R. Rich Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Woodson was selected after Conlon. There was no trade involved that I know of. Later that year, we traded for the rights to Bennett. My recollection is the Bills really wanted Reggie Rogers. 771951[/snapback] Actually, we took Conlan 2 spots ahead of Pittsburgh, who took Woodson. The player in the middle of the two? The late Jerome Brown. RIP.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Carr? Saved the best for last, I see. Yikes. Wonder what he could've been if he hadn't spent the last four seasons being pounded into submission. Bill, the pre-injury Cowart was a frickin' stud, but his running mates (Rogers/Northern/Holecek/Newman) were merely adequate compared to the Super Bowl-era group. Bennett is a lock to join Talley on the Wall of Fame, and Conlan is a big reason I became a Bills fan in the first place. (I'll probably be wearing a #58 jersey when you see me next month, and no, I didn't pick that number because of Villarrial... ) 771668[/snapback] Did you just call Gabe Northern "adequate"?
Lori Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Did you just call Gabe Northern "adequate"? 771958[/snapback] I was trying to be nice.
Alaska Darin Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Woodson was selected after Conlon. Actually, we took Conlan 2 spots ahead of Pittsburgh, who took Woodson. 771954[/snapback] These two statements are different how?
Bill from NYC Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Actually, we took Conlan 2 spots ahead of Pittsburgh, who took Woodson. The player in the middle of the two? The late Jerome Brown. RIP. 771954[/snapback] That draft didn't seem particularly strong, yet somehow Greg Lloyd lasted until the 10th pick of the 6th round. Before his injury, he was better than Conlan, and comparable to Bennett imo. I hope that K. Williams winds up being a steal of sorts. We truly deserve one.
ganesh Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Gallery needs more hair and tats. Dude your overated. 771206[/snapback] One thing in Gallery's defense is that he has been tossed around on that line a lot....He started first at Right Tackle....Then they moved him to Right Guard and I think now he plays Left Tackle.....Considering that this is his 3rd year in the league that is a big change to take.. Also, I personally think that Gallery and Mike Williams were asked to play savior of horrible lines. Considering their lack of leadership (at least in MW case), they were not suited for that kind of job. Whereas in Minnesota, McKinnie was not the main guy (even though he manned the crucial position of LT) and still took him 4 years to develop. At least he had the continuity of having the same line and same line coach.
ganesh Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 A bit of trivia..... The Steelers parted ways with a very good LT (John Jackson) in 1997 or so, but he was not young as is Starks. 771360[/snapback] They also parted with Wayne Gandy, who has so far been good with stints at New Orleans and Atlanta. They know to develop an OL especially for the running game.
R. Rich Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 They also parted with Wayne Gandy, who has so far been good with stints at New Orleans and Atlanta. They know to develop an OL especially for the running game. 772033[/snapback] They've certainly had some success, w/ those guys, the recently departed for Baltimore Keydrick Vincent, and earlier w/ Leon Searcy, who struggled @ first, but then developed into a really good lineman-good enough that the Jags gave him a huge contract to jump ship. Of course, Pittsburgh was also the last stop for our former Pro Bowl tackle Will Wolford as well. The beginning of the end for the Bills was when they let him and House Ballard go in free agency. Now Brett Favre knows how Jim Kelly felt @ the end of his career.
tennesseeboy Posted September 14, 2006 Posted September 14, 2006 I freely admit my bias there. You know why I love Conlan; the senior year was great, and the Fiesta Bowl performance was the stuff of legend. As for his pro career? Ah, if only those 'chicken legs' had been a bit sturdier... 771681[/snapback] I think Conlan was the reason we didn't win the first superbowl. He was injured and didn't play, and if he had, I'm certain Parcells wouldn't have eaten up the clock leaving us with only 19 minutes withthe offense on the field. Conlan could stop the run as well as anyone. In fact, I'm hoping our linebackers and d-tackles become a little Conlanesque on Sunday or we're in for a long day!
Recommended Posts