Bill from NYC Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 I didn't mean to say he was good- I do think he was better than Fowler, but center has been far from a strength since Hull retired, and this destroys the performance of the line as a whole Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games. Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid.
Adam Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games. Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid. Maybe I am thinking about when he played guard or tackle then....he was asked to do a lot for a guy with limited athleeticism
obie_wan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games. Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid. yeah- but he braintrust gave him big money at the time - so he must have been good. those shotgun snaps were always an adventure
obie_wan Posted July 16, 2008 Posted July 16, 2008 Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games. Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid. Good chance Fowler improves this year. he had surgery to fix his shoulder. not being able to lift is a big reason he wasn't strong enough at the point of attack.
R. Rich Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 I'm with Bill... Fowler is vastly superior to what Ostroski was as a center. The difference for me is I think fowler has the intellect, understanding and technique (especially pulling) to be good but he has a lot of trouble being a stand up pass protector or a hat on hat run blocker. Centers like him should not be given one on one assignments in those situations. They should be the ones who help out on double teams or delayed pass rushers like LB's. To sum it up: his weakness is.......well........his weakness.
34-78-83 Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 To sum it up: his weakness is.......well........his weakness. Yes!
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 So you are saying there is no room for improvement on special teams? I think the improvement on defense PAIRED with our return and coverage game not only will lead to more possessions and better field position based on fewer first downs given up. This gives us more red zone opportunities in which we should at least get fieldgoals if we can't punch it in. By definition, we should get more touchdowns as well. And as far as consecutive post IIIa-145b, the offense has improved, despite a lack of continuity. You may not exactly like the play calling under Fairchild, but those who call for this so-called innovation need to remember Inspector Gadget's botched halfback option pass by Travis Henry that derailed us against Miami- after a good start to the season. We never recovered from that call. We need to settle down as far as making head coaching changes and the same goes for the quarterback position. It takes time for an offense to gel and changing QB's will disrupt the line and the skill position players. We need to get a Kent Hull or at least Jerry Ostroski type center who can hold his ground- then we will find out if Walker is good enough of not. Center hasn't really been a strength since Hull retired. The defensive line hasn't been a strength since Bruce and Ted Washington both were on it. This year is about the core of the team continuing to progress. Yes, when you rank near the top I'm saying there's very little room for improvement of the special teams. It's exceptional as it is. Any improvement from the "pairing of our D and STs" will come from the D getting better. Unless you're counting on average field position near our own 40 and a dozen STs TDs this year, which is unreasonable, the STs has done all that any team can ask of it recently. As to more red zone opportunities, we'll get more of those too when our O can move the ball downfield like most other offenses. You're right on coaching changes, but we also need to begin hiring some that we suspect know what they're doing other for reasons than they say so and are buddies with someone else on the team or within the organization.
Adam Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Yes, when you rank near the top I'm saying there's very little room for improvement of the special teams. It's exceptional as it is. Any improvement from the "pairing of our D and STs" will come from the D getting better. Unless you're counting on average field position near our own 40 and a dozen STs TDs this year, which is unreasonable, the STs has done all that any team can ask of it recently. As to more red zone opportunities, we'll get more of those too when our O can move the ball downfield like most other offenses. You're right on coaching changes, but we also need to begin hiring some that we suspect know what they're doing other for reasons than they say so and are buddies with someone else on the team or within the organization. I will say that there are better coaches than Jauron out there in the league. I will also say that it is very unlikely we get any of them. Anyways, none of them could turn me into a WR or center....why expect Jauron to be able to do that either.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Salaries, in no way, have been leveling off. I'm not even refering to '02.... They didn't "go bananas" til the new bargaining agreement like 2 years ago. And new contracts are currently up atleast 50% if not more from where they were 2 years ago. Interior OL are getting atleast twice what they were getting 2 years ago. Wr's and Db's too. Look at a guy like Berrian. An average receiver getting that contract? It's crazy... or krazy :-) LOL Actually, salaries have paralleled the salary cap largely. I'm sure there's an exception or two. If there's any reason why they might still be high on some teams, it's because they are anticipating an uncapped year and the CBA to go by the wayside meaning football becomes like baseball where the teams that have the money can buy whatever they want in terms of players and teams that don't obviously can't. Otherwise you'll notice that salaries got way out of hand in the early to mid '00s and have slowed since then. Here's the salary cap history of recent years: '08: 116,700 '07: 109,000 '06: 102,000 '05: 85,500 '04: 80,600 '03: 75,000 '02: 71,100 '01: 67,400 '00: 62,200 '99: 58,400 '98: 52,400 So you can easily see that the percentage increase was among the lowest the past two seasons. So if any contracts were much larger, they must have been in a vacuum otherwise, because the cap space certainly has not supported those kind of contract increases the last two offseasons.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 I didn't mean to say he was good- I do think he was better than Fowler, but center has been far from a strength since Hull retired, and this destroys the performance of the line as a whole You guys talk as if you've never seen Ostroski play. He was halfway decent and better than Fowler easily.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 I'm with Bill... Fowler is vastly superior to what Ostroski was as a center. The difference for me is I think fowler has the intellect, understanding and technique (especially pulling) to be good but he has a lot of trouble being a stand up pass protector or a hat on hat run blocker. Centers like him should not be given one on one assignments in those situations. They should be the ones who help out on double teams or delayed pass rushers like LB's. It's just that our offense back then ranked much higher than it does today. Must have been Jonathon Linton and Shawn Bryson running the ball, huh. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even know what on earth you're talking about of if you just make stuff up thinking that no one can verify any way to support stuff. No one in the media thinks that Fowler is anything more than a barely adequate starter. Ostroski was much more than that. I don't know, he may have not been as good a C as G, but he was damn sure better than Fowler and to suggest otherwise reveals ignorance.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Adam, I enjoy the dialogue, but in this case you are flat out wrong. Ostroski could barely get out of his stance. He was strong, but it made no difference. Slow DTs were able to walk right by Ostroski. Seriously....this is what I look at when I watch games. Fowler has all the moves/technique, etc., but he is weak. Still, with him there is a fighting chance. Ostroski was painfully horrid. Fowler sucks. O didn't suck. Watch Fowler and you'll see guys blowing by him constantly if he has no help. The man's useless one on one. I have no idea where all the negativity towards Ostroski is coming from. Maybe my recollection of him as a G is trumping my knowledge of him at C, but I seem to remember him making that transition extremely well. I know at the time no one had issues with his play either. Sounds like a true MB piling on here.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Good chance Fowler improves this year. he had surgery to fix his shoulder. not being able to lift is a big reason he wasn't strong enough at the point of attack. What's with the love affair with Fowler all of a sudden? He was just another backup when we picked him up. He has sucked hind tit here and in case anyone noticed, our offensive rankings have sucked since he's been on the team. I might be remembering Ostroski's play at G more, although he really didn't dip until he got injured which was his last season. Either way, this fawning over Fowler is silly.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 yeah- but he braintrust gave him big money at the time - so he must have been good. those shotgun snaps were always an adventure He definitely got a huge contract that wasn't warranted back then, I do remember that. He just joins the list there.
krazykat Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 To sum it up: his weakness is.......well........his weakness. You mean weakknees.
Bill from NYC Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 No one in the media thinks that Fowler is anything more than a barely adequate starter. Ostroski was much more than that. Say "bye bye credibility!"
34-78-83 Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Say "bye bye credibility!" It was gone long before that one.
34-78-83 Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 LOL Actually, salaries have paralleled the salary cap largely. I'm sure there's an exception or two. If there's any reason why they might still be high on some teams, it's because they are anticipating an uncapped year and the CBA to go by the wayside meaning football becomes like baseball where the teams that have the money can buy whatever they want in terms of players and teams that don't obviously can't. Otherwise you'll notice that salaries got way out of hand in the early to mid '00s and have slowed since then. Here's the salary cap history of recent years: '08: 116,700 '07: 109,000 '06: 102,000 '05: 85,500 '04: 80,600 '03: 75,000 '02: 71,100 '01: 67,400 '00: 62,200 '99: 58,400 '98: 52,400 So you can easily see that the percentage increase was among the lowest the past two seasons. So if any contracts were much larger, they must have been in a vacuum otherwise, because the cap space certainly has not supported those kind of contract increases the last two offseasons. The cap is entirely irrelevant to the point I made. Good Guards made 4 mil 2 years ago, now they make 7.....and so on.
Dan Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 It's just that our offense back then ranked much higher than it does today. Must have been Jonathon Linton and Shawn Bryson running the ball, huh. Sometimes I wonder if you guys even know what on earth you're talking about ofr if you I can just make stuff up thinking that no one can verify any way to support stuff or in any way support the stuff I make up. No one in the media thinks that Fowler is anything more than a barely adequate starter. Ostroski was much more than that. I don't know, he may have not been as good a C as G, but he was damn sure better than Fowler and to suggest otherwise reveals ignorance. no thanks needed.
krazykat Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Say "bye bye credibility!" LOL Funny hearing you guys talk about credibility. We had a line that could at least block much of the time back then. Who do you think were the starting linemen besides Brown who were responsible for that, Nails, Spriggs, Zeigler, Hicks, and Fina! LMFAO Can't wait to hear your credibility laden answers on that. Then again, it could have been the awesome RBs of Antowain Smith, Jonathon Linton, Shawn Bryson, and Sammy Morris that really made the line shine back then. You guys are neverending self-imposed humor. But hey, on Fowler's team we've ranked 30th each year in yards but 9th and 11th with Ostroski at C. I guess that sure settles it. I have no credibility, you have tons. LOL
Recommended Posts