Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Cause it ain't over yet. I think it is obvious that we want and almost certainly need some better players on OL. However, I think RIGHT NOW it is clear that: 1. The Bills braintrust knows we can certainly use some more talent on the OL and is trying to acquire it. 2. Despite many of the most talented guys (Jones/Pace) being unavailable due to tags and being too expensive (it looks like DeMulling may get an offer beyond his worth and I think the Niners paid more for JJ than he is worth to the Bills) I think there are a number of opportunities still available for the Bills to pick up OL players that fit within the salary cap budget of a winning Bills team who may well upgrade our performance over current levels (the key here is not judging simply whether a player is good, but more important whether he is better than what we got). 3. FA is a great tool for improving OL and team performance, but it is not the Holy Grail and the only way to improve team performance. Its a great thing (I think the Gandy acquisition is an upgrade for us at a cap friendly cost) but is merely the current act in still unfolding play where there are several acts to follow for upgrades to our Ol and team. Specifically, I look to: A. Ongoing FA acqusitions: we are still in the hunt for DeMulling who is we can get him at an affordable cap hit (its going to be tough for us to go higher than a $3 million annual salary as this is what we are paying Villarial and already made a larger commitment to MW who simply needs to step up to be the 4th player selected he was originally signed to be- it looked doubtful he could do this after his grandma died and he skipped off-season workouts last year, but given his performance last year once he got his act together this is no sure thing at all but possible. If we can get a quality talent like a deMulling at an affordable price I say go for it. If not, then JMac and the crew need to gauge whether folks like Womack can be enough of a player (he sounds like he needs an attitude adjustment of the type successfully accomplished with Sam Adams so he ends his history of low discipline and taking too many plays off) to be worth what will probably be a good lower cost in this OL market. B. Trades: The Shelton/Henry deal is dormant for now, but soes make a lot of sense for both teams. If Henry and a long-term contract is in fact the sticking point, he needs to realize that the Bills are not going to trade him unless we get the goods and that he will need to be the best back-up for WM he can be if we decide not to trade him and he still wants a big FA score. If he sticks around, he needs to play as well as he can because if he does not he will add another non-productive year to his resume and it won't take too much in terms of bad mouthing if he leaves folks here with a sour taste from the 2005 experience for him to only be able to pull around the NFL minimum when he hits the FA marker next year. A trade for Shelton or some other OL talent looks less likely now but is still a possibility. C. Cap casualties: It does surprise me that folks seem to have their panties all up in a wad over not having better players right here right now. it certainly would be far better to have folks in the fold now because they would get voluntary camp practice as Bills and continuity is something to be valued. However, when June 1st comes around, I suspect there may be some interesting OL cap casualties available and if so the Bills can still pick up a talented vet who it is to be hoped can fit in quickly and produce. I'm not saying this will happen (many players have escalators in their contracts which force the decision to cut them to be made earlier than the June 1st date) but this is possible. The 2001 Pats team which won the SB picked up about 15 players after the June date that year. D. The draft: It is unlikely that the Bills will be able to pick up a player in this year's draft who will contribute to this year's team. However, it is possible if the Bills see a player who is worthy of their first pick (2nd round) who is on the OL or we trade Henry for a first day pick. Again, the draft is an unlikely source of an OL contributor this year but this is possible. E. Internal development: This is even a more likely spot for the Bills to find immediate help than the draft as several players are on the roster who are actually ahead of where Lswrence Smith was last year when we acquired him off the Ravens PS and he became an inadequate starter on our troubled OL. Again this is less than likely but cannot be ignored as a real source for a quality back-up and maybe even if lightening strikes a real player. F. Coaching Improvement: The bog deal here for the Bills is that we saw last year what a difference it made in the output and learning of individual players to have an experienced hand like JMac directing things rather than the not-ready-for-primetime Ronny Vinklarek whose primary resume stuffer that got him the OL position coach job was that he was a friend of GW since he had never held the OL job before. Even this could not save him as he lost the job after two years of nothing to show for it beyond what Ruben and player talent did for the group and we "upgraded" to Ruel who brought 1 year of OL position coach experience with Detroit to the job. Say what you want about your assessment of JMac but no one can argue that he wasn't a huge upgade over Vinky and Ruel. In fact beyind that he did take an OL with NYG which featured talents at the level of Dusty Ziegler and quickly fashioned them into an OL unit which was hailed as a key to them making the SB that year. Clearly with the addition of a quality rusher like WM who ran through many mistakes our "work in progress" OL made JMac did an outstanding job under the Clements plan: A. Doing a major attitude adjustment an training of MW to get a good performance out of him last year when he entered the season looking like a bust in minicamp. B. Filling the void left by the demise of Ruben (a demise dictated by the Butler overpayment to him years ago and by him publicly taking on Kevin Gilbride for his mismanagement of the team- Ruben was correct in protecting himself and his teammates for GW/i;bride excuses, but if you take on the boss you're probably dead in this world) with the development of Smith and filling the gaps in Smith's redzone game with some quick teaching and innovative usage of Bannan as LG. c. Guiding a masterful juggling of the OL as we went into the streak caused by the injury to Teague and the too often exits from games by Jennings which caused him to plug in Tucker and Price effectively so we never even noticed these burps as far as W/L during the streak. As we head into 2005, not only will JMac get a second year with players such as MW, Tucker and Smith but he and Clements, MM and he are going into their second year of working together rather than getting to know each other while I the same time dealing with the disarray of players they had not chosen who lacked good training working in a system they did not design. It strikes me as shortsighted for folks to simply declare players like Smith or Tucker not good enough. If Smith has anywhere near the progress in his game from 04-05 that he had from 03-04 where he progressed from the PS of the Ravens to not only make the active roster of the Bills but winning a starting job over the at least ill-trained if not ill-picked Pacillo then he will be very good this year. I see know reason why Tucker and Smith should not progress at least somewhat under JMac this off-season and if they do they will at least be solid back-ups and may well win starting jobs over some better playing FAs we bring in. So in the picture, I do not think our OL players are good enough yet for them to be where we want them to be. However, even with the exchange of JJ for Gandy on the roster, I am quite pleased to see us where we are which is to have a lot of options on the roster and several more opportunities between now and the voluntary camps and between now and pre-season to improve the OL even more. I'm not worried at all about the OL in fact I am quite psyched. I am confident this crew will be better and I haven't even gotten to the fact they will be running pas pro for a far more mobile QB who can avoid tackles when they make the mistakes all players do and who actually offers up a lot of weapons as a running and accurate passing QB while in motion. I liked a lot of what MM did with Bledsoe and his strengths and limitations, but no one ever mistook Bledsoe for a runner or for a QB whose accuracy suffered a lot when he was forced to move. I am really pysched.
stuckincincy Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 I'll withold judgement until I see what their offensive gameplan tendencies are vis a vis Losman.
CosmicBills Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 So you're satisfied with where the team stands.... ....as long as they get more people Sounds like double-speak to me Let me ask you this, if the Bills don't make any additional moves, and the starting OL for the 2005 season is (in some form) LT: Teague LG: Bannan/Gandy/McFarland C: Tucker RG: CV RT: Williams OR LT: Williams LG: McFarland /Gandy C: Tucker / Gandy RG: CV RT: Teague Would you feel very confident in that group? Or would you have visions of 6-10 running through your head?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 *snoring sounds* urm...huh, wha?.....What am I.... oh..... *snoring sounds*
Alaska Darin Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 *snoring sounds*urm...huh, wha?.....What am I.... oh..... *snoring sounds* 269692[/snapback] You aren't riding on a train, 2 cars up from VA by any chance?
OnTheRocks Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Cause it ain't over yet. 269645[/snapback] i agree that i am happy to know they are still bringing guys in and that shows that management isn't done looking to improve the team... however... this freakin' OL of the Bills is a mess. It is the most important squad on a team that must be a cohesive unit. A group of parts that must work as one. yet...the only thing that anyone can say definitively is that CV will start at RG. i don't want to see 6 different alignments through mini-camps....and 6 more different variations through training camp. get a squad together you are happy with during the first mini-camp, and work their arses off! otherwise they will have the same mess in week one that they have right now....and open the season with a streak of losses.
1billsfan Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 The line play issue will not be resolved and put to bed until the regular season begins. Losman and the offensive line will have to gel quickly for us to become real contenders. That's the beauty of it though, we don't know what we have here. But we do know the other pieces are certainly in place (ie runningback, recievers, defense and special teams)
Rico Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 So you're satisfied with where the team stands.... ....as long as they get more people Sounds like double-speak to me Let me ask you this, if the Bills don't make any additional moves, and the starting OL for the 2005 season is (in some form) LT: Teague LG: Bannan/Gandy/McFarland C: Tucker RG: CV RT: Williams Would you feel very confident in that group? Or would you have visions of 6-10 running through your head? 269685[/snapback] I'm only looking at your first group, as I don't see MW moving to LT....Though I'd prefer to see 1-2 additional upgrades, I see no reason why this OL with JMac coaching couldn't be good enough to make the playoffs. Though there would be some shuffling, 4 out of 5 starters from last year's 9-7 team would be back. The biggest thing holding this team back last year was QB, and the dead weight is gone. Super Bowl? No. Playoffs? Maybe.
jahnyc Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 I am not comfortable with where we are, but let's see where we will be at the end of pre-season. I don't think it makes sense to move Teague to LT. He has not played the position in years and he is three years older. He would be only a stop-gap measure, and that does not make sense to me when you have a rookie quarterback. I could see us drafting a LG and/or LT. A drafted LG may be able to step in and start, but I doubt a drafted LT could. Signing Gandy and possibly Womack may help for depth, but not for developing a strong group of starters.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 10, 2005 Author Posted March 10, 2005 So you're satisfied with where the team stands.... ....as long as they get more people Sounds like double-speak to me Would you feel very confident in that group? Or would you have visions of 6-10 running through your head? 269685[/snapback] I don't think it is double-speak at all. I am confident where we are because where we are still has a whole bunch of things we can and will (my counter question is do you really feel we will go into pre-season without at least one and probably two significant additions to the OL) do to improve this unit. I think that the dumb non-football thing to conclude or assume is think that what we got is where we are in the semi-final reel as far as OL personnel. I actually would not be confident if we went into camp with what we got right now, but even with this group, I think that it can be made to work to be adequate and that what is going on right now is the Bills braintrust trying to acquire talent that would let us become dominant. Righ now, I see the OL roster as: RT: Williams- We are paying him an OL star cap hit contract and normally the RT does not command this type of money.MW will need to prove in the voluntary camps or by the end of the season at worst that he is enough of a player that he can make the shift to LT to protect the QB's blindside (as he did in college with a lefthanded QB) or alternately that JP is mobile. pocket aware, and tough enough that MW need only provide organization and leadership to this unit the way RB made the unit perform better as LG in 2002, The latter is a lot to expect from a 4th year player so I think he needs to show the onfield goods to justify shifting him to LT or he should be cut. RG: Villarial- A stud at his position with a not unreasonable cap hit which allows us to get other players we need. He took one bad penalty in an early game this year (though there is now some dispute whether this was a correct call) but otherwise I have no complaints about his play. C: Teague- There has been a huge upgrade in his performance since his early days as a C in 2002 when he actually could do the indidivual pieces well enough, but multi-tasking and calling blocking assignments, delivering the snap correctly (particularly the shotgun), and taking on a charging huge DT was too much for him to do all at the same time. Last year saw hin be able to do all this things well enough and if he hadn't suffered yet another serious injury (unlike his previous boo-boo it only cost us 4 games rather than putting him on the IR) I wouldbe pretty confident in Teague. I think he is good enough at center, but our needs and his talents can easily see us finding a better one (DeMulling?) and shifting him to LT to fill the JJ hole. I think he was adequate at best as an LT to Denver. However, he was adequate coming off an ACL injury which he seems to have recovered from so I think he will be good enough at LT or C though his injury last year makes it crucial he have a good enough back-up. I also think his center experience should help make him a better LT if he needs to switch. LG: ?- This remains a hole for the Bills but this is one that we have several candidates to fill: A. I think Lawrence Smith was inadequate, but I think that folks need to realize that the leap from the Ravens PS to starting LG is so huge its crazy to expect he would be adequate. What impressed me about Smith was that he seems to be better at pas pro than run blocking which is unusual as the former is the more difficult task to mast uaually. If Smith makes the same iimprovement this year that he made last year he will be phenomenal. I expecthe will not make such a huge jump, but I think he certainly will be a more than reliable experienced back-up and there is a real chance our LG needs can be met by him. B. Tucker was actually an upgrade over Smith at LG and he would be my lead candidate for the job if I did not want him to play the same role as a back-up C (an in a pinch either G spot) he played last year. LT- There is a hole hear caused by the departure of JJ (whom I wish well because he seems like a nice guy but the $5+ million annual contract he got from the Niners is more than the Bills should pay for a player who never played a full season in his pro career even at LT given the huge cap hit of MW), but there are several candidates already on the roster for this spot though a shift of former LT Teague from C moves Tucker up and creates reserve holes or a flip of MW if he is already ready creates an RT hole. In addition to these two whom I think can defineitely fill the spot, there are several players on the roster who MIGHT be able to step up and do so though I doubt it. Namely this is Gandy who played LT for the Bears, Tucker who played tackle when he first joined the league and even Peters who is talked about as a phenom who may be ready though I think this is misinformation for others. Add to that McFarland and even Smith who are really unlikely but have practices as the tackle slot. Add to this mix that there are several folks on the roster who are candidates to fill the Marcus Price primary T reserve role (Gandy primarily) and also Espositio and Pruce who are back-ups at best. Even if the Bills made no other changes I think this year's group is at least the equivalent of last year's inadequate group which almost made the playoffs. I feel good because I feel from that this OL is at least as good today as last year's model and that between internal development of Tucker/Smith as potential starters and McFarland/Pruce/Esposito as potential back-ups, remaining FAs we are negotiating with like DeMulling and Womack, trade potential for Shelton, the draft for prospects, cap casualties come June and the signing of Gandy to play the Price role (though Price is not a goner yet) we are in very good shape.
BillnutinHouston Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Why am I reminded of the movie, "Rainman"? "Kmart sucks..."
Sound_n_Fury Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 The development of O-linemen's a funny thing. Two of the UFA's most people would love the Bills to sign (DeMulling - 7th round) and Vincent (undrafted) had pedegree's similar to Tucker, Smith, McFarland a few years ago. Both guys got thown into the lineup early in their careers and look where they're at today. Who's to say we don't have similar players already on the Bills roster. I'd love to find a starting LG/LT in free agency or the draft. But if it don't happen, I can see the Bills signing someone after the June 1 cuts and going with the current OL group for another year.
scrizyy Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 Translation: I'm happy where we are as long as we don't stay where we are.
obie_wan Posted March 10, 2005 Posted March 10, 2005 I don't think it is double-speak at all. I am confident where we are because where we are still has a whole bunch of things we can and will (my counter question is do you really feel we will go into pre-season without at least one and probably two significant additions to the OL) do to improve this unit. I think that the dumb non-football thing to conclude or assume is think that what we got is where we are in the semi-final reel as far as OL personnel. I actually would not be confident if we went into camp with what we got right now, but even with this group, I think that it can be made to work to be adequate and that what is going on right now is the Bills braintrust trying to acquire talent that would let us become dominant. Righ now, I see the OL roster as: RT: Williams- We are paying him an OL star cap hit contract and normally the RT does not command this type of money.MW will need to prove in the voluntary camps or by the end of the season at worst that he is enough of a player that he can make the shift to LT to protect the QB's blindside (as he did in college with a lefthanded QB) or alternately that JP is mobile. pocket aware, and tough enough that MW need only provide organization and leadership to this unit the way RB made the unit perform better as LG in 2002, The latter is a lot to expect from a 4th year player so I think he needs to show the onfield goods to justify shifting him to LT or he should be cut. RG: Villarial- A stud at his position with a not unreasonable cap hit which allows us to get other players we need. He took one bad penalty in an early game this year (though there is now some dispute whether this was a correct call) but otherwise I have no complaints about his play. C: Teague- There has been a huge upgrade in his performance since his early days as a C in 2002 when he actually could do the indidivual pieces well enough, but multi-tasking and calling blocking assignments, delivering the snap correctly (particularly the shotgun), and taking on a charging huge DT was too much for him to do all at the same time. Last year saw hin be able to do all this things well enough and if he hadn't suffered yet another serious injury (unlike his previous boo-boo it only cost us 4 games rather than putting him on the IR) I wouldbe pretty confident in Teague. I think he is good enough at center, but our needs and his talents can easily see us finding a better one (DeMulling?) and shifting him to LT to fill the JJ hole. I think he was adequate at best as an LT to Denver. However, he was adequate coming off an ACL injury which he seems to have recovered from so I think he will be good enough at LT or C though his injury last year makes it crucial he have a good enough back-up. I also think his center experience should help make him a better LT if he needs to switch. LG: ?- This remains a hole for the Bills but this is one that we have several candidates to fill: A. I think Lawrence Smith was inadequate, but I think that folks need to realize that the leap from the Ravens PS to starting LG is so huge its crazy to expect he would be adequate. What impressed me about Smith was that he seems to be better at pas pro than run blocking which is unusual as the former is the more difficult task to mast uaually. If Smith makes the same iimprovement this year that he made last year he will be phenomenal. I expecthe will not make such a huge jump, but I think he certainly will be a more than reliable experienced back-up and there is a real chance our LG needs can be met by him. B. Tucker was actually an upgrade over Smith at LG and he would be my lead candidate for the job if I did not want him to play the same role as a back-up C (an in a pinch either G spot) he played last year. LT- There is a hole hear caused by the departure of JJ (whom I wish well because he seems like a nice guy but the $5+ million annual contract he got from the Niners is more than the Bills should pay for a player who never played a full season in his pro career even at LT given the huge cap hit of MW), but there are several candidates already on the roster for this spot though a shift of former LT Teague from C moves Tucker up and creates reserve holes or a flip of MW if he is already ready creates an RT hole. In addition to these two whom I think can defineitely fill the spot, there are several players on the roster who MIGHT be able to step up and do so though I doubt it. Namely this is Gandy who played LT for the Bears, Tucker who played tackle when he first joined the league and even Peters who is talked about as a phenom who may be ready though I think this is misinformation for others. Add to that McFarland and even Smith who are really unlikely but have practices as the tackle slot. Add to this mix that there are several folks on the roster who are candidates to fill the Marcus Price primary T reserve role (Gandy primarily) and also Espositio and Pruce who are back-ups at best. Even if the Bills made no other changes I think this year's group is at least the equivalent of last year's inadequate group which almost made the playoffs. I feel good because I feel from that this OL is at least as good today as last year's model and that between internal development of Tucker/Smith as potential starters and McFarland/Pruce/Esposito as potential back-ups, remaining FAs we are negotiating with like DeMulling and Womack, trade potential for Shelton, the draft for prospects, cap casualties come June and the signing of Gandy to play the Price role (though Price is not a goner yet) we are in very good shape. 269824[/snapback] all this optimism and no mention of our future starting LT - Jason Peters
The Jokeman Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I am not comfortable with where we are, but let's see where we will be at the end of pre-season. I don't think it makes sense to move Teague to LT. He has not played the position in years and he is three years older. He would be only a stop-gap measure, and that does not make sense to me when you have a rookie quarterback. I could see us drafting a LG and/or LT. A drafted LG may be able to step in and start, but I doubt a drafted LT could. Signing Gandy and possibly Womack may help for depth, but not for developing a strong group of starters. 269802[/snapback] Well said, I concur.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 11, 2005 Author Posted March 11, 2005 I am not comfortable with where we are, but let's see where we will be at the end of pre-season. I don't think it makes sense to move Teague to LT. He has not played the position in years and he is three years older. He would be only a stop-gap measure, and that does not make sense to me when you have a rookie quarterback. I could see us drafting a LG and/or LT. A drafted LG may be able to step in and start, but I doubt a drafted LT could. Signing Gandy and possibly Womack may help for depth, but not for developing a strong group of starters. 269802[/snapback] Actually. going too deep into semantic distinctions I think I would be comfortable with a description of my feelings on the OL as satisfied but not content. I am satisfied with the course we are taking but not content that that we are done yet or where we are. I'd be dissatisfied if I did not see a logical outcome or a potential light at the end of the tunnel. I'd be uncomfortable if we paid a $5+ million cap hit for Jonas Jennings because allocating that much of our cap to a player who has never played a full season during his 4 years of ball and when we already are overspending for MW based on his production so far does not justify to me taking a risk (a risk that may work out for the 9ers if the warm weather allows JJ to escape the impressive variety of injuries which have cost him starts or knocked him out of games in 4 years). However, I do see logical and doable outcomes for us building an OL. A lot of this comes from faith in JMac being able to do the job if he has the tools. My faith in JMac comes from 3 things among others: 1. He has done it before- He took good but not great talent in NYG (Dusty Ziegler and I believe Glenn Parker taking two examples we knew well) and fashioned them into a unit which advanced to the SB. Making the SB is not mere opinion but a real worl accomplishment. Clearly their RB and QB as well as the D (making up for O mistakes) and ST (delivering field position to the O) had a lot to do with the running and passing of the team being sufficient to get them to the Big Dance. However, our ST and D performed admirably last year so that factor is there for JMac to work off of and I like WM and Losman as much as like Tiki Barber and Kerry Collins. The fact that he has been there before makes his accomplishments last year even more than simply improving over the non-teaching and organizing of Vinky and Ruel. 2. He has a boatload of experience- He has been an OL position coach for 25 years starting with the Bengals in 1980 back when they were good. In addition to the SB for NYG he made it there twice with Cincy. The comparison with Vinky who had 0 years at the position when he took the job and Ruel who had one year after GW's buddy Vinky got shifted aside ain't even funny. It would be fair to say that JMac really has forgotten alot more than most fans know about building a quality OL and training individual players on NFL technique. 3. He did improve the Bills last year- JMac was very good about being clear that he is no miracle worker, but you gotta take into account that the accomplsihments last year were near miraculous. Look back at the particulars he inherited: RT: MW showed many signs of washing out when his grandma who raised him died and he missed all the "voluntary" camps and hurt himself trying to catch up when pre-season started because he let himself get fat from his grief (understandable for a human but not condonable for an adult progfessional). RG: Pacillo (nuff said) C: Teague: Smart guy based on what folks say that made C doable, talented guy who had mobility which allowed him to be adequate at best for Broncos and LT and recovering from an ACL tear which cost him a season, but had problems multi-tasking at center which too often ended him up bowled over and on his butt as a first time center as he had to line call, and deliver the ball to DB (shotgun was a real adventure sometime and thank gosh for Bledsoe's ball handling skills) and block the growing bigger DTs. LG: Brown was gone. LT: JJ showed talent but had never started 16 in 4 years of ball including a couple of years with 11 (he was a rookie though) and only 12 starts. Add to that there were all too many games where JJ did answer the call the next game but his appearances were cut short by concussion, muscle pulls and a variety of mishaps which caused Price to finish the game for him. When you add to this that Teague went down for 4 games, the fact we pulled off enough OL productivity to help WM show what he could do and greatl7y reduce the number of sacks Bledsoe suffered was nothing short of extraordinary and near miraculous. The key question for JMac is whether he will have the tools this year. I am satisfied so far but not content because even with multiple opportunities to acquire tools left for the Bills in '05 the answer is heading toward YES! RT: MW is the starter (but may flip to LT if JMac judges him ready) and he is backed up by Gandy (who has multiple pro T starts) but also McFarland (who is in development and Peters (who is a project) are in this spot. The Bills are said to have given up on Price who manned this spot well last year, but because of the need here and his work, a lot of things are said by pundits which may or may not be true. RG: Villarial is solidly in this spot and shows talent and is an obvious upgrade over Pacillo (I think a lot of MW's improvement is actually that he needed schooling from a player of Villarial's experience but instead played next to Pacillo who needed covering which the young MW could not do). CV is solid enough that the Bills went without a player behind him on the depth chart, but a nick in the Pitts game brought Smith in to back him up. He was the only Bills OL player to start all 15 though he left a couple early (a contussion in Oak that he actually came back from leading to him playing a full game the next week despite being questionable and a rib in the Pitt game). In addition to Smith filling in for him in the Pitt game, Tucker did the job for him in the Oak game. Jasen Espositio is the project behind him. C: Teague is the starter. His improved play and performance of the individual pieces well enogu but a needed focus on improved multi-tasking makes him a reasonable starter. However, we are used to the dominance and stability of a Kent Hull so he needs to be better than reasonable for us to stop complaining. Acquistion of a better C would allow a flip of him to LT where he should be a better player than his adquate performance at LT for Denver because he is even further beyond the ACL tear which led probably hurt him in that Denver looked elsewhere nut also allowed the Bills to get him because he was an adequate player there. If continued healing of the ACL and greater OL knowledge from being a C has improved his play, it strikes me as quite reasonable that his play would merit JMac judging him a fine replacement for the talented but also too oftern nicked Jennings at LT. As far as backing him up, Tucker filled in admirably. Question about how whether Tucker is more than a solid NFL back-up persist however and put into question whether he could be a consistent starter at C. This Princeton boy is bright so C seems doable, but athletically he is at a Princeton level so questions about hims as a starter remain. LG: Perhaps the biggest unanswered hole in the Bills OL in terms of firm answers, but there exist a number of potential options that while I am not content that we have an answer, I am satisfied we should find one from a variety of options which include: Tucker- ended the season as our starter here and despite the disappointment of the Pitt game was productive in his other LG starts during the winning streak. He has not dominated here like we want, but does show potential. Smith- Also does not dominate here, but I don't see why posters simply assess him as having reached his maximum output as a player has this youngster made a huge jump last year from not only the adequate Ravens PS to Bills roster, but phemomenal from Ravens PS to Bills' starter. It strikes me as quite outlandish to have been shocked that he had deficits as our starting LG. The question is how much improvement will he show in his second year. If the level of improvement is anything like his rookie accomplishments then look out. I actually do not expect this level of improvement to continue as him not holding onto the LG job I a likely sign that JMac wnet to him there out of necessity because Pacillo was so bad rather than Smith being so good. Nevertheless, it is foolish to simply assume Smith has done as much as he can do since I understand that the thing he did well was pass pro which is usually the more difficult learn and the area he needs to improve his game is in run blocking where an uptick in his aggression and attitude can improve the performance. Voluntary camp will tell. Gandy- He actually was an LG for the Bears last year before getting waived and maybe this is where JMac and the Bills envision his contribution. Espositio remains a project here at best who gets mentioned because his previous guard play is not linked to a particular side but his previous center play may be a sign he can be slotted in at either guard and we will see if he is good enough. LT: The starter here is also unclear, but there appears to be more qualified options on the roster here than at LG. Teague strikes me as qualified and MW may be, though either move then triggers holes which need to be filled internally and likely externally. In addition to these two likely qualified players, there are a number of projects who MAY fill the gap left by Jj leaving. These include: (not in order of preference since they are all reaches) Gandy- started at LT for the Bears in 2003, McFarland- trained by the Bills as OT prospect but LT responsibility is almost certainly too much for him, Peters- talked about as a phenom potentially ready to break into the line-up at tackle, I think this is smoke to muddle assessment of our needs for the enemy and he has been given the tackle assignment to emphasize to him that better blocking is the key to his development since he is already a skill stud as a receiver and TE, if folks are really serious about him as a tackle then an RT role which frees up MW to flip makes more sense to me that throwing him in with responsibility for the QBs blindside, David Pruce- a project whose bacground is at the LT spot, Smith- I see him as more of an LG, but he is on the roster as a tackle and he actually filled in for JJ at LT last season when JJ had one of his many nicks so this is a possibility though I see it as unlikely, Tucker- orginally made it into the NFL as a tackle though he is more of a C/G on our roster, if we used him as a tackle then RT allowing MW to flip make more sense to me. Overall, I am not content until we have a definite starter at each position with 1 or 2 clear and obvious back-ups. However, I am satisfied by our progress to this point because there is an obvious starter at three positions and a clear candidate for back-up and of the two positions without chosen starters there are several candidates on the roster for the starting and back-up roles. Even better, there are several opportunities in terms of the remaining FAs (DeMulling, Womack) to get back-up or even starter help, the draft for projects, trades (the unlikely possibility of Shelton it seems), an cap casualties to find what we need. In addition to that, there are some unlikely but still remotely possible options who were on the roster last year who have not been snagged yet though they are UFA from the reasonable Marcus Price to the unreasonable Pucillo. I reamin satiafied but not content.
R. Rich Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Cause it ain't over yet. 269645[/snapback] Well put, and you didn't need a 40 minute soliloquy, either.
San-O Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Cause it ain't over yet. I am really pysched. 269645[/snapback] Brilliant! Your happy with the O-line as long as we improve it?
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 11, 2005 Author Posted March 11, 2005 Brilliant! Your happy with the O-line as long as we improve it? 270951[/snapback] Yep, that sums it up. Thanks for the cliff notes! The rest I'm just thinking it through for myself and I find that writing the thoughts down allows me to give it some order. To the extent that folks want to read my rantings because it triggers their own thinking or adds things they haven't thought about or have not been able to give too much time to I think that is fine and appreciate any reactions, To the extent my rantings are just dronings and they pass them by that is quite fine also. To the extent folks find my dronings a waste of their time and they waste their time reading it sorry but I can't control what they choose to read. To the extent they waste even more time responding on TSW to these dronings, well maybe they need to talk to a psychologist about their choices, its beyond me.
Recommended Posts