Sen. John Blutarsky Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Lepsis You think that Orlando Pace and Willie Roaf are a "degree above average?" Not even close imo. 723526[/snapback] I said degrees of above average, as in some are further above average than others. My point with those two is that they, IMO, don't make enough of an impact on their teams to justify their huge salaries. In fact, the size of Pace's contract prevents the Rams from having a better line in general which allows their QB to get pummeled which defeats the purpose of paying Pace that much money to start with. LT is VERY important, I'm certainly not ignoring that. But if you have someone, ESPECIALLY at this stage for Buffalo, who doesn't kill you, doesn't make much money, and is reasonably young why would you spend 6 million per season or more to acquire someone who likely isn't going to impact your blocking as much as you'd like him to, and is older. We need several lineman, not just one and you can't spend 30 million on an O-Line. Example Todd Wade, signed to big dollars by Houston to "fix" thier protection problems. He didn't perform like he was paid and their line still stunk. How many of these tackles that get big contracts and change teams really pan out like people hope? The problem is in order to buy a line you either have to go completely insane a la Minnesota for Hutchinson or try to pick an up and coming player who will make a little less (but still a lot) a la Wade. Mike Gandy is no worse than John Fina and he was good enough for us for a long time, was he dominant? No, but really, think about it, who is "dominant". Not as many people as get PAID to be dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Sims has been a good starting left tackle for a long time for a very high profile team that the Bills have played often. 723549[/snapback] Barry Sims NFL.com profile He played tackle last year but he got bumped out from guard and he is now back at guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Talent is one thing, but talent plus price is another, and more important. It's easy to say Jonas Jennings is a better LT than Mike Gandy, but if we wanted him for that price we would still have him instead of Gandy. But we didnt, and still don't, and were proved right when he only played two games last year. So for my money, guys like Jennings aren't better than Gandy, they are worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Barry Sims NFL.com profile He played tackle last year but he got bumped out from guard and he is now back at guard. 724093[/snapback] Barry Sims, Raiders LT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Talent is one thing, but talent plus price is another, and more important. It's easy to say Jonas Jennings is a better LT than Mike Gandy, but if we wanted him for that price we would still have him instead of Gandy. But we didnt, and still don't, and were proved right when he only played two games last year. So for my money, guys like Jennings aren't better than Gandy, they are worse. 724097[/snapback] I know what you're saying, I was on to Jennings fragility after about the third time he was carted off the field as a rookie, but let's not forget that Gandy was injured in 2003 and 2004 for Chicago, missed time, played terribly and was cut. It's not like he strung together a lot of success prior to last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I know what you're saying, I was on to Jennings fragility after about the third time he was carted off the field as a rookie, but let's not forget that Gandy was injured in 2003 and 2004 for Chicago, missed time, played terribly and was cut. It's not like he strung together a lot of success prior to last year. Yes but one thing to consider is that Jennings had Rusty Jones and STILL was injury-prone, while Gandy did not. And I'd submit that the Bears benefitted greatly last year from Rusty's presence, while now the Bills will benefit from a Rusty disciple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Yes but one thing to consider is that Jennings had Rusty Jones and STILL was injury-prone, while Gandy did not. And I'd submit that the Bears benefitted greatly last year from Rusty's presence, while now the Bills will benefit from a Rusty disciple. 725066[/snapback] Not to dent your argument, I appreciate the value of a good training staff, but Gandy had his good health year LAST year without Rusty or any of his 12 apostles. If he has knee and shoulder problems again, I will be sure to blame Rusty first though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Not to dent your argument, I appreciate the value of a good training staff, but Gandy had his good health year LAST year without Rusty or any of his 12 apostles. I know. And just think how much better he'll be THIS year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts