PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 The reason he was in there was because the other guys weren't getting the job done. The others are too dang slow to pull from the left side of the line to the right side. McGahee would have been taken down for a loss with Smith on those plays. It also adds some much needed aggressiveness to the line. Heck maybe Bannon should start at LG.
shoveldog Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 Agreed! When I first saw #97 on the line, I said, "what the ****." Now I see the logic. He looked good. Quick and aggressive. He seemed to add a little nastiness and attitude that the O-line has lacked. Should be interesting to see how MM uses him now that the cat is out of the bag.
Beerball Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 The reason he was in there was because the other guys weren't getting the job done. The others are too dang slow to pull from the left side of the line to the right side. McGahee would have been taken down for a loss with Smith on those plays. It also adds some much needed aggressiveness to the line. Heck maybe Bannon should start at LG. 94293[/snapback] Why are you peeved? Wasn't that the point of the article? The current O-line backups sitting on the bench while a D-tackle is leading the RB on sweeps. Not being picky or bitchy, just not sure who you're peeved at.
PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Author Posted November 1, 2004 Why are you peeved? Wasn't that the point of the article? The current O-line backups sitting on the bench while a D-tackle is leading the RB on sweeps. Not being picky or bitchy, just not sure who you're peeved at. 94319[/snapback] To me it sounded like Sal thought it was the wrong thing to do, because it would hurt some guy's feelings: But so much for the careers of guys like Smith, Marcus Price, Mike Pucillo and Dylan McFarland — offensive linemen who were on the bench, watching Bannan and Adams play their positions.'
The Quebecer Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 Why is it that when Bellichik uses Mike Vrabel or any defensive player on offense, he is a genius; and when MM does it, it shows how bad our backups are? I just don't get it! Our coach is thinking outside of the box, he is doing whatever it takes to win, and there are still people complaining... man! Those journalists, well, they need to sell, I guess! Later, Pat
Rico Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 Anyway you cut it, Bannan looked good at guard. I know it's only a handful of plays, but I think he has potential to be a solid player there. If JMac likes him there, I'd start on the permanent conversion... Too many players at DT in front of him now, and it'd make room for Sape!
bobblehead Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 and it'd make room for Sape! 94365[/snapback] God damn you, you fugging bastard.
PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Author Posted November 1, 2004 Kinda sounds like he may be converted full time. Article by Allen Wilson on TBD: "A couple of guys helped me with my technique and just getting out of my stance. Obviously, I have a ton of work to do. But I seemed to get around the corner and get the guy I needed to get." Wasn't Will Shields (KC guard) a converted defensive tackle. How many others in the NFL?
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 He can't be any worse than the garbage currently there.
rockpile Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 I don't know, I read Sal's article and did not read anything negative there. He did mention that it was a bit "disconcerting" that the DL did better at the position than OL, but he complimented "respected offensive line coach Jim McNally" for making the switch.. This was a wakeup call for the OL. The coaches are doing whatever it takes to get a job done.
Beerball Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 To me it sounded like Sal thought it was the wrong thing to do, because it would hurt some guy's feelings: 94330[/snapback] Well in that case...hey Sal :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: .
nobody Posted November 1, 2004 Posted November 1, 2004 o-line, d-line - who cares. they are all linemen.
Recommended Posts