BuffaloBob

As I have been saying, the TE is almost never helping the RT anymore, and this article acknowledges this. What the article does not recognize is that the day when the LT is lined up against the best past rusher is also gone. Also, this notion that most teams run to their right is also obsolete. I wish we'd run more to our right than our left. We have much more success that way. Once again and for the final time, yes you want your best OL athlete on the blind side. YES, this is because your QB taking hits from the blind side is much worse than taking them from the other. But that doesn't make the job any HARDER, just more strategically important from a pass protection standpoint. BTW, where did you get the sacks allowed stats? If I recall, the sacks allowed stats I saw for McKinnie and Williams from a different source were much worse for 2003. However, I had figured worse case that Mike had allowed 5 this year in 8 games, and said I thought one was actually a Price sack. So for this year, those stats would seem accurate. Perhaps these guys did a bit more analysis and didn't credit Mike with sacks allowed that were someone else's fault on say blitz pick-ups etc.

You never seem the least bit concerned about revealing your lack intelligence, do you? When you can actually support you positions without resort to tautology and circular reasoning, then perhaps you might legitimately pass on someone else's knowledge and intelligence. Until then, take my word for it, you actually would be best served keeping such assessments to yourself. Unless of course you really don't mind proudly shouting to the world: "Hey everybody, I AM in fact a dumbass!"

You are right, and I apologize to you. I guess I am frustrated with this never-ending stream of opinionated crap that flows around here regarding our players, and their ability and level of play, from people who have no real clue, and especially the fact that it doesn't end or even become tempered when they have actually improved their play significantly. I at least give Rico some credit for admitting the obvious, instead of insisting on the negative position for the sake of it, or to avoid admitting something positive. For example, Opie Wanton never posts here unless it is to bash Drew. He will go through whatever gyration is necessary to turn any positive about Drew into a negative, to the point that he is an utter joke. As for Badol, he never misses an opportunity (nor do you for that matter), to bash Mike and support his opinion that we should have drafted McKinnie. And frankly, the fact that it is HIS exalted opinion does nothing for me because it is still unsupported opinion. So when I read your post which misstates and exaggerates most of the positions argued on this thread as a means for disingenuously supporting your position that what was argued here was lunacy, I guess I lost it. Frankly, I found your post an incredibly disinegenous and self-indulgent attempt to support an untenable position, as well as insulting. It is the sort of thing I would expect from eyedog, but not you! Actually, come to think of it, that was way too complex for eyedog. But at least he doesn't know any better. Notwithstanding, my exaggerated and rather graphic depiction of the hoops that you seem willing to jump through to support this position to the end was in bad taste. For that I do apologize.

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!

ROTFLMAFAO!!! OK, so the blind side is more slippery? No wait, it's more dense? Is gravity greater on the blind side? Oh, I know, the force is greater on the right side! No wait, it's hotter on the blind side,, or is it colder? Maybe it's wetter on the blind side, or is it darker? Well, it is the blind side so of course its darker! What game are you talking about?

No Sh_iT Sherlock, and that makes the blind side more important, NOT HARDER! The reason you are still debating this is because you are dense. Importance doesn't mean harder. The blocking that goes on on the left side is no harder than the blocking on the right side, just perhaps more strategically important. Maybe some day you can go see the wizard and he'll solve your little problem !

Umm yes I saw the game, and obviously the guy didn't have all that much of an impact on it or I would have remembered him. I guess that's what happens when you are a guy who was in the backfield the whole game with a statute at QB, but sure didn't have much to show for it LOL!

Once again, you marvel no one with your argument. Whether or not a QB has the option to react to what he sees or not has nothing to do with the difficulty of the job. The QB needs the same amount of time to pass from both sides. The only difference is whether he can react to less than satisfactory time. The only difference is that the QB gets knocked into next week when he gets hit from the blind side. But that doesn't mean the job is any harder to perform. More important for the safety of the QB yes, more difficult to perform, no. But alas you will never see that distinction. Not that it is really all that complex mind you.

Yeah hee hee! Maybe you should check with ESPN, he didn't get any sacks against him. Hardly what I would call being abused. LOL!

It may be that he did play some LDE. I checked the NFL box score and he had no sack according to them either. Well, he was still playing catch up then, but I think he has been playing good ball and hardly at level which could be described as "stinking the place up." Sometimes it actually takes even high draft picks a few seasons before they get it. There are plenty of examples that could be cited.

Thanks for the response dude.34-78-83. I aguess you had my blind side, which by defintition makes your response even more difficult because I didn't see this brilliant response coming. LOL! It's funny, but he claims I even explained this! Nothing like circular reasoning! I have to get to work! This is silly!

Oh, and according to ESPN, Spicer (before he broke his leg against Denver) started 2 games at RIGHT defensive end, which puts him over our left tackle. Spicer Also, Barnes is a Right DE.

Well, after reviewing this Box Score again, either ESPN does not keep accurate stats, or your memory is failing you! Barnes is the only guy I see credited with a sack for the Jags. Jags/Bills Box Score

Historically, what you say is true, but not so anymore. TEs are all over the place, even in the backfield. Moreover, the TE does not necessarily help a RT much when it comes to pass protection, unless he is staying in to block. And even then, he is usually occupied with his own assignment, not double teaming some poor schmuck. The reality is, that with todays TEs lining up in the backfield, motioning, etc. the "strong" side of the line is much less clear or constant as it once was. Secondly, take a look at the depth charts of most teams, and you will find just as often that they have an equally if not better pass rusher on the left side as the right. Moreover, teams will move their best pass rushers around, especially if they are linebackers playing a 3-4. While protecting the blind--side of a QB is still strategically important, and while it may motivate you to put your better player on the left side, the startegic importance does not make in and of itself make the job harder.

Now, I really hate to bring stats into a thread like this, because it really does muddle up the ability of people like eyedog to simply make statements like, "Oh, I remember he was abused by this guy, and he sucked against that guy" sort of posts. But hey, I'm the one who is so stupid and uniformed. LOL! So, reviewing the box scores of every game, it turns out that worst case, assuming that all sacks given up to a guy playing the position opposite Mike were his sacks and not some foul up by one of his teammates who failed to pick up that man because they are zone blocking or because it was actually Price in there instead of him (I believe Price relieved Mike in at least one game in which Price gave up a sack), or that Drew was holding the ball too long etc. Big Mike has given up a grand total of 5 sacks. OH MY GOD, THE MAN SUCKS!!! He's a bust! He's still not earning his money. He still has a long way to go........BLAH BLAH! He gave up zero sacks against Jax (Jennings gave up the only sack in that game) zero sacks TWICE against the Jets (Jennings/Price gave up 4 on the left side in the first game) and zero sacks against the Cards. He gave up two against Oakland, 1 against the Pats and 2 against Suggs in Baltimore. Clearly, he does struggle more against fast OLBs playing a 3-4 and rushing from space. But even if he gives up the same number in the second half, he will have improved hugely over the 19 he gave up last season. And no, I don't care about the one time when his guy would have sacked Drew if it hadn't been for the fact that Jennings' man got to him first! Those are irrelevant, just like where he would have given up the sack if Drew hadn't thrown the ball sooner. Mike has improved sigificantly. I don't know how much that has to do with the running game going better, with the simpler offense and blockig schemes, or McNally. But that is all just details. Sorry for introducing a little reality to this thread. Now eyedog can go back to telling us how he stunk the place up for most of the season.

God, you really are as dense as I think you are! Just because a job is more important strategically does not make it harder to perform. But sadly, I doubt this will ever be something you will be able to grasp. And as far the sales analogy, my bad! I should have never assumed that you would be capable of analogical reasoning.

Bill, the fact that the best tackles were left tackles historically does nothing to change the fact that they were merely put on the left side because, all things being equal, you put the better guy on the blind side because its the blind side, not because it's harder to play. The fact that protecting the blind side of a QB is more important does not in itself make it a harder postion to play! Moreover, when it comes to a QB like Bledsoe, seeing the right side rush before feeling the left side rush hardly matters, because he really can't escape any of it! There may have been a time when strategically, the best pass rushers were put on the blind side because of the notion that it is the weaker side to exploit, but those days are passed. There is nothing more difficult about playing the left vs, the right side. And as for Mike not playing the left side as evidence that he cannot is unavailing. He played the right side at Texas because his QB was left-handed. So he protected the blind side in college. However, because that became his natural position, he has remained there. I do not recall a single Bills coach saying that they would have liked Mike to move over to the left side but we don't think he can.

When you cannot reason logically, the next best thing is to call it stupid and claim you can't read it. Good for you!

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!

Mike has not stunk up the field this year. And I've been around, I just have a job so I can't come running every time you display your ignorance. And who cares how you spell his name, the result is the same.

ROTFLMAO! Exactly how does it make your job harder because the guy you are blocking for can't see you do the job?? This is too funny! LOL! OK, so by paying the guy more and drafting him higher, you make his job harder, right?? Are you sure you aren't still in high school? Let me try an analogy. Your company has two sales territories, say East Coast and West Coast. It turns that both territories have just as much competition and are equally important to the company's success, but because the HQs are in Los Angeles, the CEO does not have as much visibility tp what is going on over on the East Coast as he does on the West. So now you have two salesman, and one is better salesman than the other and you know you are going to have to pay more to the better guy anyway. So why not put the highr paid guy in the East, given that you at least can keep a better eye on what is going in the West given that you are in LA? It doesn't mean that the Sales job is harder in the East. It just means that all other things being equal, put your better guy out in the territory where you can't see as much of what is going on. As for why we selected Big Mike and an exception to the rule? Because he was a highly touted salesman with great character and he happened to know the West coast territory really well. Moreover, it looked like Mike was the better salesman than McKinney, even though McKinney knew the East Coast territory. So given the choice between having someone who knew the East Coast, and having a better guy in the West, we took the latter.

Nope, his helemt was in front of him. That's all that is required for a legal hit. Yes, he did come from the side, but his head was in front of him when he hit him. It was not a cheap shot, it was a legal shot, and Moorman should have been aware of his presence. That's why God gave you a neck!

Gee, and I thought it was spoken like a guy who has played football, actually taken a big hit for the very same reason Moorman did, and lived to tell about it and learn from it. Hmmm, guess it was difficult to emote that with a keyboard! LOL!

You really aren't too smart, are you? Mike has actually had a very good year. How many sacks has he given up? In his worst game aginst the Jets and Abraham, he gave up one. Perhaps it is you who should go back to bed, We can wake you up the next time a thread comes along that involves Big Mike, so you can make your weak posts about how great McKinney is and how bad Mike is.