Mile High Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 It seems to me they are building the D first. Hey, it worked for Jauron once in Chicago. They rebuilt the backfield/ stocked it for the future. Do we think all the backfield drafting was to prepare for letting Nate Clements go next year? 762722[/snapback] Yes and Vincent, with the Mc Gee extension that will happen.
TDRupp Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Williams and McCargo don't play the same position. One is a one-technique DT and the other is a three-thechnique DT. There was no way McCargo was going to take over the starting job from Tripplett. Who knows if McCargo (or Williams for that matter) will end up panning out but thinking he's not motivated or not good enough before a single game is played simply because he couldn't beat out the Bills premiere FA acquisition is silly. This is all a moot point anyway as Tripplett, McCargo, Anderson and Williams will all see lots of playing time as the Bills are going to rotate their DTs constantly. 762718[/snapback] bingo. about 10-12 plays more than the reserves by my estimate. not much of a difference on the DL, even DE, though Schoel will get the most snaps.
RayFinkle Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Williams and McCargo don't play the same position. One is a one-technique DT and the other is a three-thechnique DT. There was no way McCargo was going to take over the starting job from Tripplett. Who knows if McCargo (or Williams for that matter) will end up panning out but thinking he's not motivated or not good enough before a single game is played simply because he couldn't beat out the Bills premiere FA acquisition is silly. This is all a moot point anyway as Tripplett, McCargo, Anderson and Williams will all see lots of playing time as the Bills are going to rotate their DTs constantly. 762718[/snapback] True, but McCargo played one, two, and three in college. He even claimed before camp he could play them all effectively. Guess he isn't that effective yet.
MDH Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 True, but McCargo played one, two, and three in college. He even claimed before camp he could play them all effectively. Guess he isn't that effective yet. 762833[/snapback] I'm sure given the reps he prob could play both the one and three (I seriously doubt he could be effective playing the two though). The guy is a rookie and the last thing I want them to do with him is move him around too much. Let's let him get comfortable with the NFL before giving him more to think about.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 All 4 could probably play both positions. The Bills however wanted Tripplett and Anderson to start, because they're vets, and McCargo and Williams to backup. McCargo was placed behind Tripplett because that's where they wanted him to play, and Williams was placed behind Anderson.
Pyrite Gal Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I'm sure given the reps he prob could play both the one and three (I seriously doubt he could be effective playing the two though). The guy is a rookie and the last thing I want them to do with him is move him around too much. Let's let him get comfortable with the NFL before giving him more to think about. 762834[/snapback] Its fun to explore the technical aspects of the game for many of us, but in the NFL teams now are pretty committed to getting the best athletes on the field. The Pats even used WRs as DBs when they needed to in a pinch. The Bills took Peters who was a TE in college and when he proved unblockable on ST, made him an RT where he just got an extension. I hsve few doubts that if McCargo had shown himself to be the second best DT on this team behind Triplett they would have slotted him in next to him at RDT or if he were better than Triplett he would be first on the depth chart at LDT.
Lurker Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Kyle Williams: 6-1 295Larry Tripplett: 6-2 295 John McCargo: 6-2 295 Tim Anderson: 6-3 304 762727[/snapback] Statistics are for.... McCargo and Williams play different roles.
ganesh Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I love the fact that Williams is starting over Anderson (who's showed nothing). The problem for me is that McCargo was brought in with a 1st rd. pick and should be in a better position to win the job. What gives with McCargo -- is he not motivated or just not good enough??? 762451[/snapback] I believe McCargo plays the position where Triplett plays.....Since they were going to rotate their DL, McCargo is going to be in lots of plays....Since our DL are small and fast, they won't be in on all 70+ snaps....
inkman Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I believe McCargo plays the position where Triplett plays.....Since they were going to rotate their DL, McCargo is going to be in lots of plays....Since our DL are small and fast, they won't be in on all 70+ snaps.... 762950[/snapback] Yes. Yes. And yes.
Rico Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 They may all see a lot of action within the rotation which is fine for keeping players fresh, I guess, but when it's 4th and short with the game on the line, I don't want to see either McCargo or Tiny Tim on the field.
stuckincincy Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I believe McCargo plays the position where Triplett plays.....Since they were going to rotate their DL, McCargo is going to be in lots of plays....Since our DL are small and fast, they won't be in on all 70+ snaps.... 762950[/snapback] I sincerely hope the defense doesn't have to face 70+ snaps per game.
Lori Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 I sincerely hope the defense doesn't have to face 70+ snaps per game. 762969[/snapback] Amen to THAT. (Unless it's because Buffalo's quick-strike offense has built a sizable lead... )
Nanker Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 What a shame all of Marv's draft picks and UFAs aren't starting. It's probably that they are busts, after all they couldn't win out the starting job from a crummy vet. On the other hand, what a shame any of Marv's draft picks and UFAs are starting. They lack experience and we won't be very good this year while they're learning the ropes at this level. Then again, what a shame any of Marv's draft picks and UFAs are still on the team. Back in the day when The Bills were a perennial powerhouse they would hardly stand a chance of making the squad yet alone starting or contending for a starting spot.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Its fun to explore the technical aspects of the game for many of us, but in the NFL teams now are pretty committed to getting the best athletes on the field. The Pats even used WRs as DBs when they needed to in a pinch. The Bills took Peters who was a TE in college and when he proved unblockable on ST, made him an RT where he just got an extension. I hsve few doubts that if McCargo had shown himself to be the second best DT on this team behind Triplett they would have slotted him in next to him at RDT or if he were better than Triplett he would be first on the depth chart at LDT. Not exactly. Most times teams have an idea where they want their players to play beforehand. Just because McCargo felt he could play all of the positions doesn't mean the coaches agreed with him. And it's all a coaching staff can do to prepare a rookie for ONE position and its responsibilities, much less 2.
Rico Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 What a shame all of Marv's draft picks and UFAs aren't starting.It's probably that they are busts, after all they couldn't win out the starting job from a crummy vet. On the other hand, what a shame any of Marv's draft picks and UFAs are starting. They lack experience and we won't be very good this year while they're learning the ropes at this level. Then again, what a shame any of Marv's draft picks and UFAs are still on the team. Back in the day when The Bills were a perennial powerhouse they would hardly stand a chance of making the squad yet alone starting or contending for a starting spot. 763014[/snapback] What a shame Nothing seems to be going right What a shame Nothing seems to be going right It seems easy to me that everything can be alright What a shame They always wanna start a fight What a shame They always wanna start a fight Well it scares me so I could sleep in the shelter all night Well alright What a shame You all heard what I said What a shame Y'all heard what I said You might wake up in the morning And find your poor self dead
Orton's Arm Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 This may have been posted already but I just found out. I like it! 762341[/snapback] Ha! My sig stays the same. There are still only two starters on this team that TD drafted in rounds 3 - 7!
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Not exactly. Most times teams have an idea where they want their players to play beforehand. Just because McCargo felt he could play all of the positions doesn't mean the coaches agreed with him. And it's all a coaching staff can do to prepare a rookie for ONE position and its responsibilities, much less 2. 763016[/snapback] The Bills are basically only going to have two of those positions, and McCargo is slated to back-up/replace Tripplett on running and some passing downs, and slide over and back-up replace Williams and Anderson on passing downs, sometimes playing alongside Tripplett. All that will matter, however, is who is playing well between the four of them.
Pyrite Gal Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Ha! My sig stays the same. There are still only two starters on this team that TD drafted in rounds 3 - 7! 763088[/snapback] Regarding your sig. Looking for starters drafted between 3-7 seems like a bit of cherry picking. I assume NE stacks up well in this regard since BB always trades for a ton of these picks, but I am curious if you have looked at how the rest of the league even merely the rest of the division is doing with this stat?
Orton's Arm Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Regarding your sig. Looking for starters drafted between 3-7 seems like a bit of cherry picking. I assume NE stacks up well in this regard since BB always trades for a ton of these picks, but I am curious if you have looked at how the rest of the league even merely the rest of the division is doing with this stat? 763100[/snapback] I ought to do that one of these days. But regardless, the point of my sig still stands: - Option 1: you can expect almost nothing from your rounds 3 - 7 picks. If this is the case, TD neglected the offensive line by only using a single pick from the first two rounds on it, while using eight such picks on offensive skill position players. - Option 2: You ought to be able to expect something significant from at least some of your rounds 3 - 7 picks. In this case, TD messed up by only finding two current starters in rounds 3 - 7 over the course of his five years.
Lori Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Regarding your sig. Looking for starters drafted between 3-7 seems like a bit of cherry picking. I assume NE stacks up well in this regard since BB always trades for a ton of these picks, but I am curious if you have looked at how the rest of the league even merely the rest of the division is doing with this stat? 763100[/snapback] Going by H_A's 3rd-7th round standard and the current NE depth chart, here's how the Belichick era looks: 2000: Tom Brady (6) 2001: no starters 2002: no starters 2003: Asante Samuel (4), Dan Koppen (5) 2004: no starters 2005: Ellis Hobbs (3), Nick Kaczur (3) Couple of o-linemen, couple of DBs. Sounds pretty typical. But then there's that name at the top of the list...
Recommended Posts