PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoveldog Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share 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.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Quebecer Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 and it'd make room for Sape! 94365[/snapback] God damn you, you fugging bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIZ Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_eyedog_* Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 He can't be any worse than the garbage currently there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 1, 2004 Share 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: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 o-line, d-line - who cares. they are all linemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts