Offensive Line

[Pyrite Gal]

Talent is what we need.  We don't have any.  Fowler has been a backup.  To have paid him that kind of money was retarded. 

 

 

716731[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. The question is whether that is the type of money that the market was going to pay Fowler for his services. If the Bills judge those services to be an upgrade over what we have and also adequate to what we want from a center, I have no problems at all with the Bills paying him what market demands.

 

I think you are right in that talent is what we need, but I think merely categorizing Fowler as a back-up does not really descibe what his play situation was last year. There are back-ups on their way out and back-ups on their way up and that is the question as to whether Fowler has enough talent or not.

 

From looking at what can be written down on paper, i think a fuller more nuanced assessment of what kine of back-up Fowler was is this:

 

1. The Vikes went into 2005 with the plan that multi-time Pro Bowler Matt Birk would be there center. he was diagnosed however with various sprains and a hernia such that he went on IR befor the season began.

 

2. The Vikes chose 7 year vet, longtime Vike, and previous starter Cory Withrow over Fowler as Birk's replacement. This was not an unreasonable choice as it provided continuity. It is hard to say what this says about Fowler however. he was originally drafted by Cleveland and was well regarded coming out of college where he was a four year center.

 

He did make some starts for Cleveland as a back-up and had some success there as he was the center in a couple of games where RB Suggs got over 100 yards rushing. However, he was not seen as the clear answer at C by Cleveland who drafted highly regarded Jeff Faine from ND to play center. Cleveland management has been so bad that being passed over by their braintrust may not be a bad thing. Not only did Fowler depart for other pastures as an FA when he could, but they even traded away Faine so who knows what they were thinking.

 

3. The Vikes struggled with Withrow at C losing a couple of games badly with him at C. Fowler was inactive the first game but eventually surpassed Withrow and took over the starting C job. In many ways I think it does not really do him justice or assess reality correctly to merely declare him a back-up. He not only took Withrow's job away but actually logged 9 starts for the Vikes last year. They went into the season knowing that Birk was IR'ed and figuring that longtime Vike Withrow and new acqusisiton Fowler could do the job.

 

As it happened, it was Fowler who proved to be the winner of this battle. Most important for asessing our chances this does not seem to be by default. Fowler did get a shot over Withrow after some losses, but Fowler getting the job (first with Culpepper as QB and then with Johnson) the Vikes actually peeled off a 6 game winning streak that ended up with them posting a winning record with Fowler at C. It was a good move by the Vikes as Birk is back and last I saw Withrow was no longer in the NFL.

 

4. Probsbly most troubling for our prospects with Fowler is that he did not finish the season as starting C as he went down with an ankle injury which left him inactive the last two games. One hopes and assumes that the Bills docs checked him out and judged the ankle heeled and not a permanent issue. However, this points out the import of either have second on the depth chart at C geisinger truly develop and be ready to go if Fowler gets hurt again or more likely that natural center Preston is ready to go.

 

5. Overall, it would seem to be a mistake to assume the Bills overpaid for a back-up who was unwanted by the team which had him. All signs point to Pro Bowler Birk being healed and ready to go, Thus, the Vikes would have to pay what the market offered Fowler but likely he would be on the bench for them.

 

Fowler was well-regarded in college (a first day pick at C), started a few games for C in which their run game was productive, but lost out to a pick by Cleve of Faine which was probably a best player available pick by them as many Bills fans were slobbering over him as well.

 

He was signed by the Vikes who probably already saw that Birk would not be available to them in 2005 and they were going to go with Withrow but had their doubts about his ability. Fowler did not attract starting C money or interest as an FA from Cleve. but given that they drafted Faine and how bad Cleve was there were legit queestions which did not make him worth the big bucks unless you wanted to take a risk.

 

It is not unreasonable from a talent perspective for the Bills to take a risk on Fowler for severa reasons:

 

1. His teams produced Ws or good rushing performances with him at C when they lost or got bad rushing performances with other players at C in both Cleveland and MN.

 

2. It is somewhat a concern that other OL braintrusts did not want to invest big bucks in Fowler, but given that the Cleve braintrusts are idiots in terms of results and their helter skelter player decisions and that the Vikes were committed to one of the best Cs in the league, Birk there may be answers to this concern that still allow Fowler to be a good player.

 

3. The wildcard ? is given that he ended last season with an injury, if we are taking the risk with him, the Bills docs need to have made a judgment of the quality of the one they made on WM that his injury is not a significant issue for us.

 

Overall, the scuttlebutt I here of how Fowler looked on the field is that he was pretty good when he played. I think the whole Vikes OL was helped alot by moving to the quicker and judificous release of Johnson rather than requiring the OL to hold blocks indefinitely as they did for scrambler Culpepper.

 

Fowler is a risk certainly but life is a risk and I think based on what I have heard of his performance and background and what I see of his stats and play he is a good risk for the Bills to take.

 

He clearly seems to be an upgrade in talent at C over Teague (who I still think is better as an athletic LT) and may well prove to be the type of C we want if he stays healthy.

 

Particularly under the new CBA where we are going to see the NFL minimum and the pay at all positions go up and the Bills specifically have a lot of cap room to work with, paying $2.3 million for Fowler is a dibable and good bet.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Money's not the problem otherwise Teague would have been great.  Fowler's getting $2.5M/year to play what, center?  If we don't get near top preformance from him, then it has nothing to do with money. 

 

Talent is what we need.  We don't have any.  Fowler has been a backup.  To have paid him that kind of money was retarded.

Uh, Fowler has started 23 out of the 41 games for which he's dressed. But yes, in the 18 games he didn't start, he WAS a backup.

Anderson got more money than Gandy too.  Look at what happened there.

Gandy was a "street FA," meaning he was literally signed off the street. So of course he's going to be paid little. Anderson OTOH was has started 70 of 79 games for which he's dressed and started the full 16 games in 2004.

Peters should simply learn how to play RT before they even consider trying him at LT.  He doesn't even have a full season of OL starting under his belt.  And annointing him the next House Ballard is premature to be sure.

I agree. But then after he HAS proven himself at RT, will you come back saying how "retarded" it was to NOT lock him up when they had a chance to do it cheaply?

[Nanker]

I spent some time (not tons but some) watching Gandy specifically - in preseason and during the regular season. From what I saw, he was NOT the weak link in the line. He played adequately and, at times was quite good at keeping defenders out and occasionally was able to bull rush his opponent. I saw his strength to be better at the pass than the run.

 

To his right, Bennie was a disaster and Teague was not much better. Reyes sounds like he can at least hold his own which will be  a huge step up from fat bennie. I am so glad to no longer see Trey being knocked back into the QB at the snap of the ball. Reports out of Minnesota was that Fowler was a huge surprise but the return of a pro bowl center from injury made him expendable. Their loss, our gain.

 

I have not been this hopeful about our O-Line in many years.

 

we'll see....

716319[/snapback]

 

I'm with you on that... not giddy, but somewhat hopeful as opposed to having to celebrate Dylan McFarland as the 13th Offensive Tackle that TD had active on his squad. (Well, technically they did list Teague as a Center - even though he was an OT, but all the other linemen were listed as OTs - as though TD throught you could put this big mass of bodies into a hopper and have McNally churn out skilled position players all along the line.)

[Nanker]

As for Mike Williams... not only is he not the best OLineman on the Jacksonville (Bucs) - sorry OTRs - and not only isn't he their best OT, he's not even the best Right Tackle named M. Williams! Don't look for our old M. Williams to beat out this guy - Some People Call Me Maurice anytime soon.

 

I don't care that Peters can't Pancake block like MW. He'll be in the League a lot longer. A LOT longer.

[eball]

Why do so many assume that Peters and Gandy will flip-flop positions (or that they should)? Also, I'd really like for someone to post specifics concerning why Gandy is not a better-than-adequate LT right now. My guess is that he is as good as at least 1/2 the starting LTs in the league right now. He was not the weak link in the line last year. I actually think the Bills are just fine on the ends of the line, and only need for the changes across the middle to pan out.

 

Judging by what I've read and seen, there is no basis for a presumption that Peters will eventually be switched to LT.

[Nanker]

Why do so many assume that Peters and Gandy will flip-flop positions (or that they should)?  Also, I'd really like for someone to post specifics concerning why Gandy is not a better-than-adequate LT right now.  My guess is that he is as good as at least 1/2 the starting LTs in the league right now.  He was not the weak link in the line last year.  I actually think the Bills are just fine on the ends of the line, and only need for the changes across the middle to pan out.

 

Judging by what I've read and seen, there is no basis for a presumption that Peters will eventually be switched to LT.

717654[/snapback]

 

I agree. It's probably the KMart Blue Light Special mentality... you know "We got him (our LT) for cheap!" I think there's a far greater probability of them (Gandy and Peters) keeping to their current positions than flipping to their opposite sides. Frankly, I'm more eager to see Peters line up once as a Tackle eligible against the MM Dolphins and crush both Allens in the process of scoring than I am to see him line up on the left side for every game.