Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Not to be a wet blanket here people, loved the win, team looks great, etc etc, but, just to talk some football - we're gonna need a LG next year. As much as I admire Tucker's smarts and toughness, he simply lacks talent. He gets pushed around at the point of attack, it was obvious today. I think McNally's done wonders with the guy's technique, or he wouldn't have even made it this far. Should be the first order of business this offseason - depending upon what happens with JJennings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 What do you think of the play of the rest of the o-line Coach tuesday ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Yeah, our late second pick HAS to be OL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 And a good nickel back.... 2nd round pick should be a CB or G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 With Mike Williams' performance today, and his mostly inconsistent performance during the season, maybe moving him to LG is the answer. Then again, he's due some huge roster bonus before next year, right? That might make him a goner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 What do you think of the play of the rest of the o-line Coach tuesday ? 167122[/snapback] I thought the rest of the o-line played one of their more UN-physical games today - I'm not sure how much of that had to do with the situation (the early lead, the D on fire, etc.). It's unfortunate - this is a big, athletic o-line, but not a physical, strong one. Watch Pittsburgh, San Diego or the Jets if you want to see how NFL Guards are supposed to play football. Overall, I think our o-line has gone from being below-average last year and the beginning of this year to average-to-slightly-above-average. I know some people here (Simon) disagree with this assessment, but it's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Interesting Coach, but the only player I see on that o-line who is slightly above average is Jennings. Teague is smart but weak at the point of attack, Vill is average, Tucker is a backup who is starting, and do you know who Carl Powell is ? Mikey still has many strides to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 No need to go through the Draft to get an O-Lineman, unless the rest of you feel like waiting 2-3 years for him to develop. ALL of our free agent moves need to spent on the O-line, save our 2nd round pick in the Draft for a good CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 No need to go through the Draft to get an O-Lineman, unless the rest of you feel like waiting 2-3 years for him to develop. ALL of our free agent moves need to spent on the O-line, save our 2nd round pick in the Draft for a good CB. 167178[/snapback] Agreed, FA is the way to go for o-line help. BUT, don't be surprised if we take a d-tackle, WR or free safety with our first pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Agreed, FA is the way to go for o-line help. BUT, don't be surprised if we take a d-tackle, WR or free safety with our first pick. 167182[/snapback] I'd be shocked if we took a WR or FS with our 1st pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 I'd be shocked if we took a WR or FS with our 1st pick. 167191[/snapback] Well, you ought not be. We have enough depth at other positions - CB included - that we can afford to take the "best available" at certain positions. We have an aging free safety (did he make a play today?), Moulds doesn't seem to be as effective as he used to be, and Josh Reed may even be cut next offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 There is no way they are taking a free safety with their pick in the 2nd rd. They have Vincent with Baker behind him. WR is also a long shot unless they are planning on letting Moulds walk. They have to take the best o-lineman available. It doesn't really matter what position it is. the o-line is by far the weakest paart of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 FS no way in hell. As for WR, next year's draft is supposed to be one of the best ever. OL is too much of a crap shoot in the 2nd round and you need to wait for him to develop. DT is a possibility, as is CB (in case Clements walks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 FS no way in hell. As for WR, next year's draft is supposed to be one of the best ever. OL is too much of a crap shoot in the 2nd round and you need to wait for him to develop. DT is a possibility, as is CB (in case Clements walks). 167211[/snapback] Why do you say "no way in hell"? If a Bob Sanders type is sitting there in the second round when we pick, why the hell not take him and move TV back to corner? Then we'd have an unbelievably solid cornerback tandem, and a FS of the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Why do you say "no way in hell"? If a Bob Sanders type is sitting there in the second round when we pick, why the hell not take him and move TV back to corner? Then we'd have an unbelievably solid cornerback tandem, and a FS of the future... Baker is the FS of the future, and Vincent is getting too old to play CB. Another possibility is LB'er, and I'd say it's BPA from along DT/CB/LB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 Baker is the FS of the future, and Vincent is getting too old to play CB. Another possibility is LB'er, and I'd say it's BPA from along DT/CB/LB. 167226[/snapback] I forgot about linebacker, you're right that could be the pick. I think it's too early to declare Baker the FS of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Clements isn't walking. I don't think they are that dumb to let him go. I would rather see moulds walk if it came down to the two of them, but I want to keep both. You can find a guard who can step in and play in the 2nd rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njsue Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Dont forget a center. Tom Donahoe just has a little tweeking to do then this bills team will be unstoppable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Not to be a wet blanket here people, loved the win, team looks great, etc etc, but, just to talk some football - we're gonna need a LG next year. As much as I admire Tucker's smarts and toughness, he simply lacks talent. He gets pushed around at the point of attack, it was obvious today. I think McNally's done wonders with the guy's technique, or he wouldn't have even made it this far. Should be the first order of business this offseason - depending upon what happens with JJennings. 167117[/snapback] Would you agree that a Ruben Brown would be an upgrade over our current crop of LG's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 With Mike Williams' performance today, and his mostly inconsistent performance during the season, maybe moving him to LG is the answer. Then again, he's due some huge roster bonus before next year, right? That might make him a goner. 167133[/snapback] I don't see this happening, I will have to go back and review his performance today, but I would doubt from the overall game stats that his play today would cause any radical contract shift (any balloon bonus for him is long been part of the salary cap budget and even onconsistent play from him will not cause us to freak out and abandon him as a player). The bottom line for the team in assessing him as far as today will correctly start with the fact we won comfortably and regardless who you give credit for this win to or blame for the failings, radical shifts in thinking do not tend to occur after big wins. As far as today, the fault will be found with the OL for failing to block effectively for the running game and for the two sacks on Drew )he got pressured by the rush a couple of times but also got more than ample time to throw a couple of times and the overall pass pro assessment will be not good but not bad. As far as the run failutes they seemed to be across the board and it wasn't like we had huge success on the left side so it is hard for me to see how MW draws any particular blame here. The two sacks were both by Powell whio I think was generally an interior assignment rather than an MW problem but I will review the tape for stunts and switches. MW has been inconsistent this year, but the trend line is that the inconsistency consisted of him sucking this summer and early in the season and performing much better as the season progressed. Why this adds up to moving him to LG makes no sense to me. His problems have not generally been athletic or agility issues despite his huge weight, but they have been mental problems as he failed to coordinate well with Pacillo last year and he reacted to a death in the family in an improfessional manner this off-season. Switching him to a new position would seem more likely to enhance his mental problems and will result in a gain in his physical play which is illusory. The other issue regarding today is that he is coming off an injury which knocked him out of the game last week and cost him practice time this week. While this does not forgive lack of performance, my guess is the braintrust will judge any problems as being improved by keeping him healthy rather than judging them to be problems to be solved by some switch of positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts