Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Why is there not much speculation about Mike Williams moving to LT? That was clearly the plan when he was drafted, that he would spend a year or so at RT and then move over to the left side. Given Jonas' performance at LT and the slow development of MW, it made sense to keep him on the right side but now Jonas is gone and Mike is supposedly playing up to his billing. Wouldn't that be less of an upset to the OL than moving Teague to a new position and starting a rookie center? So how about it? If Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, why not move Mike over to the left side and let Dylan McFarland or Jason Peters play over on the right side? Seems to me that I would rather try and hide a struggling OT on the right side and put my stud on the left than vice-versa. That is also a lot less traumatic of a change than moving Teague out to LT where he will have to re-learn the position at the same time we try and break in a rookie center like Duke Preston.
34-78-83 Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 IF we get to the point where Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, you will likely see more of such discussion. We haven't gotten to that point as of right now.
smuvtalker Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Why is there not much speculation about Mike Williams moving to LT? That was clearly the plan when he was drafted, that he would spend a year or so at RT and then move over to the left side. Given Jonas' performance at LT and the slow development of MW, it made sense to keep him on the right side but now Jonas is gone and Mike is supposedly playing up to his billing. Wouldn't that be less of an upset to the OL than moving Teague to a new position and starting a rookie center? So how about it? If Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, why not move Mike over to the left side and let Dylan McFarland or Jason Peters play over on the right side? Seems to me that I would rather try and hide a struggling OT on the right side and put my stud on the left than vice-versa. That is also a lot less traumatic of a change than moving Teague out to LT where he will have to re-learn the position at the same time we try and break in a rookie center like Duke Preston. 398352[/snapback] I think moving Mike Williams to LT at this time would be a bad idea. Let's not forget, this is a guy who has struggled every year he has been in the league. Last year was the first year anyone felt he was beginning to pay dividends, or live up to the 4th overall pick that was spent on him. I say let him continue to improve at the RT spot, and if Gandy happens to be a dud, then let Teague move to LT(I wouldn't think he'd have to re-learn the position, kinda like riding a bike you know?), and put the rookie Preston in at C. Everyone seems to be high on Preston so far...but I think putting big Mike at LT could prove to be a disaster...
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Why is there not much speculation about Mike Williams moving to LT? That was clearly the plan when he was drafted, that he would spend a year or so at RT and then move over to the left side. Given Jonas' performance at LT and the slow development of MW, it made sense to keep him on the right side but now Jonas is gone and Mike is supposedly playing up to his billing. Wouldn't that be less of an upset to the OL than moving Teague to a new position and starting a rookie center? So how about it? If Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, why not move Mike over to the left side and let Dylan McFarland or Jason Peters play over on the right side? Seems to me that I would rather try and hide a struggling OT on the right side and put my stud on the left than vice-versa. That is also a lot less traumatic of a change than moving Teague out to LT where he will have to re-learn the position at the same time we try and break in a rookie center like Duke Preston. 398352[/snapback] I don't recall that that was clearly the plan when he was drafted.
DeeRay Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 dude... show me anywhere/anything where Teflon Tom or any coach had, or announced, a plan for Mike Williams to be moved to LT after a year or so. MW has enough to handle RT... and he hasn't mastered that, yet. Don't lose sleep over this LT thingy. I guarantee you, by opening day there will be a body there... and it will be the best body at LT that the bills have.
Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Author Posted August 4, 2005 dude... show me anywhere/anything where Teflon Tom or any coach had, or announced, a plan for Mike Williams to be moved to LT after a year or so. MW has enough to handle RT... and he hasn't mastered that, yet. Don't lose sleep over this LT thingy. I guarantee you, by opening day there will be a body there... and it will be the best body at LT that the bills have. 398380[/snapback] I was referring to the conversation on the board. Certainly, I doubt that if the plan had been to move him eventually to the left side that the coaches or TD ever would have shared that with us. At the time we (not me and Tom Donohoe, me and the other TSW'ers) were thinking of taking him or that guy from Miami, a point that kept coming up was that the 4th pick in the draft was way too high for a RT which is where he played in college. The response was that he was only on the right side because the Texas QB was a lefty so that was where his blind spot was. "Never fear", it was said, "he will eventually be our left tackle" just like so-and-so (A tackle drafted highly two years before who played one year at RT and then moved to LT once he adjusted to the NFL game, I forget his name). The argument then was that we weren't drafting him too high as a RT because in fact, he would end up being our LT eventually. I remember this because at the time I disagreed that he was able to play LT since he always was on the right side. I didn't think the skills were so easily transferable. I worried that the reason he wasn't on the left side in college was because he wasn't good enough to play there and accordingly, we were drafting him too high because he just wasn't all that good. In any event, I am not saying he should be on the left side, I just think it is a rational option should Gandy fail and I am surprised, given how many people back then aggressively claimed he was going to ultimately be on the left, that it isn't a frequent topic of converstion now. On a side issue, if in fact big Mike was drafted to play RT and that was always the intention, did we draft him too high and are we paying him too much?
bflobart81 Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 I don't think the Bills organization publicly announced that as a plan, but there was a lot of speculation in the media about it when we drafted him because (I believe) he played LT in college. If Gandy flops, I am not sure what the sollution is. I think Teague is going to be very important to JP's development (as long as the shotgun snaps can get to his hands) and Peters has NO experience at LT. Maybe try and land Verba if he's still around.
stuckincincy Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 I was referring to the conversation on the board. 398400[/snapback] Nice try.
Arkady Renko Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Playing RT is for TTT'rs, MW needs LT prestige.
Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Author Posted August 4, 2005 I think moving Mike Williams to LT at this time would be a bad idea. Let's not forget, this is a guy who has struggled every year he has been in the league. Last year was the first year anyone felt he was beginning to pay dividends, or live up to the 4th overall pick that was spent on him. I say let him continue to improve at the RT spot, and if Gandy happens to be a dud, then let Teague move to LT(I wouldn't think he'd have to re-learn the position, kinda like riding a bike you know?), and put the rookie Preston in at C. Everyone seems to be high on Preston so far...but I think putting big Mike at LT could prove to be a disaster... 398377[/snapback] Teague played center in college and was a one year starter at tackle for Denver which worked out so well that they sent him packing the next year. He tried out for LT here and lost. Maybe it is like riding a bike but that is only if you have been on a bike before. Looks like Teague was on the bike once and fell off. The center is a tough position, they make a lot of calls at the line as to the blocking scheme to use. Maybe we will get lucky and Gandy will get the job done. I'm just worried by the camp reports I keep reading about him getting beat by back-ups.
Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Author Posted August 4, 2005 I don't think the Bills organization publicly announced that as a plan, but there was a lot of speculation in the media about it when we drafted him because (I believe) he played LT in college. If Gandy flops, I am not sure what the sollution is. I think Teague is going to be very important to JP's development (as long as the shotgun snaps can get to his hands) and Peters has NO experience at LT. Maybe try and land Verba if he's still around. 398405[/snapback] Actually, he played RT in college. Some said because he wasn't good enough to play LT, others, because the QB was a lefty and so his blind side was to the right. The speculation was, I think, based on the not unsound idea that you don't use that high of a pick, 4th in the entire draft, on a RT. Since we did, the speculation was that it must have been because we were drafting a guy who would ultimately be our LT. I don't really recal what the media was talking about then, I was recalling instead the prevailing opinion here on the board.
obie_wan Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Why is there not much speculation about Mike Williams moving to LT? That was clearly the plan when he was drafted, that he would spend a year or so at RT and then move over to the left side. Given Jonas' performance at LT and the slow development of MW, it made sense to keep him on the right side but now Jonas is gone and Mike is supposedly playing up to his billing. Wouldn't that be less of an upset to the OL than moving Teague to a new position and starting a rookie center? So how about it? If Gandy doesn't cut it at LT, why not move Mike over to the left side and let Dylan McFarland or Jason Peters play over on the right side? Seems to me that I would rather try and hide a struggling OT on the right side and put my stud on the left than vice-versa. That is also a lot less traumatic of a change than moving Teague out to LT where he will have to re-learn the position at the same time we try and break in a rookie center like Duke Preston. 398352[/snapback] you are right in that you need a stud at LT. Too bad it's not Fat Mike. He does not have the speed or agility to handle speed rushes as a TR, let alone elite rushers as a LT. Jason Peters on the other hand does have the physical tools to handle speed rushers and although inexperienced is the better LT prospect. Fat Mike does have the muscle and power to anchor a dominant run game on the right side of the line. Willis should never be stopped on short yardage to the right side.
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 He does not have the speed or agility to handle speed rushes as a TR, let alone elite rushers as a LT. 398456[/snapback] Watch more football. Post less.
obie_wan Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Watch more football. Post less. 398462[/snapback] what are you watching? Fat Mike can be a dominant RT. Unless he drops 50 pounds, which will seriously reduce his effecdtiveness as a run blocker, he can't handle speed rushers and does not belong at LT.
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 Does it really even matter too much anymore who is at LT and who is at RT? There isn't much of a difference between the LDE and RDE on many current NFL teams. The Bills are one example. Only 2 years and 10 pounds separate Schobel and Kelsay. And even for the teams that do have big differences between the two DE's, on a lot of plays the opposing D's will flip the two around to create various desired matchups plus confusion on the O's part. And finally, don't forget that we can always place a TE, FB, RB (on passing plays), or WR (on running plays) on the side of the particular tackle who is consistently being picked on by the better DE on the opposing team. Aside from all that, I'd rather stick with as much OL continuity from the end of last year as possible with virtual rookie JP starting. This is best done by leaving MW at RT and Teague at C, which leaves 5 players trying out for LT on the team: Mike Gandy Jason Peters Dylan McFarland - backup at best until he puts more muscle on his frame Lawrence Smith - probably won't even make the team David Pruce - practice squad at best If Gandy doesn't work out (I don't think he will), our best remaining option would have to be Jason Peters instead of MW or Teague (or especially McFarland, Pruce, or Smith). Aside from the reasons already mentioned above, Peters is clearly the most athletic of the 3. He has the size and footwork to be a very good starting T in this league. The only things holding him back are his experience and HIGHLY questionable intelligence. However, MW and Teague bring their own deficiencies to LT. MW has never played at LT either. Teague not only hasn't played there in some time (2001 for Denver), but he sort of sucked at it when he did (14 sacks given up singlehandedly). While McNally continues to work with Peters in preseason and beyond, at least Peters should be able to get by on many plays with talent alone. For the tougher DE matchups, there are many ways to scheme around Peters' mismatch - shotgun snaps, JP rollouts, extra blockers on the LT's side, etc... The point is that having 1 weakness at LT is more manageable than introducing another on the OL when we replace LT with MW or Teague.
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 what are you watching? Fat Mike can be a dominant RT. Unless he drops 50 pounds, which will seriously reduce his effecdtiveness as a run blocker, he can't handle speed rushers and does not belong at LT. 398491[/snapback] I apologize for not being clearer. MW handled speed rushers just fine last season, (contrary to your inference) and was quite likely the best RT in football the last half of the season. His biggest problem in the past was who lined up next to him and the fact that he got clearly substandard coaching during at least his first two seasons. Both of those things have been remedied. I was not implying that he could play LT, I have no idea if he could handle the flip.
Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Author Posted August 4, 2005 Does it really even matter too much anymore who is at LT and who is at RT? There isn't much of a difference between the LDE and RDE on many current NFL teams. The Bills are one example. Only 2 years and 10 pounds separate Schobel and Kelsay. And even for the teams that do have big differences between the two DE's, on a lot of plays the opposing D's will flip the two around to create various desired matchups plus confusion on the O's part. And finally, don't forget that we can always place a TE, FB, RB (on passing plays), or WR (on running plays) on the side of the particular tackle who is consistently being picked on by the better DE on the opposing team. Aside from all that, I'd rather stick with as much OL continuity from the end of last year as possible with virtual rookie JP starting. This is best done by leaving MW at RT and Teague at C, which leaves 5 players trying out for tackle on the team: Mike Gandy Jason Peters Dylan McFarland - backup at best until he puts more muscle on his frame Lawrence Smith - probably won't even make the team David Pruce - practice squad at best If Gandy doesn't work out (I don't think he will), our best remaining option would have to be Jason Peters instead of MW or Teague (or especially McFarland, Pruce, or Smith). Aside from the reasons already mentioned above, Peters is clearly the most athletic of the 3. He has the size and footwork to be a very good starting T in this league. The only things holding him back are his experience and HIGHLY questionable intelligence. However, MW and Teague bring their own deficiencies to LT. MW has never played at LT either. Teague not only hasn't played there in some time (2001 for Denver), but he sort of sucked at it when he did (14 sacks given up singlehandedly). While McNally continues to work with Peters in preseason and beyond, at least Peters should be able to get by on many plays with talent alone. For the tougher DE matchups, there are many ways to scheme around Peters' mismatch - shotgun snaps, JP rollouts, extra blockers on the LT's side, etc... The point is that having 1 weakness at LT is more manageable than introducing another on the OL when we replace LT with MW or Teague. 398500[/snapback] All good points. The game may have changed enough so that LT isn't as clearly more important than the RT position as it once was. Even so, what will never change is that a right handed QB has a blind side to his left. He will therefore always be more vulnerable from that side. The teams in the league still seem to think that is a big deal based on the different cash they will pay for a LT as opposed to a RT. I have high hopes for Peters. McNally said in a clip at the team web site that the main thing you need at LT is an "athlete". Probably typical interview blather but then again, if he really meant it, he figures that if you have a guy coordinated engough and strong enough, McNally will teach him the rest. That sounds like Peters.
Mickey Posted August 4, 2005 Author Posted August 4, 2005 I apologize for not being clearer. MW handled speed rushers just fine last season, (contrary to your inference) and was quite likely the best RT in football the last half of the season. His biggest problem in the past was who lined up next to him and the fact that he got clearly substandard coaching during at least his first two seasons. Both of those things have been remedied. I was not implying that he could play LT, I have no idea if he could handle the flip. 398502[/snapback] It is because of his improvement and play at the end of the year that makes me wonder if he might be able to handle the left. Different skills are required, sure, but we have a good teacher. Then again, I'd hate to be deprived of seeing what Bennie pulling to the right and big Mike can do run blocking on that side.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 didnt have time to read all the long posts but: if gandy cant cut it (and thats yet to be determined) id rather see Teague move over and the rookie take Center
Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2005 Posted August 4, 2005 didnt have time to read all the long posts but: if gandy cant cut it (and thats yet to be determined) id rather see Teague move over and the rookie take Center 398518[/snapback] Call me crazy but I'm not sure it's a great idea to have a rookie center, rookie QB, and a tailback with 11 starts under his belt.
Recommended Posts