change your mind about Kelly/first round WR? It wasn't likely that the Bills were going to acquire an elite playmaker in pro free agency.

I also like Kelly. Even if he runs the 40 in 4.6 seconds (I think he'll do better than that), that wouldn't change my opinion of him that much. I've seen him in games and I've heard great things about him. Tom Modrak, among others, says that Kelly is "the real deal". I've also read comparisons to Larry Fitzgerald (Kelly's hands are not quite as good, but Kelly is probably a little faster).

What I like the most about Kelly is that he is big and he has great hands. However, he doesn't seem to create in the open field or do much after the catch. As I've mentioned before, "when you make the change from Losman/Vertical to Edwards/West Coast, YAC becomes a necessity instead of a convenience". Also, I don't see a big difference between Kelly and someone like Devin Thomas, who actually seems to have better YAC ability than Kelly and may be available in the second round or by trading down in the first round.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 6, 2008 1:53 PM EST reply actions

Answering your questions:

Why are you all of a sudden sold on Malcolm Kelly?

I'm not. I just think he has the most potential out of this year's receivers.

Didn't you say that he lacked toughness?

I did. But he's also more physically gifted than the rest of this year's receivers, and has the most big-play and YAC potential.

What transpired recently to make you change your mind about Kelly/first round WR?

Buffalo's free agent signings. We've focused on defense, and we're at a point where we've got playmakers on that side of the ball. Or, at least, we have more than two. We have to focus on offense, or our solid defense will be facing the same issues as they were last season in terms of being left on the field too long.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 6, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

3 offensive weapons?

What about the GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG MEN? who are their three offensive weapons? plaxico burress...yeah he's the only one! jeremy shockey doesn't count because he wasn't even playing when they were doing well.

There isn't some formula like (three offensive weapons and you're in). It comes down to playing great football like the giants did during the playoffs.

Something that almost all superbowl teams have is a great pass rush. I liked how we signed marcous stroud and johnson to help us out with that, but we need a stud end!

We should trade out pick down and trade for calaius cambell or derrick harvey. Malcomb kelly? the guy didn't even catch 4 balls a game! and when he did catch it, it was because he was wide open. although he is big, he doesn't use his body very well to get the jump ball. James hardy has gotten the ball 6 times a game for 3 years and has had double digit td's. If we go after a reciever he's the guy.

just remember, the colts, pats, packers, and chargers didn't win the superbowl this year, the g men did.

by buffaloboy90 on Mar 6, 2008 4:06 PM EST reply actions

Sure...

... but the Pats and Colts are still the model by which to build, because they've been the best two teams in the NFL for a very long time. (Might have something to do with their quarterbacks, yes, but they do most everything else right as well.)

And if you want to talk Giants - Steve Smith was incredible as a third down possession receiver, and they had a devastating one-two punch at RB in Jacobs and Bradshaw. They have offensive weapons.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Mar 6, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

Well

the Pats did win their Super Bowls with used car salesmen at WR...

I agree our O needs weapons, but we've got a couple in place. What we really need is for the OL to start blocking better in the run game and the OC to call a better game. One more bigtime weapon would be great, but if we can add a WR and TE that are at least solid threats, I think we can be a good offense.

by Kurupt on Mar 6, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

That's funny..

"the Pats did win their Super Bowls with used car salesmen at WR..."

by krytime on Mar 6, 2008 11:32 PM EST up reply actions

Too bad the Bills released Peerless

Just pulling the chain on the In-Marv-we-trust cult. How stupid was that? Peerless got some decent bucks for his cameo. BTW, although no one could be worse as offensive coordinator than Fairchild, we haven't seen Schonert's gold shine, have we? Also, who can say with assurance the DICK wasn't behind Fairchild's Mickey Mouse scheme (I personally think "scheme" is way too sophisticated a term for the Bills offense)? Brian, you were the one who coined the phrase "playing not to loose." Right, a decent number one (Evans couldn't take candy from a baby, let alone battle a good DB for a contested pass) or number two receiver would be great. Maybe the Bills could throw 16 TD passes in 16 games, and improve greatly in this area. Also, much has been made of the low numbers of sacks allowed by the fabulous new offensive line. Scoff, scoff. A team that doesn't throw passes, also doesn't take sacks. A team that devotes its TEs to pass blocking doesn't take sacks. 50 catches in 16 games? The Bills converted 1 out of 3 third downs. My point? There is not ONE missing piece to the offense. I wish it were that simple. As of today, the offense is dead in the water, becalmed by complete incompetence, top to bottom. If I were Marshawn, I'd do a Ricky Williams.

by No Longer Doomed to be a Bills Fan on Mar 6, 2008 6:05 PM EST reply actions

loose? Are laxatives involved?

OK, even though English is my first language, doesn't mean I'm any good at it. Maybe that was a typo, maybe it wasn't?

by No Longer Doomed to be a Bills Fan on Mar 6, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

252?

252 points actually overstates our offense a bit, as it includes defensive and ST TDs.

Our offense actually only scored 213 points this season. Thats about 13.3 points a game.

Whats a little depressing is that only world beating defenses have ever been good enough to keep opponents from scoring that much (TB '02, Chicago '05, Baltimore) over a season.

So basically our offense last year made every defense we played look like the top defense of the last 10 years.

BTW if anyone is curious, 213 points scored a season works out to barely a FG per quarter, 3.33 points per quarter. For those interested:

JP - 3.38 points per quarter played
TE - 3.28 points per quarter played

by Thronsen on Mar 6, 2008 6:24 PM EST reply actions

Thronsen rocks!

Right on! Righteous use of statistics!

by No Longer Doomed to be a Bills Fan on Mar 6, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

bottom line

is that we are not a piece away from being a top 10 offense. We are play calling, improvement from within, scheme, and playmakers away from being a top echelon offense. It is tough to admit but this offense has so far to go. I think a lot of us here are forgetting we are going into the season with a guy who is entering his 2nd season and hasn't been on a winning team in college or the pros.

Bottom line....we need big weapons. Sure we hope they turn into studs and not Rashaun Woods, but we have to take chances. DJ loves to build his team as a stout defense and running team. However, I just feel in today's NFL, the passing attack is where you score the points. No matter how good your running game is, you have to have an elite passing attack to win Super Bowls. I'm starting to get pessimistic on this whole squad. I know everyone gets happy in the off-season when you feel like we are a few players away from 11-5 and AFC champs, but in all reality unless our young players improve a lot and we have some surprises out of this draft class that can contribute right away, it might be the same old, same old.

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Mar 6, 2008 6:36 PM EST reply actions

Yeah

'bottom line is that we are not a piece away from being a top 10 offense. We are play calling, improvement from within, scheme, and playmakers away from being a top echelon offense. It is tough to admit but this offense has so far to go.'

Yeah I know we all hope we are a WR+TE away from putting some points on the board, but its going to take more than that. I hope the play calling and scheme from last year go with SF-M, but Im not sure. Dick was at best tacitly agreeing with the play calls. And whether that was playing not to 'loose' or to keep the banged up defense off the field, I dont know.

by Thronsen on Mar 6, 2008 6:55 PM EST reply actions

As the roster stands now...

You'd have to think WR, TE, and CB in the 1st 3 rounds. I've maintained that WR is the biggest hole on this team, but have come around to the idea of signing a stopgap veteran and holding off until the 2nd or 3rd round for WR. I think this way, you have a safety valve (say Johnson or McCareins) opposite Evans and the 2nd or 3rd round pick could push and hopefully replace Reed in the slot early in the season and push the new starting veteran by 2009. I've come around to holding off at WR at pick 11 by surmizing that our WR corp was so inept last year that I'd trade taking the best WR in the draft for the numbers of getting a veteran AND a 2nd rounder. Right now, I'm leaning towards Talib at 11 and a WR that slips in round 2 (Manningham?). If we went WR at 11, I actually like Limas Sweed more than Kelly...agree with your analysis, Brian- very un-Chris Brown-like.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 6, 2008 8:44 PM EST reply actions

Guy, guy, guys...

Has anyone noticed that no one, not one soul, has hinted that an improved run game will help to improve the Bills offense more than anything next season? All I hear is talk about pretty boy WRs with height, or TEs that can stretch the field. No one mentioned the run game, not even me up until now. Dummies...

In spite of Lynch's relatively successful rookie season, we had a pathetic run game. The OL did a great job in pass protection last year, especially given the alleged lack of receiving talent, and a revolving door at QB with two different styles of play. I tip my hat to them for that.

But I for one was not happy with their inability to dominate the line of scrimmage. Sure, some of you will say opposing teams had 15 guys in the box to stop the run, and that the pass sets up the run nowadays. But I'm not buying that.

Is the key then to improve the OL? I don't think so. I really like four of the five. I think they just need some depth and/or a developmental guy there. Do you need better RBs? Again, I don't think so. I love Lynch, I'm high on Fred Jackson, and I'm even going to express optimism for Wright.

My beef is with the play calling from last year. It was absolutely terrible. I am of the belief that even Hank Bullough would have called better games, and he wasn't even an offensive coach. Schonert is surely on the hot seat from the get go. But I like the fact that they are basically staying with the same "system," and I think he's going to form a season long game plan tailored to the teams/players strengths, instead of fitting square pegs in round holes. A better run game will definitely improve the passing game, and I think they have the talent to run the ball much more effectively than they showed last year. It's now a matter of calling the right game...

One more argument to comment on - I'm sick of hearing about Edwards supposed lack of arm strength, and references as to why he didn't throw the deep ball last year. His throw to Reed in the Redskins game was just as impressive as Losman's throw to Price in the Houston game the year before. He's a decent size kid, and throws a good ball. Just because Losman is gifted enough to throw the ball 72 yards in the air on a dead strike is no reason to bash Trent's arm strength. How many times during a season do you get the chance to throw that pass? Not many is the correct answer, if you're scoring at home. I'd rather have a guy who doesn't panic in the pocket, and throws with more accuracy in the 10 to 25 yard range.

Now, am I of the belief that they do need to upgrade their receiving talent? Yes, absolutely. But you don't necessarily do it by signing Big Name guys, or drafting high on day one of the draft. I think some of the confusion here may be the result of many to rank guys on their "star appeal" or "fantasy rankings" or "jersey coolness."

You build your team from the inside out. On offense, that means the line, and your QB. If you have decent guys there, and good game calling, it's easy to fill out the rest. Personally, I think they have some above average talent on the line, and a kid at QB with some excellent potential. Adding two more receivers, whether it be a TE or a WR is a must, at least to fill out the roster. Game planning & calling will be paramount to these additions however.

That's how I feel about that. Thank you.

by krytime on Mar 7, 2008 12:30 AM EST reply actions

arm strength

Edwards obviously has the arm strength to play in the league. He is a solid prospect. His arm strength is important though. While I'll take his accuracy over JP's speed, Edwards will hopefully be playing in Buffalo for a long time. The wind in Buffalo is a huge factor, and qbs with less velocity tend to struggle at times. Further, a lot of tough NFL passes have to be made as quickly as possible into very small windows.

I'm not saying Edwards can't succeed (insert obvious Tom Brady angle), but I do think it could be a factor in him being a good NFL qb in comparison to a great one. The kid is accurate though, and has relatively good velocity, so he can definitely succeed if he continues to make good decisions and keeps his confidence up.

by jmorris0823 on Mar 7, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions

Arm Strength

Arm strength is the most over-rated QB attribute. Chad Pennington, who has a weaker throwing arm than my 8 month old daughter, lead his team to the AFC championship game. Trent Dilfer won the Super bowl. Hell even Joe Montana didn't throw like Jeff George, who coincidently is a QB with a great arm and little else. Give me a smart, accurate, quick-thinking QB any day.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Mar 7, 2008 6:46 AM EST up reply actions

agree to disagree

I'm not one who is yelling for arm strength, I'm just saying it is an important factor (amongst many others) in the development of a qb. It may be overrated by some people, but that doesn't mean it isn't important.

by jmorris0823 on Mar 7, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

HEY!

I mentioned the run blocking and play calling needs to improve in a post above! HA

I agree with you. I thought our OL was very, very average in the run game last year and that really needs to improve. There's no reason our left side shouldn't be dominating in the run game. I think the biggest issue we have is our Center is terrible. Fowler allows the pocket to collapse way too often and it has a ripple effect on the rest of the blocking. I'm not sold on Butler and think he's a little weak in the run game, but Fowler does him no favors by being overmatched against every defender he faces.

I'm hoping Schonert can call a better game than Fairchild ever dreamed of. Last year's vanilla, run straight up the middle on 1st/2nd down and pass on 3rd downs playcalling was brutal. There's no way we improve without significant change in that regard.

by Kurupt on Mar 7, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

Arm Strength

I am guessing that you are referring to my comments above about Trent's arm strength. If so, you should also note that I did not mention the deep ball.

A lot of fans think that arm strength is only about throwing the deep ball, which is incorrect. Edwards cannot consistently hit the deep out, throw from the opposite hashmark to the sidelines, or into tight windows 15 yards downfield. For example (ironically on the play right before Edwards completed the deep ball touchdown to Evans in the second Miami game), Edwards attempted a pass into a small window and he couldn't get it in there. In fact, the pass was nearly intercepted. Edwards' throw to Reed in the Washington game was a great throw in and of itself. However, it is not a good example of arm strength because he actually had to put some touch on the ball to get it over the defenders. I do not think that it was as impressive as Losman's throw to Price in the Houston game. The difference is Losman's throw was a game-winning touchdown pass on a rope through a keyhole. Unlike Losman, Edwards needs a clear pocket so that he can step into his throws in order to be on time with his passes (see interception in second Jets game). I am not sure that Edwards can force defenses to defend every area of the field.

There is such a fine line between winning and losing in this league. One play can make all the difference. On Edwards' deep pass completion to Evans in the Baltimore game, the pass was wobbly and fluttered. As a result Evans double-caught the ball, slowed down and got tackled. In my opinion if Losman is under center, that pass doesn't flutter, Evans makes a clean catch in stride and outruns the defender for a touchdown. They ended up getting a touchdown on that drive and winning the game anyway, but I think you get my point.

It was interesting that you mentioned the running game needing improvement after I stated that it all starts at quarterback.

The performance at quarterback has a domino affect on everything, including the running game, and not limited to just the passing game (scheme, execution, playcalling, teammates, other phases, etc.). If opposing defenses do not feel that they will be challenged downfield, they will crowd the line of scrimmage and stuff the running game. With Edwards at quarterback, will Marshawn Lynch ever see the end of eight defenders in the box? I am not sure that he can make defenses pay for stacking the box. Furthermore, if defenses do not feel threatened downfield, there will also be more defenders closer to the line to stop the short/intermidiate passing game (where Edwards thrives) and to blitz.

I understand that there is more to playing quarterback than just arm strength. In terms of importance, I would rank accuracy, decision-making, and toughness ahead of arm strength. At the same time, I value arm strength more than many others for some of the reasons stated above.

I want the Bills to have a quarterback with zero or minimal limitations in every area of his game. Until Trent Edwards shows otherwise, I will continue to question his arm strength.

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 7, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions

Arm Strength part duex

First to Kurupt - sorry I didn't catch your line about play calling and the running game. I'm glad you agree with me on that...

Now to Fort Worth - I find it funny that near the end of your comments, you say "In terms of importance, I would rank accuracy, decision-making, and toughness ahead of arm strength." Edwards two big strengths are accuracy and decision making. I think that's agreed upon by most everybody...

As to this comment, "There is such a fine line between winning and losing in this league. One play can make all the difference," I completely agree. If you noticed, Losman had an average of one more negative play a game than did Edwards, while they both tied for positive plays. And a negative play hurts more than missing a positive play, at least in my opinion.

"Unlike Losman, Edwards needs a clear pocket so that he can step into his throws in order to be on time with his passes." I think that's somewhat ridiculous. Have you ever watched Losman throw? To me, it seems like he winds up. And there is no doubt he steps fiercely into every throw. When's the last time you saw Losman complete a touch pass?

As to the eight men in the box theory, I completely disagree that it had anything to do with Edwards arm strength. Losman had eight guys in the box too. What were you watching? All season long, than ran out of those stupid tight formations, with a wideout (often times Reed, but amazingly Parrish too) going in motion to the inside and stopping behind a tackle to provide blocking support. What it did, again in my opinion, was force teams to play eight men in the box! I thought I heard somewhere that Schonert was abandoning this part of the playbook. God I hope so. Just how stupid is it/was it to have "small" skills guys on your roster with speed, and basically line them up in power formations. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Spreading out the offense alone should make this a better offense. Also to that point, I understand Schonert will give the QB (in this case Edwards) the ability to audible. It was rumored/reported that Fairchild wouldn't let either of his QBs do that. Again - dumb, dumb, and dumb. If one of your player's strengths is decision making, why take that part of the game out of his hands?

One thing you didn't mention (maybe I didn't catch it) was their respective ability to play in inclement weather. I'd actually give the nod so far to Losman on that. It is one of my worries about Edwards, but it is also something I think he can learn to do, and had better, rather quickly. Hopefully, he's been in Buffalo already working/studying/learning. It'd be great if he got a chance to throw some balls on the practice field today!

I appreciate your zeal for improved QB play by the Bills. I hope it will improve as well. But I think you need to cut Edwards a little slack, and give him the benefit of doubt that he will improve by leaps and bounds this year. The kid was just rookie who showed incredible poise. Like all rookies who make the cut the first year, he should improve dramatically going in to his second year.

by krytime on Mar 7, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions

I Hope I Am Wrong

If I am wrong, I will be very happily wrong because that will likely mean that Edwards will be one of the most feared quarterbacks in the league. He really does have some good qualities.

If you want the Bills to become a dominant football team, then yes, we do share the same vision. Where we appear to differ is how the Bills should go about achieving dominance (hopefully, eventually).

For now, will you agree to disagree?

I'm happy to blog with passionate Bills fans such as yourself and everyone in this community. Go Bills!

How good do you want the Bills to be?

by Fort Worth on Mar 7, 2008 9:15 PM EST up reply actions

Agree to Disagree

Fort Worth my friend, of course I will agree to disagree. As long as I continue to view this website, I wouldn't have it any other way...

And of course I want the Bills to dominate. I am a passionate Bills fan, since 1978. I used to idolize the men who wore the uniform. Although I now have a different view of pro athletes, I still want them to be ever so good, as I see daily what a positive influence they can be in our community. The Bills are such a galvanizing force for all of WNY, and even to those who have left for greener pastures....

Bring on the next argument. And of course, go Bills....

by krytime on Mar 7, 2008 11:05 PM EST up reply actions

I'll disagree here

I really believe Buffalo's run game was subpar last season based mainly on the lack of respect for the passing game shown by our opponents. Play-calling or not, our quarterbacks were a disaster last season and now we don't have Steve Fairchild to kick around anymore. Once Dick Jauron closed the door on an improvement at QB from outside the organization, the focus of the fans and hopefully the team, had to focus on WR and TE. Our worst starting players last season (and I'll bite my tongue and leave Edwards out of this) were Reed, Royal, Ellison, Larry Tripplett, Kyle Williams, and Jabari Greer. 3 of them have been replaced in the starting lineup already- 3 more to go by the opener... I'll also give you an argument that I need to comment on too since you were so kind enough to share yours- I'm sick of people blaming all of our offensive ineptitude on Fairchild just because he's the only one who's gone. If he was the biggest problem, why didn't Schonert take over the play-calling duties last season? No marbles for Dick? Either Edwards sucks and has no business starting or he had nothing to work with as far as weapons go. Our head coach has closed the door on blaming edwards so the improvement HAS to come in upgrading his weapons. That has nothing to do with wanting to own a new jersey (I already bought Posluszny's last year and got 2.5 games out of it).

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 7, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions

Sarcasm?

I'm guessing that's what it was...

I do blame a good bunch of last season on Fairchild, but you do make a good point at the end of this statement:

"I'll also give you an argument that I need to comment on too since you were so kind enough to share yours- I'm sick of people blaming all of our offensive ineptitude on Fairchild just because he's the only one who's gone."

When it comes down to it, we all want the same thing - a better offense. And again - props to Brian for this site. As heated as it gets, this site gives us all the chance to assign blame for last year, project improvement oppurtunites for next year, and argue about it all in the same breath, with folks who think and write more than the usual:

Sam85409: trent sux!
GregBell84: with ur mouth..
BermudaTriangle: ne1 think we should just trade a six round 2 Pats 4 Moss, and the bring back Jim Kelly?

Go Bills.

by krytime on Mar 7, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions

True

...the Bills discussion here is definitely of a higher brow than most other sources. I also wanted to comment on Kurupt's mention of Fowler's shortcomings and how they bring down the running game. I'm guilty of this too, but I think a lot of us have downplayed just how big a need center is for the Bills heading into the draft. I think you could throw center right up there with DE and TE behind WR and CB on the list of needs as the roster stands now. I'm going to start paying attention to the Center prospects because with Fowler's being so mediocre and with his being in the last year of his contract, I wouldn't mind seeing a Center drafted early in April...I disagree on Butler though and would even go as far as saying he could be an answer at center (I know he took limited practice reps there in the past) if Buffalo were to find a RG in the draft instead...just a thought.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Mar 7, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions

Center - you bring up a good point.

Didn't know/realize that this was Fowler's last year. I definitely think there is a need for an upgrade here. But I think it's lagging a little behind the other needs.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a center in the draft. I've seen a few projected in the third round.

I have to say - I like Butler. Don't discount the fact that he and Walker seemed to play well together last year, and should only improve this year. Remember, that side of the line was better at run blocking than the other side, which was very surprising to say the least.

by krytime on Mar 7, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions

Unfortunately

I'm not sure there's a lot of depth at Center in this year's draft. The highest projected centers are very Fowler like.....undersized. I like Fernando Velasco the best in this year's draft. He'll be a later round pick and he looked excellent in UGA's bowl game. Grabbing a guy like that in round 6 would be a very prudent move.

We really need to add a C this year. It doesn't have to be high, but we really need to draft a replacement for that bum we have at C currently.

by Kurupt on Mar 7, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions

Dont want to start this but...

' I'd rather have a guy who doesn't panic in the pocket, and throws with more accuracy in the 10 to 25 yard range.'

I dont want to start this, but Ive never been completely sold on TE as an exceptionally accurate passer. His completion percentage was worse then JPs last year. I know, rookie, etc etc, and we have bigger fish to fry atm, but Id be a bit wary of assuming that.

by Thronsen on Mar 7, 2008 4:57 AM EST reply actions