H2o Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/article...ting050407.html Sounds like McCargo is beefing up to be our "Run Stuffing" DT. The really encouraging thing is that the guy is talented, strong, and he's only 23 years old. I hope all of the injury problems are now behind this guy. As a matter of fact, it sounds like our whole DL is reshaping itself. Can't wait to see the effect on how we play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nichebiche Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 no way Pat Williams is only 317. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 This is a scary thought (and not good scary): "Aaron Schobel, a 14-sack Pro Bowler in '06, has lost a whopping 19 pounds this offseason (from 262 to 243). Although that appears quite small for a modern-day end, it means the seven-year veteran should be even speedier in terms of getting into enemy backfields next year -- a scary thought for AFC East offenses, for sure." Schobel was already undersized and I can't imagine anybody with their hand on the ground every down weighing so little. The guy was very good last year, why mess with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Kinda reminds me of what they were saying about Flowers. Oh God, what a disaster that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 This is a scary thought (and not good scary): "Aaron Schobel, a 14-sack Pro Bowler in '06, has lost a whopping 19 pounds this offseason (from 262 to 243). Although that appears quite small for a modern-day end, it means the seven-year veteran should be even speedier in terms of getting into enemy backfields next year -- a scary thought for AFC East offenses, for sure." Schobel was already undersized and I can't imagine anybody with their hand on the ground every down weighing so little. The guy was very good last year, why mess with that? Agree Schobel can disappear at times when taking on big o-linemen, his strength is as a speed rusher, not as a bull rusher. If he is "19 lbs faster" his speed rushing abilities will be even better. On the other hand, if he is just 19 lbs weaker it could be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Agree Schobel can disappear at times when taking on big o-linemen, his strength is as a speed rusher, not as a bull rusher. If he is "19 lbs faster" his speed rushing abilities will be even better. On the other hand, if he is just 19 lbs weaker it could be a problem. He doesn't just use his speed though. Sure, his it's his strength but he also uses lots of other moves to get pressure. His run stopping, while not horrible, was just average. I have a feeling it's going to be horrible next year if he goes into the season at that weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 i seriously doubt he's let himself lose a speck of strength. plus, the comparisons to flowers aren't really valid, because while he's no hall of famer, schoebel's also not a !@#$ing kitty. that's gotta count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 no way Pat Williams is only 317. Maybe his junior year of High School....there's a lot of chicken wings between Pat's current weight and 317 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 This is a scary thought (and not good scary): "Aaron Schobel, a 14-sack Pro Bowler in '06, has lost a whopping 19 pounds this offseason (from 262 to 243). Although that appears quite small for a modern-day end, it means the seven-year veteran should be even speedier in terms of getting into enemy backfields next year -- a scary thought for AFC East offenses, for sure." Schobel was already undersized and I can't imagine anybody with their hand on the ground every down weighing so little. The guy was very good last year, why mess with that? Is Schobel shaping up to be our next OLB? Sure as hell sounds like it. Carricker at #12 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 i seriously doubt he's let himself lose a speck of strength. plus, the comparisons to flowers aren't really valid, because while he's no hall of famer, schoebel's also not a !@#$ing kitty. that's gotta count for something. I wasn't really comparing him with Flowers, just that the description made me think of him again. I'd rather not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 i seriously doubt he's let himself lose a speck of strength. plus, the comparisons to flowers aren't really valid, because while he's no hall of famer, schoebel's also not a !@#$ing kitty. that's gotta count for something. Hope you are correct, but its pretty tough for someone who has always been in good shape to lose 19 lbs without some loss of strength. Not like he was lugging around a lot of fat at 262. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Tripplett weighed 295 last season, but he's now down to 293. Gee that should help bunches. Like Schobel, strongside ends Chris Kelsay (5½ sacks last year) and Ryan Denney (six sacks) have also dropped a substantial amount of weight. Kelsay has gone from 275 to 261; meanwhile, Denney's size has fluctuated from 275 to 264. That departed 25 pounds should mean more pass-rushing prowess for the Bills' DE rotation on the left side, which is good for the entire defense, obviously. Umm didnt I read that the prototype ends were around 270 or so? Maybe not but these two dont scare me as much as Schobel. Someone tell him skinnier isnt prettier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbbfan Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Same thing I was thinking Billsoverdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Hope you are correct, but its pretty tough for someone who has always been in good shape to lose 19 lbs without some loss of strength. Not like he was lugging around a lot of fat at 262. the next thing i was gonna say, is that i have hard time believing he really lost 19 lbs in 3 months unless he has hiv or something...i don't know...something is weird there. i tend not believe he's truly lost that much weight, and i just can't believe he's let himself get weaker. it makes no sense for a d-lineman in the prime of his career. it's just too stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Schobel played LAST season at just over 240, and Kelsay at 250. These updated weights are WAY overdue. Buffalo Bills.com has been showing players rookie weights for years, it's about time they updated this. Before everybody starts screaming BS and wheres your link and all that, I clearly heard the announcers talking about it around the 5th game of last year. They were saying Schobel was talking about his weight loss for the new scheme and how it also helped Kelsay even more than himself. Don't worry so much people, most of these "new" weights are long overdue and were already being played at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Tripplett weighed 295 last season, but he's now down to 293. Gee that should help bunches. Like Schobel, strongside ends Chris Kelsay (5½ sacks last year) and Ryan Denney (six sacks) have also dropped a substantial amount of weight. Kelsay has gone from 275 to 261; meanwhile, Denney's size has fluctuated from 275 to 264. That departed 25 pounds should mean more pass-rushing prowess for the Bills' DE rotation on the left side, which is good for the entire defense, obviously. Umm didnt I read that the prototype ends were around 270 or so? Maybe not but these two dont scare me as much as Schobel. Someone tell him skinnier isnt prettier. Both of the Bears DE's are listed at 260, while Dwight Frenney and Simeon Rice, both of whom play in Cover 2 defenses, are listed at 268 (but probably weigh less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 The playmaking Crowell, who has been around 235 pounds during his four-year career, is now up to 246. That's no doubt great news for defensive coordinator Perry Fewell, who could be coaching a big-time player in Crowell. If the ex-Virginia standout can stay healthy (he missed four games last season), he could be a Lance Briggs-type player for the Bills in the future; he's truly that talented. This is extraordinarily upbeat. Is Crowell potentially that good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I 90 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 This is extraordinarily upbeat.Is Crowell potentially that good? If McCargo shows up as a run stopper the new linebacking corps will at least get a chance to demonstrate that potential. But Crowell... weighs more... than Schobel ? This is Bizarro world. Strength can only do so much when giving away 60 or 80 pounds 50 times a game. I hope this Conor fella' has a bad source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmdevisser Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 if this has been his weight for a while and the bills really are just now getting around to updating that, it makes a lot of sense ... notice that schobel's sacks were a career best last year but his run support and bull rushing seemed to regress last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Is Schobel shaping up to be our next OLB? Sure as hell sounds like it. Carricker at #12 anyone? That would be a horrible move. he had 14 sacks last year plus i doubt he has any cover skills Also i never thought we needed a DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts