Typical TBD Guy

Would you still say that if the Vikes played in the AFC?

Then why did TD even bother to contact Verba about his future plans? This doesn't exactly show a high level of confidence in Gandy, IMO. Or is this just TD exercising all his free agent options and nothing more? Maybe so. Or maybe it's further proof that TD has no !@#$ing clue how to build a competent OL.

aussiew is more of a CILF (Cowgirl I'd Like to, um, discuss Football with). Those red boots were made for walking (horizontally).

Apparently not.

!!! So there are currently 5 ex-Bills on the Vikings' defense: DT Pat Williams OLB Sam Cowart OLB Keith Newman CB Antoine Winfield CB Ken Irvin Winfield excluded, it looks like The Great Eddie Robinson Experiment of 2002 went unnoticed in Minnesota. Then again, this is the NFC we're talking about, so expect this D to carry the Vikes all the way to the Conference Championship

As a former "Bledsoe Basher," I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. Starting now, these are the only QB's we should really be arguing about on this board: JP Losman Kelly Holcomb Shane Matthews Kevin Thompson

Yeah, but the thing is that we - as a society - MUST at some point make a subjective determination that everyone (or rather, the vast majority) can agree upon. My own personal (and yes, subjective) belief is that human life begins when the human brain starts to form (at about 4 weeks). However, women deserve an extra 2 months to figure out whether or not they're actually pregnant before being penalized for murder....hence, my first trimester rule. Under my definition of life, that would technically make abortion between months 1-3 murder. Nevertheless, this is what societies sometimes do; we make individual life or death situations for the overall good of the society, not unlike killing criminals in the line of fire or waging war against countries.

It's a 1 OR 2 situation, i.e. an abortion should be allowed if it meets either of these two conditions.

FWIW, my opinion on abortion is that it should be kept legal only under these 2 circumstances: 1. The abortion takes place within the 1st trimester window - as determined by a doctor. 2. The abortion - also to be determined by a doctor - is necessary to save the woman's life. Does that seem fair to everyone? I don't frequent the PPP board that much, so I wouldn't know what everyone's individual opinions on this subject are.

Because this is a Bills message board where Bills fans are free to debate player merits like we're doing now. I'm the type of TBD poster that likes to evaluate Bills players as I think they are or as I think they'll become rather than as I wish them to be. If you can only handle posters who post with rose-colored glasses, then by all means feel free to block me. Regarding the OL, at this moment I view the starting LT prospects for 2005 (Gandy, Teague, Peters, McFarland) as piss-poor. The starting LG prospects are much better (Anderson, Gandy, Tucker, Smith) yet still highly suspect at the time. The C position is secure if Teague is starting, but not if Preston starts. If you feel like this is being overly negative, then fine. But I feel like I legitimately came to these late-July assessments on a combination of past NFL performances and NFL statistical probabilities, not wishful thinking.

MBD: I really can't speak on behalf of other teams' interests in Bennie, but all I can say for certain is that the Ravens no longer wanted him. They chose former Steeler Keydrick Vincent instead for virtually the same price as Bennie, which to me raises a red flag since Vincent wasn't exactly a hot commodity himself during the first weeks of free agency. One could argue that the Ravens don't know what the he!! they're doing with the OL - and maybe this is true - but one can also say that our Bills don't know either. So far there has been no proof that we do, thus explaining my skepticism. bluv: My "pathetic theory" isn't that outrageous. The idea that Teague may not be any better than Gandy at LT is based on previous results when each played LT once for the Broncos and Bears, respectively. Teague was singlehandedly responsible for 13-17 sacks (can't remember the exact #) in 2001. And the idea that rookies Preston and Peters would struggle heavily as starters at C and LT, respectively, is based on sound statistical logic - more so for Peters who has never played LT even in college. Then again, "success" at a starting position can be relative to all sorts of fans. For example, you strike me as the type of Bills fan that probably thought John Fina and Jerry Ostroski were a "success." All I'm saying is that having rookies starting at the highly cerebral/technically complex offensive positions of either QB, C, or LT brings with it some automatic risk; this risk gets multiplied when you have rookies at 2 of those 3 positions or at all 3. But how you got out of that assessment that I have given up on this season is completely beyond me. Many teams in NFL history have made the playoffs and beyond despite their offenses. Last I checked, we had the #2 D and #1 ST in the NFL. So if Losman and the OL can just minimize their mistakes, we still have a fighting chance at the playoffs. ganesh: The Pats, since 2001, have broken virtually all rules of thumb about the NFL. They are an amazing football anomaly. Starting rookies on the line and expecting solid performances (specifically LT and C, not so much for G and RT) is risky, statistically speaking.

Three problems here: 1. Teague may easily be no better than Gandy at LT. His tenure in Denver at LT was pathetic. 2. As good as Preston could become, having any rookie start at C (with a rookie QB behind him) is potential disaster. I'd rather keep Teague there for continuity. 3. Even if Jason Peters is the next Orlando Pace, no way will he not suck in his first year. He's never even played a down at T in the college ranks. And like the C position, having a rookie LT start can be disastrous with a rookie QB as well. BTW, when you have to "scheme to protect [the LT]," you know your offense is in trouble! A successful offense schemes (obviously) to protect the QB and not any other position.

So their FA options were either compete for backup spots on other teams or start for the Bills?! What exactly does that say about the state of our OL???!!! I'm just busting balls, SnF. We'll see how this all plays out in preseason. If Bennie and Gandy look legit by September, then I will eat my crow.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the general consensus of his legacy? Brilliant military leader who was hampered by politicians trying to win a war from Washington? Or delusional war monger who never could have defeated the Viet Cong even with a million more US soldiers? Maybe not an appropriate question on his day of death, but I'm curious anyway...

This is why it has become really hard for me to stomach listening to Ted Kennedy lecture the Bush administration on morality and ethics. If the libbies want to complain about the "unjust" Iraq War 2 and the Karl Rove leak, can't they at least find another spokesman???

A fun read, but pointless propaganda nevertheless. Of course it's not really fair to judge these guys until the end of August, but I'm having a hard time getting over the fact that neither Bennie Anderson nor Mike Gandy - our current starting LG and LT, respectively - were wanted by their previous teams or (as far as I could possibly know) any other NFL team. It's not like either was too expensive or anything... If McNally can make this particular offensive line a success, factoring in a rookie starting QB and the usual number of injuries that inevitably occur throughout the season, then he will have earned himself an instant place on the Bills' Wall of Fame.

Well, I guess I could partly agree with you in the sense that one could say the offense's mid-season resurgence was helped just as much with speedy Lee Evans' emergence as it was with McGahee replacing Henry. Like you, I can't quite understand the fierce hatred that some Bills fans hold toward Henry. He gave us great value for a 2nd round pick - he started a lot of games for us, gained a lot of yards, played through injuries, and kept this offense respectable (and occasionally great, like in early 2002 season). On top of all that, he provided us with a likely high 3rd rd draft pick next year as a parting gift.

Willis is the starter, Rashard Lee is the backup, and Shaud Williams is the 3rd down back. Give McGahee 25 carries per game, Lee 10, and Williams 5. McGahee gets his 100+ yds, and still stays fresh enough for next Sunday. What's the problem?

WARNING: long, as in "FFS-length" long! I always like talking football with you, FFS, but we're only spinning our wheels debating the specific merits of Mr. Anderson starting at LG. Might as well wait until mid-August to resurrect such a discussion. In the meantime, I'd like to broaden the topic a bit beyond Bennie to reach the whole OL in general. The original thread topic was whether or not Ross Verba is worth looking at, and my argument has been that - for the right price, i.e. if he's willing to dramatically lower his salary demands - he definitely is. Here's my logic... I've organized the 16 current linemen on the roster by 4 tiers: Starters Tier (3 of 'em): Mike Williams at RT, Chris Villarial at RG, Trey Teague at C...these guys, despite whatever flaws they have in their game, are solid starters who match up reasonably well with most NFL DL's. Marginal Starters Tier (4 of 'em): Ross Tucker at LG, Bennie Anderson at LG, Lawrence Smith at LG, Mike Gandy at LT or LG...more on these guys in a second. Marginal Backups Tier (5 of 'em): Jason Peters, Dylan McFarland, Ben Sobieski, Justin Geisinger, Ray Preston...each one should make the team in some capacity, whether backup or practice squad, but expecting any to challenge for a starting spot is highly unrealistic. Marginal Practice Squad Tier (4 of 'em): Greg Jerman, David Pruce, Geir Gundmundsen, Jason Esposito...camp fodder. 1 or 2 could make the practice squad - or even team - with a good preseason showing, but in all probability, none will ever challenge for a starter's spot. The vast majority of fans reading this probably agree with all but the 2nd tier. Within this 2nd tier, we either need 2 of the 4 to step up and become solid starters...or we need outside help (like Verba)...or we can expect JP to have a really rough season. IMHO all 4 are great backups, but all 4 have major flaws in their game that currently prevent them from being considered as reliable starters. With Smith, it's his poor leverage at the point of attack that makes him a huge liability in the run game. With Anderson, it's his poor lateral movement that makes him a liability in the passing game. I think Tucker is just flat out not talented enough, and he gets by with attitude and effort. Gandy's development in Chicago has been slowed down primarily by injuries, though I don't think he will ever have the natural mobility to be a decent starting LT. Starting LG is another matter for Gandy. FWIW, my Bears friends believe he was a great starter when playing at guard. So we are in need of 2 more good starters on the line, and I think Gandy will be a good LG, which leaves only the LT spot. While there's nothing really wrong with these "marginal starters" for single drives or against crappy teams, their obvious weaknesses will get exposed during the course of a game against a decent opponent or over a long season. This only magnifies when you have 2 or more of these type of guys starting, which we already have right now in mid-July even before injuries strike. And so this is my reasoning for why an affordable Verba would be very important to us.

1. RaShard Lee. He was a solid backup for the Cowboys last year. Built like Shawn Bryson, though less injury prone. Fast and big. Hard-working. Not a whiner. Also plays on special teams. 2. No idea. Way too early to speculate. 3. By freeing up $1.25 million in cap space that could possibly be used to add other FA veterans who - unlike Travis - may want to actually play for us. 4. Probably. The draft class of 2005 was widely believed to be one of the worst in years. Next year's is supposed to be better, thus further increasing the chances that a #75 guy in April 2006 will be better than the #125 guy from April 2005.

Bennie is an excellent backup and a capable starter in short intervals/obvious run situations. But to call him anything more than that is - at this time, and IMHO - overly optimistic. Doesn't mean he won't or can't develop into a legitimate starting LG, but until he dramatically improves his pass blocking skills this August, as a Bills fan I have the right to express my doubts. Jim McNally is a great OL coach, and maybe he will be able to teach Bennie how to pass block. But maybe he won't. We don't know. How did McNally do with Mike Pucillo starting at LG last year? Not very well. So as you can see, Bills management's OL analysis isn't so amazing that they can afford to be so choosy regarding free agent OL's and simply throw all their eggs in the basket that is McNally's tutelage. Like seemingly most football debates on this board, this one has again come down to The Optimists vs. The Pessimists. No doubt I'm a Pessimist, but during TD's reign there has been a lot of positive vibes yet very negative season results. I will remain skepticial of TD & Co. until this team shows it can put together a nice string of wins with JP behind center. Regarding Verba's contract demands, I find it hard to believe that he is going to retire if he doesn't get his top $$$. Physically, he should still have around 2 good seasons left in him, and even vet minimum is better for him than sitting on his ass doing nothing but host wild rape parties. Hmmm, then again...

I'm a very practical, results-oriented guy. To me, talk is cheap. And each preseason, since 1996, we've been fed this exact same optimistic bull sh-- talk about our OL - from both JB and TD. The offense's results on the field since 1996 speak for themselves. So excuse me when I express a little pessimism about the latest offseason shenanigans related to our Bills' OL. Allow me to reassert my opinion on this thread topic: if Verba, an 8-year starting LT, is willing to lower his contractual demands to a reasonably low-risk level, then it wouldn't hurt much to give him a chance to compete with the likes of (shudder...) Gandy, Teague, Peters, and McFarland for the starting LT spot.

No, I'm not advocating we "jump" on Verba. All I've suggested is that we seriously consider signing him if he drastically lowers his asking price. It doesn't mean I think he'll be our savior at LT; all it means is that I think we are in NO position to be so selective in regards to who tries out for our OL. Currently, this OL flat out blows. Like So Cal Surf said, this OL has been blowing for well over a decade now. It's bad enough that TD thinks one good OL coach justifies 5 years of relatively poor free agent OL signing and drafting during his tenure....but perhaps it's even worse to see so many loyal long-time Bills fans oblivious to the state of the OL as well.

I don't know why Baltimore stuck with Bennie Anderson. Probably for the same reasons that we stuck with Jerry O. for so long, or why Ross Tucker has been starting many games for us the past 2 years.... Guys like Bennie and Tucker and Ostroski are great backups, so they stick around. But injuries occur, and they are forced to play as starters for extended periods of time. Doesn't mean they are quality starters. If Bennie is a sure-fire starting LG in this league, then why did Baltimore not even bother to resign him? Why did they choose Keydrick Vincent instead for the same approximate salary? Why did Bennie not attract any suitors on the open market?

Bennie is a one-dimensional player who started in Baltimore only because of widespread injury problems to their roster. He is too fat and has zero pass blocking skills. The Ravens organization and fans don't miss him. If he was signed to be our definitive solution at LG, then McNally's and TD's arrogance knows no bounds. EDIT: I'd prefer Gandy at LG over Bennie. I think Gandy has the potential to be a solid starter there. However, that still leaves the crucial LT position open.