mike oxhurtz Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/bills/14817 Looks like RF365 is letting fans write articles instead of the hacks to used to write for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 I can't believe it's been only eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 I think the 2002 offense was the only good offense we had since Jim Kelly retired. I agree with the article, we need a good QB, 2 good WR's and a good O-line, otherwise our offense will continue to suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 He said our Line with Bledslow was not that good becuase Drew took 50 sacks?...ehhh...I disagree....We had Mike Williams...as bad a rep he had he wasn't nearly as bad as we've seen...he wasn't great but he was alright....we had Brown...probowler...we had Teague...very sturdy...we had Jennings probowler...and what? Sullivan I think...anyone remember?...it was Marques Sullivan right?...he was alright...he took sacks becuase he had NO mobility...then going forward...in 04 we lost Brown...replaced him with Villarial...ehhh he was alright....but not a probowler like Brown...and Sullivan was gone and we had who...ummm...shoot I can't remember was it Pucillo?...or Tucker?...I am not sure either way, kinda stinky....we still had Jennings...but not only he was a probowl talent...the rest were either average Teague, and Villarial...or liabilities...the other guard and a bigger sloppier Mike Williams...we haven't had a good O Line since...I mean even back when we had Flutie and Johnson...we had an okay line...an aging but effective John Fina, Rueben Brown, Ostroski (like him alot), Jamie Nails...who people didn't really think much of, but I thought was just a beastly bad azz...and Spriggs who was alright....I like that line much better than the one we've had for the past few years...they weren't outstanding but they were alright...tough guys...didn't Hicks play on that line to???... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 He said our Line with Bledslow was not that good becuase Drew took 50 sacks?...ehhh...I disagree....We had Mike Williams...as bad a rep he had he wasn't nearly as bad as we've seen...he wasn't great but he was alright....we had Brown...probowler...we had Teague...very sturdy...we had Jennings probowler...and what? Sullivan I think...anyone remember?...it was Marques Sullivan right?...he was alright...he took sacks becuase he had NO mobility...then going forward...in 04 we lost Brown...replaced him with Villarial...ehhh he was alright....but not a probowler like Brown...and Sullivan was gone and we had who...ummm...shoot I can't remember was it Pucillo?...or Tucker?...I am not sure either way, kinda stinky....we still had Jennings...but not only he was a probowl talent...the rest were either average Teague, and Villarial...or liabilities...the other guard and a bigger sloppier Mike Williams...we haven't had a good O Line since...I mean even back when we had Flutie and Johnson...we had an okay line...an aging but effective John Fina, Rueben Brown, Ostroski (like him alot), Jamie Nails...who people didn't really think much of, but I thought was just a beastly bad azz...and Spriggs who was alright....I like that line much better than the one we've had for the past few years...they weren't outstanding but they were alright...tough guys...didn't Hicks play on that line to???... my god man stop typing out your thoughts word for word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 He said our Line with Bledslow was not that good becuase Drew took 50 sacks?...ehhh...I disagree....We had Mike Williams...as bad a rep he had he wasn't nearly as bad as we've seen...he wasn't great but he was alright....we had Brown...probowler...we had Teague...very sturdy...we had Jennings probowler...and what? Sullivan I think...anyone remember?...it was Marques Sullivan right?...he was alright...he took sacks becuase he had NO mobility...then going forward...in 04 we lost Brown...replaced him with Villarial...ehhh he was alright....but not a probowler like Brown...and Sullivan was gone and we had who...ummm...shoot I can't remember was it Pucillo?...or Tucker?...I am not sure either way, kinda stinky....we still had Jennings...but not only he was a probowl talent...the rest were either average Teague, and Villarial...or liabilities...the other guard and a bigger sloppier Mike Williams...we haven't had a good O Line since...I mean even back when we had Flutie and Johnson...we had an okay line...an aging but effective John Fina, Rueben Brown, Ostroski (like him alot), Jamie Nails...who people didn't really think much of, but I thought was just a beastly bad azz...and Spriggs who was alright....I like that line much better than the one we've had for the past few years...they weren't outstanding but they were alright...tough guys...didn't Hicks play on that line to???... I'm not sure what you think "..." is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Nails Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 Jamie Nails...who people didn't really think much of What you talking about Willis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyjustbcuz Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 http://www.realfootball365.com/articles/bills/14817 Looks like RF365 is letting fans write articles instead of the hacks to used to write for them. The article mentions the question of the key offensive positions. It mentions QB, OT, WR...It then depicts that the Bill's Offensive was rated as the 11th best offense. It mentions on more than one occasion that the Bill's O Line gave up 54 Sacks !!!!!! I don't even think our Offensive line is that porous now! It highlights Blesdoe's, WR's, and RB's great stats and closes the article stressing the real need for us to draft an Offensive Lineman (LT). The point is that the article goes to great lengths to stress that our offensive line was bad and that the Offese still was very productive and highly regarded. The article does nothing to materialize the importance of a good offensive line, yet the closing point is that we have a glaring need at OLT in the draft. If I took this article seriously, based on the content..I would draft a QB or a WR before considering a OT based on the level of productivity examples furnished!!!!!! Fortunately, I agree that we need significant improvement at the position. I just think most of the article supports that the OT position is overated as to the overall success of the Offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts