bills_fan Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Haven't we been trying to address the lines through free agency and later rounds and realize it doesn't work? Give me Eric Steinbach to play LG next to Peters and solidfy the left side, draft a RG in the 2nd round who can be good. Possibly sign a RT if Pennington does not appear to be the answer (we'll have to see, he DOES have the size for the position). Sign a young FA DT. Then, if you used your 1st on Pozlusny, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
R. Rich Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Give me Eric Steinbach to play LG next to Peters and solidfy the left side, draft a RG in the 2nd round who can be good. Possibly sign a RT if Pennington does not appear to be the answer (we'll have to see, he DOES have the size for the position). Sign a young FA DT. Then, if you used your 1st on Pozlusny, I wouldn't have a problem with it. 822184[/snapback] I could live w/ that kind of strategy. Get the interior lines stronger, and the rest of the team will follow.
Scraps Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 hard to say if it has worked or not, only because Peters was taken as an undrafted FA and seems to be working out, Fowler is a decent Centre, and there are some young guys who may be starters in Pennigton, Merz, and Preston that we haven't seen much playing time from yet. They definitly need a couple more guys for the o-line though probably taken through the draft. 822063[/snapback] If Pennington, Merz and Preston were better than who we've been playing, don't you think we would have seen them by now?
JStranger76 Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 That is exactly the way the free agency period would have to play out for me to be on board with the Poluzny pick as well. Say Steinbach and DT Terrell Sands from Oakland and then I'd be on board with the "best available" pick with our 1st. With our 2nd CB or RT depending on how our current situations develope in those two spots.
apuszczalowski Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 If Pennington, Merz and Preston were better than who we've been playing, don't you think we would have seen them by now? 822205[/snapback] No because 2 of them are rookies, and the third is a second year player, they are not going to step in and be dominant from day one, no rookie is gonna do that, but they need some game time to get used to the game to show us if they are future starters Up until now the coaching staff probably didn't want to make any drastic changes hoping the vets would step it up and play better but now that they have seen changes need to be made the had the Bye week to get them in and get everyone acquainted to their new positions instead of just throwing a rookie in with about a week of practice with the first team
Scraps Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 No because 2 of them are rookies, and the third is a second year player, they are not going to step in and be dominant from day one, no rookie is gonna do that, but they need some game time to get used to the game to show us if they are future starters Up until now the coaching staff probably didn't want to make any drastic changes hoping the vets would step it up and play better but now that they have seen changes need to be made the had the Bye week to get them in and get everyone acquainted to their new positions instead of just throwing a rookie in with about a week of practice with the first team 822251[/snapback] This line is so bad they did not need to be dominant from day one to earn a starting job. I am so tired of the weak excuses people will cling to avoid addressing eyesore of an offensive line we've had for the past decade.
apuszczalowski Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 This line is so bad they did not need to be dominant from day one to earn a starting job. I am so tired of the weak excuses people will cling to avoid addressing eyesore of an offensive line we've had for the past decade. 822269[/snapback] I'm not saying it definitly doesn't need addressing, what I am saying is it may not need as much as everyone thinks because we have a couple of rookies who may be able to step in and make this line better. Although I guess around here if they weren't drafted in the first round, or they don't start from Day 1 they are only going to be scrubs
obie_wan Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Who says Nall isn't the answer? That would be the reason why they bring in the veteran QB so that Nall and the Vet would compete for the starting job. Both would be more likely to lead the team over another 1st round pick QB who will take time to develop. Drafting another QB early is just another setback in the rebuilding process, bringing in a vet for a couple seasons just to get the rest of the team built to compete while another QB takes a couple years to develop is more likely. Drafting another 1st round QB (like Quinn) would force the Bills to start the 1st rounder and the condition the team in right now is not a spot you want a young QB to develop in. 822175[/snapback] They could do a lot worse than Patrick Ramsey from the Jets.
Scraps Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I'm not saying it definitly doesn't need addressing, what I am saying is it may not need as much as everyone thinks because we have a couple of rookies who may be able to step in and make this line better. 822277[/snapback] And how is this different than any of the previous 5 or so years? We've had plenty of late round OL draft picks that never amounted to anything.
4BillsintheBurgh Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 And how is this different than any of the previous 5 or so years? We've had plenty of late round OL draft picks that never amounted to anything. 822593[/snapback] We had a lot of picks in the last 5 years that amounted to nothing, don't pick on the oline. So far this year, I think Marv's draft has exceeded each of those prior drafts. If young guys don't know the system they aren't going to play. Coaches would rather have someone who doesn't match up physically than someone who misses assignments. Or say if you're Willis and you don't block well you're not going to see much time on third down. Although they're trying it with him this year. Too big of a risk for sack/fumble or other bad things, man. While the lines need to be good, they aren't the end all be all. See the Vikings this year. Nice lines, not a good record. I do think Stienbach would be a great pickup because of his versitility, his talent and he fits a need. We would pay dearly for him though, but probably worth it. Considering we just got three DT's this year, I think a pass rushing DE to help the young secondary is in order. Classic Tampa 2 end, Simeon Rice type. I don't know where he comes from, but there could be a good one in the first round. My other thought for a 1st round pick is a wr. I think everyone agreed in the preseason that we had a starter and a bunch of number three's. A threat on the other side would help the offense more than an OL, assuming we got Stienbach. Imagine if Evans becomes your number two wr. Somebody should be able to chuck the ball downfield near one of those two guys. I don't think Posluzsny is the correct type of linebacker for the defense and we don't have a big enough hole at LB to fill with a 1st round MLB. MAYBE he'll be there, someone will want him and we'll trade down and pick up some more picks. Maybe. We won't take a safety, that's for sure.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Main focus: Qb. Second focus: offesnive line Thrid focus: Defensive line I think that the defensive line should be our third priority. I think we worked on that enough last year.
Lori Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I don't know about the franchise tag on Fletch. That's going to be an awful lot of money to be used on someone who honestly appears to have lost 1 if not 2 steps this year. I think the Bills should work very hard to ink him before seasons end. I'm sure they could extend him for less than franchise. Has he really 'lost a step', though? Or is it just that he's got Larry Tripplett and Tim Anderson in front of him instead of Pat Williams and Sam Adams? (For the record, though, I'm equally skeptical about burning a franchise tag on him.) One word... Posluszny 821891[/snapback] Ooh. Memories of another Penn State LB wearing #31, back in the day. Be still my beating heart. (Dunno if he'd be the most practical pick, but can't say I'd mind seeing him in a Bills uniform. Then again, my Blue-and-White allegiance should be well-known by now. Fight On, State.)
Scraps Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 While the lines need to be good, they aren't the end all be all. See the Vikings this year. Nice lines, not a good record. 822649[/snapback] They're 4-3 and could have a wild card slot. What do you consider "not a good record"?
Ozymandius Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 If the Bills go defense first round, I hope Alan Branch will have chosen to leave Michigan a year early. He's probably the only DT any team should consider in the first round. Injury-free resume and dominant at the college level for a high-major team. He's probably one of the top 10 players in college football right now.
JStranger76 Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I'm with you on Branch if we go DT in the first. The guy could be the anchor we need and Tripplett is a BUST. Our staff will probably make the "he's too big for this D" excuse though.
Bill from NYC Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 franchise tag `on fletcher ? what are you nuts or naive? ole "london" is way past his prime he d be a excellent special teamer but as a starter hes history after this year ,,do you watch the games ?,fletch leads the team in "TOF" TACKLES ,,THATS TRIPPED OVER FACEMASK,,as the ran by him ...fletch as franchise player ,go back and do your homework.. 821878[/snapback] Thanks for that. I promise to take a closer look on Sunday.
JStranger76 Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 The DT's in front of him have magically aged him 10 years...........
Bill from NYC Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 (For the record, though, I'm equally skeptical about burning a franchise tag on him.) 822703[/snapback] Why? I make the case that the Bills will have a ton of cap room, and a seemingly poor crop of free agents to spend it on. If London's talent is in fact waning, a franchise tag will only lock him in for 1 year, and he wouldn't cost us cap space after the season by way of ammortized signing bonus if they wish to part ways after 07. It will be interesting.
bills_fan Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Why? I make the case that the Bills will have a ton of cap room, and a seemingly poor crop of free agents to spend it on. If London's talent is in fact waning, a franchise tag will only lock him in for 1 year, and he wouldn't cost us cap space after the season by way of ammortized signing bonus if they wish to part ways after 07. It will be interesting. Do you know what the franchise number for MLB will be? Your argument for it has merit.
Bill from NYC Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Do you know what the franchise number for MLB will be? Your argument for it has merit. 822889[/snapback] I'm not sure, but according to Bills Daily, London's cap figure for 06 is 4.9 million. I think that the franchise tag for LBs is smaller than that of CBs (7.4 for Nate?), so the difference in cost over what he makes now might be negligible. I have a hunch that they will tag him for a year.
Recommended Posts