Big Daddy JC Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 That's the one. As for an individual nickname for this Bell, how 'bout 'the Townhouse'. Townhouse?! that makes it sound like he sould be wearing paisley drapes under his jersey! I understand the condo play but that one doesn't work well. How about the name at the top of this thread, Sasquatch or my favorite Joel "the Beast" Bell.
ChasBB Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 That's the one. As for an individual nickname for this Bell, how 'bout 'the Townhouse'. yes, I like that even better.
Big Daddy JC Posted May 5, 2009 Posted May 5, 2009 yes, I like that even better. Geez, why don't you just call one "bed" and the other one "breakfast". That will make everybody feel warm and fuzzy all over. An O-line has to have an edge to it. They have to have the attitude that they are going to fire off against the other guy and put him on his butt. They have to have the individual expectation that the line of scrimmage is actually right behind where the other guy is now and they are going to put him in his place. The warm & fuzzy nicknames have to stop. We need at least 1 Conrad Dobler type. From ESPN.com: "This is the Conrad Dobler who gouged eyes and twisted facemasks and worked hard to irritate everyone from Pete Rozelle to John Madden to a mild-mannered Mormon defensive lineman named Merlin Olsen. And this is the Conrad Dobler who, with a few well-placed fists to the solar plexus, once made an opponent actually break down, right there on the football field, and start to cry. "Only time I've seen that," says his former linemate Tom Banks." Yeah, we need to have the attitude of wanting to leave the other team whimpering and completely mentally broken on the field. Without that attitude 8-8 is the best we can ever hope for. (a sad future to look forward to)
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Geez, why don't you just call one "bed" and the other one "breakfast". That will make everybody feel warm and fuzzy all over. An O-line has to have an edge to it. They have to have the attitude that they are going to fire off against the other guy and put him on his butt. They have to have the individual expectation that the line of scrimmage is actually right behind where the other guy is now and they are going to put him in his place. The warm & fuzzy nicknames have to stop. We need at least 1 Conrad Dobler type. From ESPN.com: "This is the Conrad Dobler who gouged eyes and twisted facemasks and worked hard to irritate everyone from Pete Rozelle to John Madden to a mild-mannered Mormon defensive lineman named Merlin Olsen. And this is the Conrad Dobler who, with a few well-placed fists to the solar plexus, once made an opponent actually break down, right there on the football field, and start to cry. "Only time I've seen that," says his former linemate Tom Banks." Yeah, we need to have the attitude of wanting to leave the other team whimpering and completely mentally broken on the field. Without that attitude 8-8 is the best we can ever hope for. (a sad future to look forward to) I think with Hangartner, Wood, Levitre, and Butler starting on the O-line that we won't have to worry about that unit playing with an edge anymore.
Big Daddy JC Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I think with Hangartner, Wood, Levitre, and Butler starting on the O-line that we won't have to worry about that unit playing with an edge anymore. I'm not saying that they are marshmellows. what I'm saying is that it could be very beneficial having someone in there with something to prove. Imagine yourself as 4-5 rounder that keeps getting passed over by the teams that have expressed intrest through out draft day. Then it's over and no one picked you. When you get a shot, you're going to make sure the other teams pay for skipping on you. That attitude can motivate you to do more than just what's expected from the position. A lot of guys with pro bowl type physical skills don't cut it in the NFL because they don't have that driving desire. It will be good to have a fresh fireball in there to add a spark to the whole line.
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Given his measureables, he clearly has that potential. I think the Bills are likely to keep him on the roster as we are thin for depth at G and T, even after the draft. No team should be happy with the idea that they will have to open the season with only 8 total offensive linemen. Further, based on his potential, I think you're right. If Buffalo tries to put him on the PS he won't clear waivers and some other team will pick him up. Disagree. If he is great, he won't be on the practice squad. If he goes on the PS other teams will be wondering why a team in need of OL help put him on the practice squad. Most teams are too busy trying to keep their own in Week 1 and get ready for the season opener. Finally, if he is a player, but can't make the roster... then that's a good thing for our team.
Saint Doug Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Disagree. If he is great, he won't be on the practice squad. If he goes on the PS other teams will be wondering why a team in need of OL help put him on the practice squad. Most teams are too busy trying to keep their own in Week 1 and get ready for the season opener. Finally, if he is a player, but can't make the roster... then that's a good thing for our team. Can't another team grab any player off your PS as long as they place them on their active roster? If that's so, then even landing onto our PS will not guarantee that he will still be ours. A team would really have to want him though.
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Can't another team grab any player off your PS as long as they place them on their active roster? If that's so, then even landing onto our PS will not guarantee that he will still be ours. A team would really have to want him though. Yes they can. Absolutely. But 31 teams weren't in love with him enough to draft him, so I guess what I'm saying he will probably be safe on the PS, that is if he has enough talent to make it their. So worrying about an undrafted player being taken off our PS seems to be more of an imagined concern than a real one. That's all.
Steely Dan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Can't another team grab any player off your PS as long as they place them on their active roster? If that's so, then even landing onto our PS will not guarantee that he will still be ours. A team would really have to want him though. Yes, that's exactly how it works. If they both start and one is LT and one is RT then how about the Bellboys?
Steely Dan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Yes they can. Absolutely. But 31 teams weren't in love with him enough to draft him, so I guess what I'm saying he will probably be safe on the PS, that is if he has enough talent to make it their. So worrying about an undrafted player being taken off our PS seems to be more of an imagined concern than a real one. That's all. Just because nobody drafted him doesn't mean no other teams want him. Who knows how many other teams were interested in him? The Bills have a need a tackle and a very player friendly HC in Jauron. If no teams were interested in the guys who aren't drafted there wouldn't be a huge rush by teams to get these guys signed right after the draft. If there were 8 rounds to the draft he probably would have been drafted. JMO
Big Daddy JC Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Just because nobody drafted him doesn't mean no other teams want him. Who knows how many other teams were interested in him? The Bills have a need a tackle and a very player friendly HC in Jauron. If no teams were interested in the guys who aren't drafted there wouldn't be a huge rush by teams to get these guys signed right after the draft. If there were 8 rounds to the draft he probably would have been drafted. JMO How many UDFAs are offered a 3 yr deal on draft day Are 3 yr deals the norm or does it show that the team thinks he has some added value?
Lurker Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 How many UDFAs are offered a 3 yr deal on draft day Are 3 yr deals the norm or does it show that the team thinks he has some added value? Two years is the norm, with three reserved for priority UDFA's.
Big Daddy JC Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Two years is the norm, with three reserved for priority UDFA's. So what are the odds of a priority UDFA clearing waivers?
Steely Dan Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 How many UDFAs are offered a 3 yr deal on draft day Are 3 yr deals the norm or does it show that the team thinks he has some added value? As far as players go a lot of them think it's better to be UDFA than to have been drafted in the 7th round.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Two years is the norm, with three reserved for priority UDFA's. I used to think that as well but perhaps it's different in the last couple years. This guy, a blogger for the Lions, seems to know what he is talking about (although I have no idea whether he does or not). But he says, for example, that last year the Lions had 6 UDFAs and he thought all of them would likely have three year contracts. Maybe three years has become the norm. It seems to me, why wouldn't you sign them for three years if it didnt cost you anything to just cut them? http://lionscap.blogspot.com/2008/05/draft...e-minicamp.html This may be an ask Tim thing.
WellDressed Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 As far as players go a lot of them think it's better to be UDFA than to have been drafted in the 7th round. Really?? What year were you called by the Buccaneers '88??
Lurker Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 So what are the odds of a priority UDFA clearing waivers? Probably about the same as a 6th-7th rounder. If it's a final cut thing, many rosters are already set and it would be harder to take a new body on the active 53. I wouldn't worry about Bell being on the PS to open the season, but the possibility he could be signed by another team in week 10-11 and added to their active roster for a month is problematic, if the Bills think he has a future. I think that's why D. Bell was kept on the roster last year (but never activated for a game), so another team couldn't poach him with an idea of getting a nice prospect to develop for the following season...
WellDressed Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 how 'bout 'the Townhouse'. If he doesn't pan out, we can call him "The Flat."
Lurker Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I used to think that as well but perhaps it's different in the last couple years. This guy, a blogger for the Lions, seems to know what he is talking about (although I have no idea whether he does or not). But he says, for example, that last year the Lions had 6 UDFAs and he thought all of them would likely have three year contracts. Maybe three years has become the norm. It seems to me, why wouldn't you sign them for three years if it didnt cost you anything to just cut them?http://lionscap.blogspot.com/2008/05/draft...e-minicamp.html This may be an ask Tim thing. It is the Lions we're talking about...they may've had to offer 3-year deals just to entice some guys to even give them the time of day I'd think priority UDFA get something of a signing bonus that may be more easily spread over three years for cap reasons. OTOH, if they're just viewed as camp fodder, why go for three...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 It is the Lions we're talking about...they may've had to offer 3-year deals just to entice some guys to even give them the time of day I'd think priority UDFA get something of a signing bonus that may be more easily spread over three years for cap reasons. OTOH, if they're just viewed as camp fodder, why go for three... Because if they are the 1 in 25 that make the team and maybe even final roster, you have them for three years instead of two. It doesn't cost you a penny more up front and the only difference is in the numbers on the template contract.
Recommended Posts