Bill from NYC
-
Posts
21,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bill from NYC
-
-
Nice exaggerated for effect post!
I think 34-78-83 made a nice response, so I will not do so on a point-by-point basis. However, I agree with hiim that there is no basis for stating that a LT has to hold his block longer. That is nonesense.
Of course the best tackles have been LTs historically. It is strategcially more important because of the possible injury one can do to a QB who is blind-sided. But that doesn't make his block more difficult, now does it? And of course, all things being equal, you will draft the better tackle for the blind side because of its strategic importance. And naturally, you will pay the higher draft choice more money. Once again, paying a guy more money and putting the better player there DOES NOT lead to the conclusion that the job is HARDER.
If you have a choice between two guys, one of whom will give up 10 sacks per year and another who will give up 20, of course you put the guy who gives up 10 on the blind side. Not because the job is harder but because you don't want your QB taking 10 more blind shots per year.
And regardless of how you shake it out, MW has improved immensely so far this year. And I'm sure McKinnie hasn't yielded ANY pressure on Culpepper this year, excpet for the game last night of course.
Look Bill, you and Badol and Eyedog can suck McKinnie's dick all day long for all I care, and you can bash MW in between slurps. It ain't gonna change a damn thing.
Mike has improved and McKinnie ain't all that.
The funny thing is, there are many who would consider the crap your peddling to be the lunacy here!
BB, many times I have stated that I respect your knowledge of football. I still do. This is a point on which we disagree, but there is really no reason for that kind of a !@#$ed up remark. What the !@#$ are you thinking dude?
Imo, this topic is no longer worthy of discussion, certainly not on this thread. Most of our disagreement is probably based on semantics anyway, and we have bored other posters long enough.
I am NOT being holier than thou, so save the accusations, but I am proud that it was not me who told Badolbilz that he was full of stevestojan, let alone the stupid, insulting stevestojan you just posted.
Seriously, I thought WAY more of you.
-
Looks pretty good as is.
But it looks even better when consider we also got TMcGee out of that draft, as well as SamAiken and Sobieski, both of whom were good enough to make very talented Bills' squads. Toss in ST's standouts Crowell and Haggan and it looks almost as good as the great train robbery of 2001.
We got to get rid of this Donahoe clown............
Simon, only a fool could deny that TD has made some smart moves. The thing is that when he does screw up, he does it in a big way.
-
Thanks KTD for an informative post, and to FFS for an accurate in-depth analysis.
This type of info serves to point out just how hard it is to rate a draft sometimes. For instance, the Bills could have REALLY used Steinbach, but if Tucker develops, passing on him is of less importance. Btw, when was Tucker selected, or was he a free agent? Also, when did the Bills grab MaGee?
In any event, info like this makes it a little easier on this Bills fan to walk into a draft in which we will have no 1st round pick. More wins would also serve to ease the pain.
-
OK, so here is a the moral of the story:
1) Even though a LT has to hold his block longer than a RT, this is NOT harder to do. It is just "more important."
2) The fact that the best OTs are LTs means little or nothing. LT is not harder to play.
3) LTs make more money than RTs, but their jobs are equally as dificult.
4) Each and every GM drafts LTs first, but NOT because they are doing a harder job and need to be more agile. They just do it for no reason.
5) The vikes have the #1 offense in spite of McKinnie.
6) The Bills offense has sucked since Mike Williams came to town, but not because of him. He is worth 36 million dollars and has done a great job.
7) MW has only allowed 5 sacks this season, and they might not be his fault. He probably has not allowed much pressure either.
8) When he allowed sacks last year, it was the fault of Pucillo.
9) He only allowed sacks this year when he was out of shape, something he should not be blamed for.
10) Posters like Mark VI who were screaming for him to be a guard were wrong. MW is a prominent RT, and could play LT if called upon.
Now it is settled. I am going to join eyedog in stepping away from this lunacy.
-
Still the fact remains that there is never any evidence given. I don't slam posters unless I see them brashley coming out with statements (not necessarily opinions mind you) with no backing, something you have also done from time to time. I am not concerned with opinions. I try to stay involved with facts only. Facts are not disputable by opinion.
LT's do not have more responsibilities than Rt's. Those days are long over. That is a fact. As stated by others here, they are usually the "better" player because they protect the blind side of the right handed QB.
And btw, when a tackle plays against an upper level DE (ie Ellis), he is not required to completely shut him out (ie. 0 tackles, 0 pressures) in order to be considered having a good game against him (ie. "handled him")
Bro, I am not looking to have a nasty, stupid battle with you, but you do the EXACT same thing that you chastize others for.
>>>LT's do not have more responsibilities than Rt's. Those days are long over. That is a fact.<<<
Why is that a fact? Because YOU say so? If it becomes necessary, based on position, to hold a block longer, certainly this can be construed to mean "more responsibility."
The truth is, few of us are total experts. Most of us, because we are passionate fanatics, know more than average fans, but we are on a football message board, not a war room on draft day.
On thing that I will say is that if there truly are 'experts" on TBD, you insulted one of them. Badolbilz is a walking football encyclopedia who goes as far as to watch college film and more.
Have a beer with him at RWS and see for yourself. He is also a good guy.
-
Oh please Bill, not you too!
This is a high school argument. He has more responsibilites? Do left tackles have to block two guys instead of one? His job is harder because he's paid more, because he's drafted higher? Because he's a better athelete??
I thought you were smarter than this!
Bob, who are the best OTs you ever saw? Please be honest. Munoz, Pace, Shell, Ogden, Jones, etc? All LTs, right? I will give you Erik Williams and Bob Brown as great RTs, but even they were bruisers more so than being agile, which is probably why Dallas stuck with Tunei at LT.
The responsibilities are similar, but Drew was able to see the rushers speeding unobstructed by MW. Not so at LT, so protection becomes more vital from the blindside. He has to hold the defender off for a longer time, no?
If you ever should have time, please review the tapes of Kurt Warner in his superbowl wins. He had zero fear of a blindside rush. Nada! He was able to see all of the danger and stand in the pocket forever, waiting for his speedy receivers to get open. THIS is why you put the best tackle to the left.
Perhaps much of this discussion is based on semantics, I dont know, but if MW was good enough to play LT, he would be doing so. Not only that, Jennings looked better at RT than he did at LT, wouldn't you agree?
-
Evidence such as our right side of our line averaging 4.5 yards per carry or our RT superbly handling the pass rush of the Jets' Ellis in both games this season should NEVER into such a worthy argument
Face it, when you make statements and cannot EVER back them up your points will not be taken seriously by anyone else. It's simple really. And when you claim to know what you are talking about re: the play of a particular offensive lineman and cannot even refer to any technique/production element that involves said player, you look like a fool.
First of all, MW did not"handle" Ellis in the first jest game. On at least one of the sacks by Abraham, Ellis was right there and would have hit Drew even if Abraham was not in the play.
Also, this poster is abviously anything but a fool. He is an articulate Bills fan with an opinion that seems to differ from yours. He listed poorly played games by Big Mike, and scoffs at the notion that RT is as hard to play as LT, a ridiculous assertion considering the LTs have more responsibilities, are paid more, are drafted higher, and tend to be more agile and better athletes.
Now, go back to slamming other posters.
-
In Baltimore, he looked like he ran out of gas before halftime.
He WAS given a game ball vs the cards, and does look better than he did last year, but not for 36 million.
-
No, it is in no way a harder position to play. It may be a more important position to play, because you don't want your QB killed from behind, causing more sacks and fumbles and injuries and interceptions. But it is by no means a harder position to play, and in fact, in recent years there are as many or more good LDE's playing against RTs than there are RDEs against LTs.
I will await the influx of RTs drafted in the top 5.
-
Last year (that is what we are talking about), MW had a tougher task because of who he was playing next to, and Drew's lack of mobility. That said, he did little to help his own cause. A dominant RT would have carried Pucillo just a tad more. NOT made him look good mind you, but on pass protection, they were both bad.
That said, AD is right. MW has shown improvement. I merely want much more for a 36 million dollar cap hit, and I don't think that I am being unreasonable here.
-
Gotcha. I think that yes, Big Mike very well may have faced tougher competion, AND that LT, by very nature, is a harder position to play.
If this were not the case, more RTs would go in the top 5 picks.
Do we agree on something else?
-
I never said he played very well, or didn't have tough games. Mt post was in response to the erroneous charge that LTs automatically face tougher DEs than RTs. In this case, they most certainly did not. MW also had two of his very best games if I recall, against Michael Strahan and Javon Kearse.
I agree with your point, but the blind side is still the blind side, and it seems as if it would be harder to defend.
-
Damn it Bill, offensive line is the ultimate team position and MW was covering for the weakest player on the team, with an immobile QB, piss poor coaching, etc.
We can keep reliving last season over and over again, or we can move on. Williams has improved measurably this season and is actually starting to look like a football player.
Get off his back.
Fair enough AD, but please, look at the post to which I responded.
It left out one little fact, no?
And yes, he HAS improved quite a bit. Not to the level one would expect from a #4 mind you, but improvement? Sure.
-
And in case YOU weren't watching the games, or noticing what was happening, he stunk up the field and got his ass handed to him virtually every week.
-
I find it hard to fault TD in this situation wrt Kelsay.
I am thinking that if TD thought that Denney was all that good, he would not have drafted Kelsay. Also, did Kelsay come out as a junior? If so, it is hard for a kid that young to line up week after week against the best players in the world.
If Kelsay continues to play well, it will be a no-brainer, and a huge boost for the Bills.
KTD, do you agree with this as well?
-
Here is one.
First, right now my only concern for Big Mike is his health.
That aside, the vikes gave up all of 2 sacks while being forced to pass for much of the night, as Manning just kept tossing td passes. Big friggin deal. Oh, and the vikes ran for how many yards?
We can fantasize as we choose, but MW has not produced as a #4 should, and I think that this is beyond logical question. If you want to judge McKinnie by one game against an all-pro, by all means do. Will you then judge Big Mike only by his stellar outing in the first jest game?
Didn't think so.
-
Smart ass. So he mistyped a bit....
I think it depends on the players out there and don't know enough whether this is going to be a deep draft in areas we need help.... If you can get the player(s) you want, then you deal (up or down). I'd be pretty psyched to have two 2nd rounders. I tend to think that skill players in the top of the first round are not worth the risk for the $$ and I'm thrilled our first rounders from the last couple years seem to have real talent.
Your post is imo totally correct. The problem is that there is not a GM in his right mind who would pony up a 2nd for Travis. A 4th would be great.
-
-
How about Euhus last week with a perfectly thrown ball for a TD?
-
-
Indeed. I honestly still think he wasn't ready to begin the season as the starter, but there's now no question as to who is the better RB.
OL: remember a few days ago, when most everyone was calling for Tucker to stay at C and stick Teague somewhere else (or even leave him on the bench)? I think I like this solution better. BarryBrady would call it the TinkerToys approach to the o-line, but IMO you have to get your best 5 on the field.
Agreed. Tucker was a monster, and I was not fully impressed by Teague on Sunday, although he was OK.
I am trying to figure out how/why Tucker had such a great game. He was blocking all over the field, and there were no sacks in 30 attempts. Also, the wind made it easier for the jests defense to guess, but to no avail.
He IS from Princeton. Maybe he is smart enough to grasp what McNally offers. I dont know, but he was certainly a bright spot.
Next week will be very interesting. If the interior OL plays up to their last performance or improves, we can actually win this imo.
A few more plays from Kelsay wouldn't hurt the cause either, huh?
-
Huh? Steelers only lost 1 game and that was with Maddox in there. Amazing what happens when you get an immoble QB that can't make quick decisions out of the lineup
so lets break this down...
Defense
Pitt Very good Defense
Buff Great D
Special Teams
Pitt Good ST's
Buff now GREAT ST's
Offense
Pitt Great running game
Buff Now great running game
Pitt great play from a ROOKIE QB.
Buff .....Buff......Buff.... Well Nuff said
Now I know someone will add in "pitt = great OL" Really? It wasn't great for Maddox last year nor in the game they lost. MAN! They sure became probowlers when Rothlesburger took over.
The steelers are less than a pimple on the ass of the patriots despite the win against them. Do you think, after breaking the record, that NE was due for a bad game?
Coaching matters too. Cowher has lost what, 3 title games (one to Bledsoe) at home? BB blows him away.
Btw, Seattle imo is also clearly superior to Pitt. As AD says, let the 2nd half play out, no?
-
-
I'm disappointed that I could only choose one...because I'd rate McGahee's presence in the backfield and the continued improvement of the line about equal..and not so much Drew or the receivers (from whom I see the same old problems, for the most part.) In general, the improvement in blocking over the course of the last 8 games - which encompasses both the line and the backfield - is the biggest reason for improvement.
Screw you. Go back to PPP.
I agree, but I give Drew a bit more credit than you. He ran yesterday and had touch on some passes. What else can we ask from him?
WOW! We won
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Bill, next year we are going to try very hard to go to an earlier game. The guys were complaining that you weren't there.
I had a wicked cold and could have used some of your food. And what truly hurt is that we must have had a full case of beer or more left over.