Mickey

My sister here in Syracuse has NFL network and she is single. Me, I'm going to my parents place in Chittenango where they have NFL Network and HD and a huge LCD screen. Don't get me wrong, I like my sister but...

All that is true, no doubt. However, it doesn't change the fact that a right handed quarterback has a blind spot on his left side. Look at the money Jonas Jennings got to play LT. The market still values them more than RT's even if less so than in the past.

That was an insult to abortion.

good points, the question is: Are his abilities such that he could be moved now? At the least, I would think that it is something that is being considered or will be if Gandy can't hack it.

It is because of his improvement and play at the end of the year that makes me wonder if he might be able to handle the left. Different skills are required, sure, but we have a good teacher. Then again, I'd hate to be deprived of seeing what Bennie pulling to the right and big Mike can do run blocking on that side.

All good points. The game may have changed enough so that LT isn't as clearly more important than the RT position as it once was. Even so, what will never change is that a right handed QB has a blind side to his left. He will therefore always be more vulnerable from that side. The teams in the league still seem to think that is a big deal based on the different cash they will pay for a LT as opposed to a RT. I have high hopes for Peters. McNally said in a clip at the team web site that the main thing you need at LT is an "athlete". Probably typical interview blather but then again, if he really meant it, he figures that if you have a guy coordinated engough and strong enough, McNally will teach him the rest. That sounds like Peters.

Actually, he played RT in college. Some said because he wasn't good enough to play LT, others, because the QB was a lefty and so his blind side was to the right. The speculation was, I think, based on the not unsound idea that you don't use that high of a pick, 4th in the entire draft, on a RT. Since we did, the speculation was that it must have been because we were drafting a guy who would ultimately be our LT. I don't really recal what the media was talking about then, I was recalling instead the prevailing opinion here on the board.

Teague played center in college and was a one year starter at tackle for Denver which worked out so well that they sent him packing the next year. He tried out for LT here and lost. Maybe it is like riding a bike but that is only if you have been on a bike before. Looks like Teague was on the bike once and fell off. The center is a tough position, they make a lot of calls at the line as to the blocking scheme to use. Maybe we will get lucky and Gandy will get the job done. I'm just worried by the camp reports I keep reading about him getting beat by back-ups.

I was referring to the conversation on the board. Certainly, I doubt that if the plan had been to move him eventually to the left side that the coaches or TD ever would have shared that with us. At the time we (not me and Tom Donohoe, me and the other TSW'ers) were thinking of taking him or that guy from Miami, a point that kept coming up was that the 4th pick in the draft was way too high for a RT which is where he played in college. The response was that he was only on the right side because the Texas QB was a lefty so that was where his blind spot was. "Never fear", it was said, "he will eventually be our left tackle" just like so-and-so (A tackle drafted highly two years before who played one year at RT and then moved to LT once he adjusted to the NFL game, I forget his name). The argument then was that we weren't drafting him too high as a RT because in fact, he would end up being our LT eventually. I remember this because at the time I disagreed that he was able to play LT since he always was on the right side. I didn't think the skills were so easily transferable. I worried that the reason he wasn't on the left side in college was because he wasn't good enough to play there and accordingly, we were drafting him too high because he just wasn't all that good. In any event, I am not saying he should be on the left side, I just think it is a rational option should Gandy fail and I am surprised, given how many people back then aggressively claimed he was going to ultimately be on the left, that it isn't a frequent topic of converstion now. On a side issue, if in fact big Mike was drafted to play RT and that was always the intention, did we draft him too high and are we paying him too much?

The DWI industry must be elated. A local guy, on his third offense, just got a lousy 1-3 years for running down a girl scout who was selling cookies. He actually ran into a crowd of girl scouts who were out selling cookies together but most were able to scramble out of his way except for the one victim. In one year he will be out driving again and, no doubt, drinking as well. People think we have gotten tough on drunk drivers when the truth is, we haven't. The effect of the way the laws are written in most states and how, in practice, they are enforced by district attorneys, each drunk gets one free kill before he or she is likely to face any serious jail time. Now the next time this guy kills a girl scout he will really be in trouble. I have a file cabinet with 5 cases inside, all drunk driving accidents, involving 7 fatalities. Every one of them "just had a few beers". Pleeeeeez, if you have had "just a few beers", don't try and guess as to whether you are over or under the legal limit, that isn't the point. Just do not drive. Okay, this ends my PSA, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Why is there not much speculation about Mike Williams moving to LT? That was clearly the plan when he was drafted, that he would spend a year or so at RT and then move over to the left side. Given Jonas' performance at LT and the slow development of MW, it made sense to keep him on the right side but now Jonas is gone and Mike is supposedly playing up to his billing. Wouldn't that be less of an upset to the OL than moving Teague to a new position and starting a rookie center? So how about it? If Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, why not move Mike over to the left side and let Dylan McFarland or Jason Peters play over on the right side? Seems to me that I would rather try and hide a struggling OT on the right side and put my stud on the left than vice-versa. That is also a lot less traumatic of a change than moving Teague out to LT where he will have to re-learn the position at the same time we try and break in a rookie center like Duke Preston.

I think that was a smart, sober piece on the situation we have with young Mr. Losman. This kid has character and is working his tail off. He is going to make it in this league but expecting too much of him too early is simply unfair. I hope we fans don't add to the pressure on him by expecting too much. We will need to be patient. Every prediction that he is going to have a great year adds just that much more pressure making his progress that much slower. I like Mularkey's attitude that the onus is on the coaches to scheme the offense so that the whole shebang doesn't rest on JP's shoulders. Of course, committing more to improving the offensive line might have been one way to do that.

My gawd, your post was so clearly a sarcastic one and people are taking it seriously. Even I didn't think Richio was that stupid and I take a back seat to no one when it comes to measuring the fathomless depths of his moronity. Then again he has been after you from the git-go, remember that initial go-around you had with him over the Shuttle disaster? I think he called you a liar for having claimed that the foam insulation was traveling at 900 MPH when it turned out that it was only going 899 MPH. Boy, he really showed you.

One word: Santorum.

Yes, kind of like going from the "global war against terrorism" to the "global struggle against violent extremism" or the "Defense of Marriage Act" or the "Patriot Act". Calling things what they aren't to manipulate people is the enthusiastically accepted rule of the day in Washington. These fights pretty often end up being a contest of Stupid vs. Stupid. The most stupid usually carries the day.

Right, so it is only a little stupid instead of a lot stupid. It isn't the likely effect on the course and speed of this research that gets me when it comes to Bush's policy here. It is the notion that science has to pass a religious litmus test to go forward. It is just a bad precedent.

Perhaps you could point this out to Richio who entertained us last summer with about 286 posts lambasting Kerry for not crashing funerals for fallen soldiers the way this goof did. As I recall, he then put out another couple hundred posts or so excusing the same non-funeral crashing by the President. It is so hard to keep up with the moral standards the right sets here so often on the board. One guy is a scum for not going to funerals, while another is a hero for not going to funerals and now this whosit from wherever is a despicable wench for going to funerals.***** *****the number of posts by Richio attacking Kerry for not attending funerals are an exageration to emphasize the point, please don't respond with something along the lines of "Liar!!!!! it was only 284 posts!!!!"

Haven't you heard? You don't need to block when you have a "mobile quarterback". Blocking is oh-so-passe in this day and age.

Excuse me for not accepting a lecture on civility from someone who began our exchange by declaring my position to be "absurd". I never said it was their intention to do inspre a killer, but, that type of rhetoric has that effect doesn't it? I'm sure Rudolph's victims would be comforted knowing that those who provided the moral justification for his actions didn't mean it. All those "wanted dead or alive" posters with doctors pictures on them were, I suppose, all in good fun. Besides, if this is the wanton slaughter of innocents, aren't the Eric Rudolphs of the world justified? If you came upon a psycho about to murder a child and you could stop him by killing him, why wouldn't you? If you believe your own rhetoric, what are you doing about this mass killing of babies? This is the consequence of the postion that this is the "murder of babies". I am happy for you that you have solved the mystery of when life begins. Perhaps you could write a book or appear as an expert witness the next time the issue comes up in a federal case. I have read plenty of research on the issue, especially sentience which is a far more relevant inquiry then asking simply, "is it alive?. A sperm cell is alive. My skin cells are alive. Neither have constitutionally protected rights let alone rights that would be held superior to the rights of real live, born, human beings. The bottom line though is I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone else what they should or should not believe. I am not a priest or a philosopher. I approach the issuer from a legal standpoint. There is no bright line that makes this decision for us. Under Roe as it stands now, we all, within the bounds of a number of restrictions, can decide for ourselves. No one is forcing pro-lifers to have abortions but pro-lifers do want to force others into having children they do not want. Based on the law, the holding in Roe is sound. Even a number of conservative justices appointed by Republican Presidents have ultimately agreed and that is why Roe is still around. It is Republican appointees who have kept it alive, not Ruth Ginsburg. I respect your view that an unborn child is "life" from the instant it is fertilized and wouldn't dream of calling it "absurd" though I do disagree. What I don't respect are people who claim to seriously believe that there is a baby holocaust, a mass slaughter of innocent little babies going on and in the face of that supposed horror have decided to do nothing. Actions speak louder than words and they certainly don't act like someone who thinks babies are being murdered by the bushel down the street. If you really think that is what is happening, you should be ashamed that rather than going out there to try and save a baby, you are here jousting with my absurdities.

I disagree with the intended use of the power to make recess appointments but certainly, it is nothing new. We did go quite awhile without such appointments when it came to certain judicial positions but as you point out, it is not exactly a bolt from the blue. The congress is not always in session. Their recesses are quite long and used to be a lot longer. The framers recognized that the President might need to fill a post that opened up during a recess. I think that was the original intent of the power, not as a way to dodge the advise and consent requirement. For an excellent academic analysis of the history and role of recess appointments see: Library of Congress Report on Recess Appointments of Federal Judges

The person with whom I was discussing this believes that abortion is the slaughter of babies and when asked what he was doing to stop what he believes is a holocaust, he said he votes pro-life. Thats it. He votes. Sorry, but I don't see that as a sufficient response to baby murder. How about a protest? How about cash contributions? How about mailing lists? There are lots of ways to respond to such a terrible horror as you believe is taking place. You bring up MLK, well, he did dedicate his life, his every waking day to the civil rights struggle didn't he? He got death threats daily and kept on. He was hounded by the government and still he kept on. He demonstrated his committment in a thousand ways. Do you think that is a little more than just pulling a lever or two in a booth every November? No, he wasn't a black panther but he wasn't sitting at home on the sidelines either. Take your SUV example, do you think maybe you could do something about SUV's short of stabbing tires? Maybe you could join the Sierra Club or contribute to some other environmental group for example. If you really think SUV's are a problem but all you do is sit home and complain to the air about them, you are either not really all that upset about SUV's or you are too lazy to do anything but b**ch. Unlike you, I don't claim to know the secrets of life for all man kind. I am simply trying to see if maybe this debate could be more civil, more able to reach some sort of consensus. My belief is that throwing around all this "baby killing" stuff is counterproductive unless you think inspiring the Eric Rudolphs of the world is productive. Of course, we could just cut this short and go back to where these things usually end up: You call me a baby killer and I call you a christian taliban or some such equally enlightening exchange.

I hope you are right but I am far from confident that our offensive line problems are behind us. I think JJ is better than you are giving him credit for but the fact is he is gone. Gandy needs to be good, not an all pro. I don't think you can have a stiff at LT.

I think partial birth is gone because Kennedy, who sided with the majority to uphold the basics of Roe in Casey was in the minority in the Nebraska case on partial birth along with Scalia and company. Roberts alone is probably not enough to overturn Roe. If the judges around when Casey was decided go the same way, it will be Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Stevens and Souter on one side and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist on the other. The guy who might move is Kennedy. If Scalia gets Kennedy to repudiate his own ruling in Casey, Roe is gone. Otherwise, Roe will be around until Stevens retires.

Yes, but so is signing good lineman. It is a long season, McNally will have plenty of time to get somebody at LT who can get the job done.

If Gandy is average....and if he is not? With an average guy like JJ, we did not make the playoffs despite playing an pretty cushy schedule. As I said, there are plenty of reasons for optimism but Kelly is right, the big question mark is the offensive line.