ans4e64 Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 Except Seymour, name another "star" in this bunch. Woody is not there nor is Klemm. Wilfork and Warren are promising youngsters. Watson is extremely talented and athletic but hasn't put it altogether yet. I don't disagree with the premise of your post, we should be addressing our lines on both sides of the ball. No doubt about that. NE is obviously solid with their starting 22, but what seperates them from the pack is that they're better than most, if not all, from players 23-53. Oh, and as you mentioned, Brady is "somewhat" instrumental in this whole process. Coach too......and Pioli......and......ARGGGHHH f@#$ing PATS!! 608439[/snapback] Seymour is a star, Woody is a star, so much so that he commanded so much money the pats didnt want to pay and almost every team wanted him when he left, I personally think Wilfork is outstanding, Warren has been injured, I think Watson is an outstanding player as well, i bet you would want those players on our team.
ans4e64 Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 well ur forgetting that they are also picking late in the first round when the high profile talent position players have been taken. 608460[/snapback] I think Bill from NYC adressed this point well, but i will also. Are you trying to say that after the first 15-20 picks theres no more skilled players? I dont really know where you're going with this, everybody picked in the first round is "high profile." At the top of the draft when there are great skill postions available there are also great lineman available, just like when it gets to the end, there are pretty good skill players and pretty good lineman, my point being they could still have picked skill positions if they wanted to.
ans4e64 Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 the point is new england sees the value of big men and drafts accordingly. they let woody go because they had a replacement and felt he was expensive. we let jonas go because we thought he was expensive, but had no replacement. by not drafting any linemen day one besides mike will since we put ourselves in a position of needing big guys and having to pay too much for them. the iggles also had a habbit of taking big men every year, they did ok 608552[/snapback]
ganesh Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 However most of those OL are not playing for the Pats....In fact their highest drafted starter on their OL at the beginning o last year was 2nd round matt Light.
BoondckCL Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 The fact of the matter is that you do need "high profile" players on your line. But only one or two. If you just draft blue chip ofeensive linemen you will find yourself bankrupt in no time.The rest is where innovative things like scouting come into play. Another fact is that it is a risk taking offensive linemen in the first round because more than likely they will have a larger build. In college you are not going up against the top competition every week, which gives these guys the opportunity to just work off of their given skills and they don't develop new ones (Example: Footwork). Then they come to the NFL and they develop something that i refer to as the Mike Williams disorder.
ans4e64 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Posted February 23, 2006 Another fact is that it is a risk taking offensive linemen in the first round because more than likely they will have a larger build. In college you are not going up against the top competition every week, which gives these guys the opportunity to just work off of their given skills and they don't develop new ones (Example: Footwork). Then they come to the NFL and they develop something that i refer to as the Mike Williams disorder. 608978[/snapback] that doesnt only apply to lineman, thats for everybody in college
stinky finger Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Seymour is a star, Woody is a star, so much so that he commanded so much money the pats didnt want to pay and almost every team wanted him when he left, I personally think Wilfork is outstanding, Warren has been injured, I think Watson is an outstanding player as well, i bet you would want those players on our team. 608818[/snapback] So let me get this straight. If you COMMAND big money you're a star? Woody was good. Star? I think not. Jonas Jennings commanded big money, HE wasn't a star. Wilfork WILL be outstanding. He isn't now. Watson outstanding? What the hell did he do this year? He's a tremendous talent, he hasn't done anything outstanding yet. You remind me of Paula Abdul. Everyone's a star.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 So let me get this straight. If you COMMAND big money you're a star? Woody was good. Star? I think not. Jonas Jennings commanded big money, HE wasn't a star. Wilfork WILL be outstanding. He isn't now. Watson outstanding? What the hell did he do this year? He's a tremendous talent, he hasn't done anything outstanding yet. You remind me of Paula Abdul. Everyone's a star. Who cares who's a "star" anyway? Players can be very good and lead their teams to great successes without being "stars." I think the original poster's point was that the Pats drafted along the lines, and as a result, won three of four Super Bowls with the help of the top-shelf linemen they drafted. Whether or not the lineman they drafted became media darlings is irrelevant.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 The Pats won their 3 SB's not because they drafted high along their lines, but because they had coaches who could take whatever they were given and make something of it. Prior to this season they had an uncanny ability to plug in ANYONE and still win.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Let somebody else grow these boys into men, then each FA period throw a big bag 'o money at the best of 'em. No guesswork on who's gonna work out, or who's gonna be a bust. Draft a O-lineman in the latter rounds each year to build depth behind the big deals. You can play kids almost anywhere but the OL, and the OL wins championships. Did any of you people happen to see those four SB losses?
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 The Pats won their 3 SB's not because they drafted high along their lines, but because they had coaches who could take whatever they were given and make something of it. Prior to this season they had an uncanny ability to plug in ANYONE and still win. 609185[/snapback] Yes because they have a dominant defensive line. Most of their plugs came in the secondary, but without guys like richard seymour, without bringing in guys like ted washington and keith traylor for a season, and guys like ty warren, jarvis green, vince wilfork. Ne wouldn't have been able to plug in any fresh body.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 The Pats won their 3 SB's not because they drafted high along their lines, but because they had coaches who could take whatever they were given and make something of it. Prior to this season they had an uncanny ability to plug in ANYONE and still win. I'm neither defending nor denouncing the argument presented the original poster. I simply restated it for billsoverdue, who seemed to understand its basic concepts.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 I'm neither defending nor denouncing the argument presented the original poster. I simply restated it for billsoverdue, who seemed to understand its basic concepts. I'm not denouncing the premise that using high picks on the lines is a sound idea. I'm just saying (and this didn't come across unfortunately) that using the Pats were the exception, not the rule.
BoondckCL Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Let me just say once more that it is not important to draft linemen high in the draft. It is nice to have high draft picks on your line but not a neccessity. For example, Howard Ballard was drafted by the Bills in 1988 with a pick in what i believe was the 10th round. I think he worked out fairly well. Linemen of either side of the ball it is important to get the players that can play, but a guy like Pat Williams was an undrafted free agent out of Texas A&M in 1997, I don't know who was the top DT that year. Do you? And by the way, how is Ryan Sims doing in KC? I'm not saying it is a bad idea to draft o-line a d-line early on draft day, as a matter of fact i think it is pivitol to do so. But just because the guy has the title of a first round pick does not mean he is going to live up to that title. New England has a great coaching staff, and that staff is able to work with players and work the system around the players they have, not mold the players into what they want for their system. For another example, look at Denver's d-line, all former "busts" from Cleveland, but they go to Denver and miraculously they are all getting signed to extentions. Once again i think Buffalo should go with Ngata in the first round but also make a mental note of what i have said.
BoondckCL Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Sorry for the last blog and the broken English, it's late and i have been awake for more than 18 hours. Just pick through it, i think you can figure out what i am saying. It's not in Chinese or anything.
ans4e64 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Posted February 23, 2006 Let me just say once more that it is not important to draft linemen high in the draft. It is nice to have high draft picks on your line but not a neccessity. For example, Howard Ballard was drafted by the Bills in 1988 with a pick in what i believe was the 10th round. I think he worked out fairly well. Linemen of either side of the ball it is important to get the players that can play, but a guy like Pat Williams was an undrafted free agent out of Texas A&M in 1997, I don't know who was the top DT that year. Do you? And by the way, how is Ryan Sims doing in KC? I'm not saying it is a bad idea to draft o-line a d-line early on draft day, as a matter of fact i think it is pivitol to do so. But just because the guy has the title of a first round pick does not mean he is going to live up to that title. New England has a great coaching staff, and that staff is able to work with players and work the system around the players they have, not mold the players into what they want for their system. For another example, look at Denver's d-line, all former "busts" from Cleveland, but they go to Denver and miraculously they are all getting signed to extentions. Once again i think Buffalo should go with Ngata in the first round but also make a mental note of what i have said. 609215[/snapback] i cant even take you seriously because you contradict yourself so many times in that last post, it might as well be in chinese. I think John Kerry just gave up his title of the flip flopper to you. You start your post with "Let me just say once more that it is not important to draft linemen high in the draft" Your middle is "I'm not saying it is a bad idea to draft o-line a d-line early on draft day, as a matter of fact i think it is pivitol to do so." And your last sentence is "Once again i think Buffalo should go with Ngata in the first round but also make a mental note of what i have said."
stinky finger Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 The Pats won their 3 SB's not because they drafted high along their lines, but because they had coaches who could take whatever they were given and make something of it. Prior to this season they had an uncanny ability to plug in ANYONE and still win. 609185[/snapback] Bingo. Their whole roster contributes. They get more from less than any other franchise.
R. Rich Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Maybe the Bills should concentrate on doing a much better job of evaluating OL talent, regardless of which round they're drafted in. Just a thought.
ans4e64 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Posted February 23, 2006 Maybe the Bills should concentrate on doing a much better job of evaluating OL talent, regardless of which round they're drafted in. Just a thought. 609384[/snapback] i agree with that also, this goes back to my posts about this bills poor scouting dept.
BoondckCL Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 i cant even take you seriously because you contradict yourself so many times in that last post, it might as well be in chinese. I think John Kerry just gave up his title of the flip flopper to you. You start your post with "Let me just say once more that it is not important to draft linemen high in the draft" Your middle is "I'm not saying it is a bad idea to draft o-line a d-line early on draft day, as a matter of fact i think it is pivitol to do so." And your last sentence is "Once again i think Buffalo should go with Ngata in the first round but also make a mental note of what i have said." 609242[/snapback] The main point of my post - for those of us who are hooked on phonics - is that it is not a necessity to draft linemen high, seeing as Buffalo has had success in the past with undrafted free agents, low draft picks, and so on. Examples: Kent Hull, Howard Ballard, and Jason Peters to name a few. But it is always a good thing to keep in mind. Especially in Buffalo's current situation. The other point that i was trying to make was that linemen don't always work out when they are drafted in the first round (Examples: Mike Williams, Bryant McKinnie, and Jordan Gross) mainly because of their size which limits them to their growth as a player (If you don't think linemen need good footwork, you need to put down the Madden controller and watch real football). And my final sentence about drafting Ngata, it is the only real move Buffalo has to make besides trading down. But based on the lack of depth at DT in this draft, Ngata is probably the best choice for the Bills' position in the draft and the best choice in terms of filling needs The initial argument was that you had to draft linemen high in order to have success in the NFL. I don't call that contradiction.
Recommended Posts