Pyrite Gal Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 A very thoughtful post from R. Rich which lays out the general notion that as no one player/position improvement will put the Bills over the top, but improving a variety of positions with the very good but not great players we will likely be able to get will not hurt our team building at all is a good one, This sensible view if taken forces us away from the notion that we MUST choose a particular player by trading up or trading down, but we can see how reality develops (reality is a pesky thing) and simply try to do the right thing (this may be trading down, making a pick depending upon who is left and who slips as we approach our pick, or even trading up as it becomes more clear if a player who is top 5 on our board slips to #8. This view is frustrating I am sure for the over-active poster such as myself IF one has a point of view that wants a particular player or position (fortunately I do not have my eye on any one player or any one position so I am not driven to make my usual repetitive case for some pick). It also must be frustrating for the legends in their own mind out there who think and argue they have it all figured out, even though the draft is a huge multi-variable equation and usually a surprise happens somewhere in the top 20 (like the run on safeties which led to 3 being picked in the top 15 year before last when some argue safeties should not be taken to round 2 and even more reasonable folks had Whitner (who has been the class of the safeties taken so far) meriting a pick in the 20s). It is fun to mock draft and theorize but it is even more fun because reality usually renders most mocks as being silly notions by pick #10. Though inspired by an earlier post I put this up separately as I think through this new model of looking at things for me and of course to invite any comments helpful or the weird certainty which sometime echoes loudly on TSW (drop dead certainty often strikes me as odd since I think specifically this is all interesting because it is impossible to know exactly what reality will be and different realities are totally legitimate ways to proceed depending upon what happens- ex. picking Whitner at #8 was totally whacky if Huff was also still on the board AND there were good opportunities to trade down and still get one of the two, however, with Oak surprising folks and taking Huff at #7 the Bills were simply forced to fill their safety hole by taking Whitner at #8 as he likely would not have made it to #10 as DET at #9 was looking for a safety. Fortunately for us Whitner has proved to be noticeably better than Huff so this way early pick of the second safety in the draft in retrospect was the right move- though after 2 years it really is a year too early to draw legit conclusions. At any rate, I am more than happy to leave it to the mods to deal with folding this into the Rich threat which prompted it if they wish. At any rate, my thinking now revolve around assessing where the Bills are at particular positions (fairly typical assessment), but also articulating for myself where they are in terms of the quality of a plan B and a plan C at each position. I then factor this against my sense of the quality of the players and who is likely to be available (a virtual total crapshoot as I do not know the needs of other teams as well as I feel I know the Bills) and the results of this multi-variable equation leads me to be comfortable or uncomfortable with various mocks. Specifically, my sense is (this is presented in the order of the Depth Chart at Bills Daily and is not a statement of the importance IMHO of particular positions): OFFENSE Quarterbacks- Plan A- adequate, Plan B- Adequate, Plan C- who knows. Edwards has not yet done enough on the field to earn the title of a solid starter, but he has outstanding potential and deserves the starter shot though I expect him to be a second year player with the ups and downs that come with this. Losman called himself out in the Jax game as a make or break and he broke. Though his career as a starter as a Bill is done (I think he has great athletic talents and a fair chance to do well in a different situation though he is done as a starter here) he is a former NFL starting QB who if we do not get a good deal for him (this must include us being able to sign a viable back-up) he has the talents to fill in for us in spots if we need it. Hamdan is an unknown quantity with a fun name. I will be happy if he is seen from time to time but never heard from. I see no need to worry about this position for draft purposes. Tight End- Plan A- inadequate, Plan B- inadequate, Plan C- Nonexistent The player quality at this position leaves me longing for an approach like the St. Louis Rams where until their acquisition of McMichael last year this team would get a reception or two from the TE. If Schonert plans to run a more traditional offense using the TE as a receiver then a receiving TE is one of our primary needs. The unfortunate thing is that no TE is likely worthy of a 1st rounder and even though folks like Bennet, Kellar, or Davis MAY one day be very good pros, none are so drop dead certain that one would want to build an offense around them and we dod not even has a good plan B TE receiver as Royal is a consistent blocker at best. We showed some flashes of good receiving production out of the TE slot in a couple of Edwards game (though one of my favorite plays of last year was Fowler/JP muffing the snap but JP showing great athleticism picking it up on the bounce and great QB skills keeping looking downfield and then hitting Gaines who stuck with getting open to catch the pass, but Gaines is gone and Royal has been inconsistent so we need something different to happen here. Ironically, if we solve this issue, the big beneficiary will likely be our pass D production as an effective mid-short zone passing game reduce the number of 3 and outs we have. Getting a working TE threat would improve our pass D productivity far more than getting a CB who can cover WRs all over the field IMHO because we rarely use the CB in this role in our version of the Cover 2. Our draft needs really depends on what Schonert is going to try to do. RB- Plan A- Very Good, Plan B- Very Good, Plan C- Adequate I think Lynch has an impressive rookie year and if we use the receiving skills he showed in college (which we never did consistently using the Fairchild O regardless of who the QB was.) he can become a legit Pro Bowler. Jackson is a great plan B who not only subs well from play to play, bu can even peel off a 100 yard game. Wright has the unusual talent combo of being a good receiver and good short yardage back in college but we need to find an effective way employ these skills No draft need here, but a big coaching task for the OC to develop a scheme which uses them as receivers and the position coach to train these very young players to realize receiving talents as pros they showed in college. No draft needs at RB. FB Plan A- Inadequate, Plan B- Inadequate Barnes is a journeyman and Evans is a journeyman in training. The main thing which makes me doubt that the Bills will not pursue a TE who is more of an offensive threat is that it seems pretty clear that FB in not only not an offensive threat but even marginal for pass blocking ability. No ability in this draft to even meet our FB needs if this were to be made a key to our offense. We are most likely to employ Wright as our short yardage guy and go with a HB set-up that merges our inadequacies at TE with our inadequacies at FB. Wide Receivers Plsn A:- Adequate to very good, Plan B: Non-existent Plan C: Good to very good, Plan D: Adequate, Plan E: Inadequate The lack of receiving threats on this team at FB and TE our failure under Fairchild to effectively use the RBs ar receivers (be it the failure to effectively bring production from Lynch as a receiver despite good college chops and regardless of which QB was in and even seeing far better us of Willis as a receiver in Balt than here) means we likely will need to get a lot of production from our WRs. Evans had great chemistry with JP but needs to develop the same effective deep passing production with Edwards. His loyalty to JP was admirable but approached hissy-fits due to his lack of clicking with Edwards and his FA status next year looming large. The lack of us having an effective threat at #2 is not only a problem in itself but makes the multi-variable Evans equation impossible to solve correctly without credible #2 production. Parrish has great explosiveness and open field ability demonstrated in his PRs and some quick slants. He also has shown himself to be a tough and becoming reliable receiver over the middle (very impressive for a little guy). Reed is a very talented #4, but is not a speed threat at #3 and is overmatched as a #2. If we see injuries like in the past and given ST needs, the #5 WR is more than a mere afterthought. I like both Jenkins and Mayle as good competitors who if the show ST production are great to have. I see us needing two good players at WR from this draft. Though this draft does not have anyone I see as worthy of a #12 pick at WR we should be able to find two first day choices to fill out our WR needs. Guards- Plan A: Adequate could be very good, Plan B: (really A prime) adequate good be good. Plan C: Journeyman could be adequate, Plan D: Disappointment as starter could be adequate, Overall chemistry and health will be key. Dockery has gotten the big bucks and while he has not yet developed into a Kent Hullesque leader of this unit by performance or respect, it would be still be silly to demand he produce this in his first year. For now, I think folks feel there was a clear upgrade in OL play and Dockery though we are paying him a ton was a clear important part of that upgrade. His fellow guard the very young Butler was also impressive, but is still learning and ain't there yet but there are reasons to be hopeful. Whittles injury meant that our main back-up G questions are not answered though he has the experience to fill this role. Yet, he is old enough that it may be this injury is just the first in a string which makes him not an answer for us. The other guard Preston is simply a disappointment, but actually he showed enough that he got a shot though he proved not be starting material. yet we are looking for a #3 G at most so his failure as a starting answer does not necessarily mean he can not be good enough to be the #4 (or maybe the #3 G. You can never have enough depth on your OL and a G is a good thing for us to get if we think he can become a solid back-up. Tackles- Plan A- Excellent. Plan B (A prime)- adequate, Plan C- Inadequate Plan D- Inadequate Peters being drafted by a UDFA TE and then being convinced and supported by JMac to switch to LT is a piece of great work that should leave folks satisfied with what JMac brought to the Bills despite his not repeating his SB OL performance he produced for NYG with a bunch of has been OL players. Walker is a huge man (and it is really hard to teach huge) who also shows signs of coming into his own as an RT. Nevertheless injuries are a constant concern even if the starters do not make it a worry and our two back-up Ts ain't there yet. A tried and true vet on his way out might have been a better patch to have but increased OL depth and in particular at T is needed so this may be a draft need Centers- Plan A- Adequate (but we want and need more) Plan B- Adequate (barely if that). I think Fowler has done an OK job in his play and our OL situation is improved from under its previous guidance at center. I think he has proved to be far more durable than his earlier career indicated. That being said if we want our OL to be dominant we will need a more dominant center than Fowler. I think many fans realize that and some in an attempt to advocate that over-reach and claim Fowler sucks and cannot play. I disagree in that I say his play so far has been adequate and he is very mobile which would hold us in better stead if we used his skills more with pulling center runs to the outside or used a mobile pocket for a QB of JPs strengths and weakenesses. However, unless Schonert changes our offensive style our game does not fit Fowler that well. Add to that back-up Preston's disappointing performance in an effort to have him start at G. Again folks are overclaiming seeming to say that because he is not good enough to start consistently at G he cannot be an adequate back-up Center. Actually the C spot is his natural spot and even if him being back-up C is not anyone's preference and he/we will be in trouble if he Foler goes down for multiple games rather than giving him an ocaisional blow or one or two spot starts then we might be in trouble (as most teams would be if their starting C went down. Center is not a draft priority but we should be on the look out if a quality C slips and to look for a development project for next year or so, L DEFENSE - I'll work on that tomorrow. Ends Tackles Outside LBs Middle LBs Aaron Schobel Marcus Stroud Angelo Crowell Paul Pozluszny Chris Kelsay John McCargo Kawika Mitchell John DiGiorgio Ryan Denney Spencer Johnson Keith Ellison Copeland Bryan Kyle Williams Blake Costanzo Ryan Neill Jason Jefferson Shaun Nua Corey Mace Daniel Watts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerback Strong Safety Free Safety Terrence McGee Donte Whitner Ko Simpson Jabari Greer Bryan Scott Bryan Scott William James John Wendling George Wilson Ashton Youboty Jon Corto Jon Corto Dustin Fox SPECIAL TEAMS Kicker Punter Punt Returner Kick Returner Rian Lindell Brian Moorman Roscoe Parrish Terrence McGee D.J. Fitzpatrick D.J. Fitzpatrick Fred Jackson Roscoe Parrish Fred Jackson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snapper Holder Ryan Neill Brian Moorman Duke Preston
Horus Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 I'm sorry Pyrite but your paragraph long run-on sentences and obsessive use of parenthesis in every paragraph, not alone have parenthesis inside of parenthesis, just dumbfounds me....I can never concentrate on any of your posts...sry I tried and failed
Buffan00 Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 I'm sorry Pyrite but your paragraph long run-on sentences and obsessive use of parenthesis in every paragraph, not alone have parenthesis inside of parenthesis, just dumbfounds me....I can never concentrate on any of your posts...sry I tried and failed Agreed
obie_wan Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 I'm sorry Pyrite but your paragraph long run-on sentences and obsessive use of parenthesis in every paragraph, not alone have parenthesis inside of parenthesis, just dumbfounds me....I can never concentrate on any of your posts...sry I tried and failed let me help you out. this is what he should have concluded - The Bills absolutely must draft impact playmakers with their 1st 2 picks. It does not matter at what position. Getting marginal starters is not good enough since it is cost prohibitive to trade for or sign free agent superstars. Targeting a 2nd tier WR (with injuries) to be a WR#2 just because he is tall would be a continuation of the stupid decisions made in the past.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 14, 2008 Author Posted April 14, 2008 I'm sorry Pyrite but your paragraph long run-on sentences and obsessive use of parenthesis in every paragraph, not alone have parenthesis inside of parenthesis, just dumbfounds me....I can never concentrate on any of your posts...sry I tried and failed Sorry. When I do part 2, i will try to focus a little more on presentation rather than simply thinking out loud.
tennesseeboy Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 Sorry. When I do part 2, i will try to focus a little more on presentation rather than simply thinking out loud. Actually it kind of boils down to a WR, a TE, and possibly a fullback. That pretty well locks up choices through the first four rounds. Any kind of help after that will be a tribute to very good recruiting and research. We have question marks beyond that but let's be real and think of getting more than three quality starters is very wishful thinking (although it has been done on occassion.)
SuperKillerRobots Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 Good analysis Pyrite, that must have taken a while. I think you are dead on with the idea of having to draft impact players with the first day picks this year. Good teams seem to have more of a see what falls approach to the draft (of course this is a lot easier when you have a good team) and then fill in with FAs. I do disagree with some of your assessments however. For instance, I seriously doubt that there is a better #4 WR in the league than Josh Reed. Say what you want about him as a #1 or #2 but he is one of the top 15 in the league out of the slot (not including when starters line up there), as is Parish. The fact that neither of them can play the outside does not mean they are not good, just not at that position. I think the WR position should be looked at as two or three different positions instead of one. I also think tha tthe back up TE position is fine (with Royal) but the starter could be upgraded (same thing as I said with WR).
Dr. Trooth Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 picking Whitner at #8 was totally whacky if Huff was also still on the board AND there were good opportunities to trade down and still get one of the two, however, with Oak surprising folks and taking Huff at #7 the Bills were simply forced to fill their safety hole by taking Whitner at #8 as he likely would not have made it to #10 as DET at #9 was looking for a safety. . From news of a couple years back, Bills had no interest in Huff... at all. Whitner was in their crosshairs all along. They thought they might be able to trade down to #12 and get him. But, with the Raiders taking Huff, the Bills panicked and took Whitner. The story is, had the Raiders not taken Huff, the Bills were sure the Lions would have and would have been comfortable moving down 4 spots and getting Whitner anyway. As far as R Rich's tune... it is sage advice. He's spot on. There is no single player that is going to get the Bills to to the promised land any time soon. They need a lot of players in many places. they need depth and players that can make a quantum leap a year and two years from now at DT,LB,CB,WR,TE,OL,FB,QB. Folks tend to forget this team is young and just establishing it's core identity on offense with Edwards and Lynch... We're not sure if, or how, Evans may factor into the mix, but that will come to light during the season. Defensively the Bills are quietly establishing their core as Poz, McCargo, Whitner, Kelsay, and Shobel. Stroud is a temporary fix, unless he proves otherwise. Crowell, Greer, McGee may be in the same situation as Evans.
SABURZFAN Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 A very thoughtful post from R. Rich which lays out the general notion that as no one player/position improvement will put the Bills over the top, but improving a variety of positions with the very good but not great players we will likely be able to get will not hurt our team building at all is a good one, This sensible view if taken forces us away from the notion that we MUST choose a particular player by trading up or trading down, but we can see how reality develops (reality is a pesky thing) and simply try to do the right thing (this may be trading down, making a pick depending upon who is left and who slips as we approach our pick, or even trading up as it becomes more clear if a player who is top 5 on our board slips to #8. This view is frustrating I am sure for the over-active poster such as myself IF one has a point of view that wants a particular player or position (fortunately I do not have my eye on any one player or any one position so I am not driven to make my usual repetitive case for some pick). It also must be frustrating for the legends in their own mind out there who think and argue they have it all figured out, even though the draft is a huge multi-variable equation and usually a surprise happens somewhere in the top 20 (like the run on safeties which led to 3 being picked in the top 15 year before last when some argue safeties should not be taken to round 2 and even more reasonable folks had Whitner (who has been the class of the safeties taken so far) meriting a pick in the 20s). It is fun to mock draft and theorize but it is even more fun because reality usually renders most mocks as being silly notions by pick #10. Though inspired by an earlier post I put this up separately as I think through this new model of looking at things for me and of course to invite any comments helpful or the weird certainty which sometime echoes loudly on TSW (drop dead certainty often strikes me as odd since I think specifically this is all interesting because it is impossible to know exactly what reality will be and different realities are totally legitimate ways to proceed depending upon what happens- ex. picking Whitner at #8 was totally whacky if Huff was also still on the board AND there were good opportunities to trade down and still get one of the two, however, with Oak surprising folks and taking Huff at #7 the Bills were simply forced to fill their safety hole by taking Whitner at #8 as he likely would not have made it to #10 as DET at #9 was looking for a safety. Fortunately for us Whitner has proved to be noticeably better than Huff so this way early pick of the second safety in the draft in retrospect was the right move- though after 2 years it really is a year too early to draw legit conclusions. At any rate, I am more than happy to leave it to the mods to deal with folding this into the Rich threat which prompted it if they wish. At any rate, my thinking now revolve around assessing where the Bills are at particular positions (fairly typical assessment), but also articulating for myself where they are in terms of the quality of a plan B and a plan C at each position. I then factor this against my sense of the quality of the players and who is likely to be available (a virtual total crapshoot as I do not know the needs of other teams as well as I feel I know the Bills) and the results of this multi-variable equation leads me to be comfortable or uncomfortable with various mocks. Specifically, my sense is (this is presented in the order of the Depth Chart at Bills Daily and is not a statement of the importance IMHO of particular positions): OFFENSE Quarterbacks- Plan A- adequate, Plan B- Adequate, Plan C- who knows. Edwards has not yet done enough on the field to earn the title of a solid starter, but he has outstanding potential and deserves the starter shot though I expect him to be a second year player with the ups and downs that come with this. Losman called himself out in the Jax game as a make or break and he broke. Though his career as a starter as a Bill is done (I think he has great athletic talents and a fair chance to do well in a different situation though he is done as a starter here) he is a former NFL starting QB who if we do not get a good deal for him (this must include us being able to sign a viable back-up) he has the talents to fill in for us in spots if we need it. Hamdan is an unknown quantity with a fun name. I will be happy if he is seen from time to time but never heard from. I see no need to worry about this position for draft purposes. Tight End- Plan A- inadequate, Plan B- inadequate, Plan C- Nonexistent The player quality at this position leaves me longing for an approach like the St. Louis Rams where until their acquisition of McMichael last year this team would get a reception or two from the TE. If Schonert plans to run a more traditional offense using the TE as a receiver then a receiving TE is one of our primary needs. The unfortunate thing is that no TE is likely worthy of a 1st rounder and even though folks like Bennet, Kellar, or Davis MAY one day be very good pros, none are so drop dead certain that one would want to build an offense around them and we dod not even has a good plan B TE receiver as Royal is a consistent blocker at best. We showed some flashes of good receiving production out of the TE slot in a couple of Edwards game (though one of my favorite plays of last year was Fowler/JP muffing the snap but JP showing great athleticism picking it up on the bounce and great QB skills keeping looking downfield and then hitting Gaines who stuck with getting open to catch the pass, but Gaines is gone and Royal has been inconsistent so we need something different to happen here. Ironically, if we solve this issue, the big beneficiary will likely be our pass D production as an effective mid-short zone passing game reduce the number of 3 and outs we have. Getting a working TE threat would improve our pass D productivity far more than getting a CB who can cover WRs all over the field IMHO because we rarely use the CB in this role in our version of the Cover 2. Our draft needs really depends on what Schonert is going to try to do. RB- Plan A- Very Good, Plan B- Very Good, Plan C- Adequate I think Lynch has an impressive rookie year and if we use the receiving skills he showed in college (which we never did consistently using the Fairchild O regardless of who the QB was.) he can become a legit Pro Bowler. Jackson is a great plan B who not only subs well from play to play, bu can even peel off a 100 yard game. Wright has the unusual talent combo of being a good receiver and good short yardage back in college but we need to find an effective way employ these skills No draft need here, but a big coaching task for the OC to develop a scheme which uses them as receivers and the position coach to train these very young players to realize receiving talents as pros they showed in college. No draft needs at RB. FB Plan A- Inadequate, Plan B- Inadequate Barnes is a journeyman and Evans is a journeyman in training. The main thing which makes me doubt that the Bills will not pursue a TE who is more of an offensive threat is that it seems pretty clear that FB in not only not an offensive threat but even marginal for pass blocking ability. No ability in this draft to even meet our FB needs if this were to be made a key to our offense. We are most likely to employ Wright as our short yardage guy and go with a HB set-up that merges our inadequacies at TE with our inadequacies at FB. Wide Receivers Plsn A:- Adequate to very good, Plan B: Non-existent Plan C: Good to very good, Plan D: Adequate, Plan E: Inadequate The lack of receiving threats on this team at FB and TE our failure under Fairchild to effectively use the RBs ar receivers (be it the failure to effectively bring production from Lynch as a receiver despite good college chops and regardless of which QB was in and even seeing far better us of Willis as a receiver in Balt than here) means we likely will need to get a lot of production from our WRs. Evans had great chemistry with JP but needs to develop the same effective deep passing production with Edwards. His loyalty to JP was admirable but approached hissy-fits due to his lack of clicking with Edwards and his FA status next year looming large. The lack of us having an effective threat at #2 is not only a problem in itself but makes the multi-variable Evans equation impossible to solve correctly without credible #2 production. Parrish has great explosiveness and open field ability demonstrated in his PRs and some quick slants. He also has shown himself to be a tough and becoming reliable receiver over the middle (very impressive for a little guy). Reed is a very talented #4, but is not a speed threat at #3 and is overmatched as a #2. If we see injuries like in the past and given ST needs, the #5 WR is more than a mere afterthought. I like both Jenkins and Mayle as good competitors who if the show ST production are great to have. I see us needing two good players at WR from this draft. Though this draft does not have anyone I see as worthy of a #12 pick at WR we should be able to find two first day choices to fill out our WR needs. Guards- Plan A: Adequate could be very good, Plan B: (really A prime) adequate good be good. Plan C: Journeyman could be adequate, Plan D: Disappointment as starter could be adequate, Overall chemistry and health will be key. Dockery has gotten the big bucks and while he has not yet developed into a Kent Hullesque leader of this unit by performance or respect, it would be still be silly to demand he produce this in his first year. For now, I think folks feel there was a clear upgrade in OL play and Dockery though we are paying him a ton was a clear important part of that upgrade. His fellow guard the very young Butler was also impressive, but is still learning and ain't there yet but there are reasons to be hopeful. Whittles injury meant that our main back-up G questions are not answered though he has the experience to fill this role. Yet, he is old enough that it may be this injury is just the first in a string which makes him not an answer for us. The other guard Preston is simply a disappointment, but actually he showed enough that he got a shot though he proved not be starting material. yet we are looking for a #3 G at most so his failure as a starting answer does not necessarily mean he can not be good enough to be the #4 (or maybe the #3 G. You can never have enough depth on your OL and a G is a good thing for us to get if we think he can become a solid back-up. Tackles- Plan A- Excellent. Plan B (A prime)- adequate, Plan C- Inadequate Plan D- Inadequate Peters being drafted by a UDFA TE and then being convinced and supported by JMac to switch to LT is a piece of great work that should leave folks satisfied with what JMac brought to the Bills despite his not repeating his SB OL performance he produced for NYG with a bunch of has been OL players. Walker is a huge man (and it is really hard to teach huge) who also shows signs of coming into his own as an RT. Nevertheless injuries are a constant concern even if the starters do not make it a worry and our two back-up Ts ain't there yet. A tried and true vet on his way out might have been a better patch to have but increased OL depth and in particular at T is needed so this may be a draft need Centers- Plan A- Adequate (but we want and need more) Plan B- Adequate (barely if that). I think Fowler has done an OK job in his play and our OL situation is improved from under its previous guidance at center. I think he has proved to be far more durable than his earlier career indicated. That being said if we want our OL to be dominant we will need a more dominant center than Fowler. I think many fans realize that and some in an attempt to advocate that over-reach and claim Fowler sucks and cannot play. I disagree in that I say his play so far has been adequate and he is very mobile which would hold us in better stead if we used his skills more with pulling center runs to the outside or used a mobile pocket for a QB of JPs strengths and weakenesses. However, unless Schonert changes our offensive style our game does not fit Fowler that well. Add to that back-up Preston's disappointing performance in an effort to have him start at G. Again folks are overclaiming seeming to say that because he is not good enough to start consistently at G he cannot be an adequate back-up Center. Actually the C spot is his natural spot and even if him being back-up C is not anyone's preference and he/we will be in trouble if he Foler goes down for multiple games rather than giving him an ocaisional blow or one or two spot starts then we might be in trouble (as most teams would be if their starting C went down. Center is not a draft priority but we should be on the look out if a quality C slips and to look for a development project for next year or so, L DEFENSE - I'll work on that tomorrow. Ends Tackles Outside LBs Middle LBs Aaron Schobel Marcus Stroud Angelo Crowell Paul Pozluszny Chris Kelsay John McCargo Kawika Mitchell John DiGiorgio Ryan Denney Spencer Johnson Keith Ellison Copeland Bryan Kyle Williams Blake Costanzo Ryan Neill Jason Jefferson Shaun Nua Corey Mace Daniel Watts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerback Strong Safety Free Safety Terrence McGee Donte Whitner Ko Simpson Jabari Greer Bryan Scott Bryan Scott William James John Wendling George Wilson Ashton Youboty Jon Corto Jon Corto Dustin Fox SPECIAL TEAMS Kicker Punter Punt Returner Kick Returner Rian Lindell Brian Moorman Roscoe Parrish Terrence McGee D.J. Fitzpatrick D.J. Fitzpatrick Fred Jackson Roscoe Parrish Fred Jackson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snapper Holder Ryan Neill Brian Moorman Duke Preston I'm sorry Pyrite but your paragraph long run-on sentences and obsessive use of parenthesis in every paragraph, not alone have parenthesis inside of parenthesis, just dumbfounds me....I can never concentrate on any of your posts...sry I tried and failed Agreed LOL!!!!!!!!! just be thankful that you didn't hear it in person. you would think that you're Evander Holyfield and she's Mike Tyson. i bet her mouth runs like a rubber ducks ass in a windstorm. Sorry. When I do part 2, i will try to focus a little more on presentation rather than simply thinking out loud. you mean there's more?????? Oy Vey.........
Lofton80 Posted April 14, 2008 Posted April 14, 2008 Great stuff P-G. Looking forward to the defense. I would like a Center drafted though.
Recommended Posts