ganesh Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Three problems here: 2. As good as Preston could become, having any rookie start at C (with a rookie QB behind him) is potential disaster. I'd rather keep Teague there for continuity. 385274[/snapback] Go ask the Pats and Belichek...They had two rookies (one undrafted FA and another 5th rounder) in the starting line during their 2nd SB year... The 5th rounder was their starting Center... You gotta let your draft picks play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 MBD: I really can't speak on behalf of other teams' interests in Bennie, but all I can say for certain is that the Ravens no longer wanted him. They chose former Steeler Keydrick Vincent instead for virtually the same price as Bennie, which to me raises a red flag since Vincent wasn't exactly a hot commodity himself during the first weeks of free agency. One could argue that the Ravens don't know what the he!! they're doing with the OL - and maybe this is true - but one can also say that our Bills don't know either. So far there has been no proof that we do, thus explaining my skepticism. bluv: My "pathetic theory" isn't that outrageous. The idea that Teague may not be any better than Gandy at LT is based on previous results when each played LT once for the Broncos and Bears, respectively. Teague was singlehandedly responsible for 13-17 sacks (can't remember the exact #) in 2001. And the idea that rookies Preston and Peters would struggle heavily as starters at C and LT, respectively, is based on sound statistical logic - more so for Peters who has never played LT even in college. Then again, "success" at a starting position can be relative to all sorts of fans. For example, you strike me as the type of Bills fan that probably thought John Fina and Jerry Ostroski were a "success." All I'm saying is that having rookies starting at the highly cerebral/technically complex offensive positions of either QB, C, or LT brings with it some automatic risk; this risk gets multiplied when you have rookies at 2 of those 3 positions or at all 3. But how you got out of that assessment that I have given up on this season is completely beyond me. Many teams in NFL history have made the playoffs and beyond despite their offenses. Last I checked, we had the #2 D and #1 ST in the NFL. So if Losman and the OL can just minimize their mistakes, we still have a fighting chance at the playoffs. ganesh: The Pats, since 2001, have broken virtually all rules of thumb about the NFL. They are an amazing football anomaly. Starting rookies on the line and expecting solid performances (specifically LT and C, not so much for G and RT) is risky, statistically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluv Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 bluv: My "pathetic theory" isn't that outrageous. The idea that Teague may not be any better than Gandy at LT is based on previous results when each played LT once for the Broncos and Bears, respectively. Teague was singlehandedly responsible for 13-17 sacks (can't remember the exact #) in 2001. And the idea that rookies Preston and Peters would struggle heavily as starters at C and LT, respectively, is based on sound statistical logic - more so for Peters who has never played LT even in college. Then again, "success" at a starting position can be relative to all sorts of fans. For example, you strike me as the type of Bills fan that probably thought John Fina and Jerry Ostroski were a "success." All I'm saying is that having rookies starting at the highly cerebral/technically complex offensive positions of either QB, C, or LT brings with it some automatic risk; this risk gets multiplied when you have rookies at 2 of those 3 positions or at all 3. But how you got out of that assessment that I have given up on this season is completely beyond me. Many teams in NFL history have made the playoffs and beyond despite their offenses. Last I checked, we had the #2 D and #1 ST in the NFL. So if Losman and the OL can just minimize their mistakes, we still have a fighting chance at the playoffs. 386089[/snapback] Kelso's Helmet: My point is that why predict gloom before even watching a player perform on the field? Take Peters for instance he could be a Pro Bowler for all we know from day one and actually be the best player on the O-Line. Let the players perform before you judge them; at least give them that chance. That is why a lot of players do better when they get traded because their previous team and fans have a preconcieved idae about their abilities and are quick to judge and don't give players time to develop. Now it is to the point that we judge players without even allowing them to set foot on the field and predict gloom and doom. The Pats didn't have top picks at Qb, WR or O-line but have won 2 of the past 3 SBs (They even got rid of a 1st pick QB and passed him on to us!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 MBD: I really can't speak on behalf of other teams' interests in Bennie, but all I can say for certain is that the Ravens no longer wanted him. They chose former Steeler Keydrick Vincent instead for virtually the same price as Bennie, which to me raises a red flag since Vincent wasn't exactly a hot commodity himself during the first weeks of free agency. One could argue that the Ravens don't know what the he!! they're doing with the OL - and maybe this is true - but one can also say that our Bills don't know either. So far there has been no proof that we do, thus explaining my skepticism. Fair enough. I just don't think that OG's are hot commodities anymore and no one broke the bank this year (Wahle was an OG, but is projected to LT, so he doesn't count). That's not to say that these guys are great, but I don't think they're all that bad either. And as for the Ravens taking Vincent over Anderson, sometimes new is better to some. I'm sure though if they had to do it over again, they'd have kept Dilfer and not wasted money on Grbac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Kelso's Helmet: My point is that why predict gloom before even watching a player perform on the field? 386122[/snapback] Because this is a Bills message board where Bills fans are free to debate player merits like we're doing now. I'm the type of TBD poster that likes to evaluate Bills players as I think they are or as I think they'll become rather than as I wish them to be. If you can only handle posters who post with rose-colored glasses, then by all means feel free to block me. Regarding the OL, at this moment I view the starting LT prospects for 2005 (Gandy, Teague, Peters, McFarland) as piss-poor. The starting LG prospects are much better (Anderson, Gandy, Tucker, Smith) yet still highly suspect at the time. The C position is secure if Teague is starting, but not if Preston starts. If you feel like this is being overly negative, then fine. But I feel like I legitimately came to these late-July assessments on a combination of past NFL performances and NFL statistical probabilities, not wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Because this is a Bills message board where Bills fans are free to debate player merits like we're doing now. I'm the type of TBD poster that likes to evaluate Bills players as I think they are or as I think they'll become rather than as I wish them to be. If you can only handle posters who post with rose-colored glasses, then by all means feel free to block me. Regarding the OL, at this moment I view the starting LT prospects for 2005 (Gandy, Teague, Peters, McFarland) as piss-poor. The starting LG prospects are much better (Anderson, Gandy, Tucker, Smith) yet still highly suspect at the time. The C position is secure if Teague is starting, but not if Preston starts. If you feel like this is being overly negative, then fine. But I feel like I legitimately came to these late-July assessments on a combination of past NFL performances and NFL statistical probabilities, not wishful thinking. 386242[/snapback] >>>>>I'm the type of TBD poster that likes to evaluate Bills players as I think they are or as I think they'll become rather than as I wish them to be<<<<< Watch out. You can get into trouble for this around here. Btw, I see your point about the LT slot. It is just not reasonable to expect a hell of a lot of success from a Bears OL castoff. Is Ruben Brown still on that team? McNally seems to like Gandy and that is good, but the skeptic in me says that football teams don't just merely discard Left tackles who can play. All we can do is hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts