billsfan89 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I don't know why you are taking issue with this. Felser made no reference to the draft or FA when he wrote:The football team, after virtually ignoring its offensive line for most of the last decade[/size][/b], So, I simply pointed out that the O-line has not been ignored in the past decade. If Felser meant in the draft, he should have been more specific. Well I agree that the Bills before this years draft haven't spent many big picks on the offensive line this decade. Other than Mike Williams who was a big bust who have they drafted in the first three rounds on the offensive line. After Mike Williams experiment failed they rebuilt around Peters via free agency which failed (Dockery and Fowler failed). I like the way they went about building the offensive line once Peters was traded. They said lets get in place the other 4 positions of the offensive line for years to come so that they could gel and become a unit much like the better lines in the league. They brought in Hangardner before the Peters trade to handle the center spot. They drafted Wood and Levitre to handle the guard positions and moved Butler over to RT. To me they decided to bring in two young guards to join Butler and Handgarder to form a line that could play with each other for years. In two years all four of those guys will be under 30. Than down the line they can find a LT to anchor the line. To me they are trying to build a unit much like the Giants line. I just hope the FO and the fans can have patience with the offensive line.
John Adams Posted July 6, 2009 Author Posted July 6, 2009 I'd chime in that Mike Williams wasn't a reach that year. Just about everyone thought he was a solid pick. He just sucked. Sometimes that happens. I want to get back to the part of this thread arguing about Felser's article's intent.
K-9 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Big deal. Ignoring the O-line for a decade means ignoring the O-line for a decade. If Larry meant "in the draft", he could have used THOSE THREE WORDS to avoid any confusion, but he didn't. Then take it up with Felser. Obviously the O-Line hasn't been 'ignored' in FAgency. It has been ignored during the draft. I think that was his point. GO BILLS!!!
John Adams Posted July 6, 2009 Author Posted July 6, 2009 should merge threads You must be a NYC d-bag.
billsfan89 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I'd chime in that Mike Williams wasn't a reach that year. Just about everyone thought he was a solid pick. He just sucked. Sometimes that happens. I want to get back to the part of this thread arguing about Felser's article's intent. Yeah very few thought that it was a terrible pick. It just didn't work out but yeah going into the draft everyone thought he would go in the top 7.
Lurker Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I don't know why you are taking issue with this. Felser made no reference to the draft or FA when he wrote:The football team, after virtually ignoring its offensive line for most of the last decade, So, I simply pointed out that the O-line has not been ignored in the past decade. If Felser meant in the draft, he should have been more specific. Reading comprehension's tough, I know, but...
Lurker Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Crunching the numbers, each group contains at least three Bills draftees selected in the top three rounds. (FWIW, Foley was also a first-round pick.) To compare, in the 14 years between the selections of Ruben Brown in 1995 and Eric Wood and Andy Levitre this past April, the organization selected a TOTAL of three first-to-third-round o-linemen: Robert Hicks (3-1998), Jonas Jennings (3b-2001), and Mike Williams (1-2002). Marv Levy ditched the last one, Williams, shortly after taking over as general manager ... and yet Brad Butler (5b-2006) was the only OL the Bills drafted before the seventh round in Levy's two seasons in the job. If you're trying to cobble together a line via free agency instead of building through the draft, be prepared to spend a lot of time patching holes. Spot on post, as usual, Lori. May as well shut this thread down now...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Spot on post, as usual, Lori. May as well shut this thread down now... ... Not before Larry Felser is awarded a Pulitzer prize for his innovative work. The Sabres aren't tough and the Bills haven't drafted O-linemen well. Great work Larry. What's next, JP Losman was a disappointment?
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Reading comprehension's tough, I know, but... I hope you can comprehend this
K-9 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 ... Not before Larry Felser is awarded a Pulitzer prize for his innovative work. The Sabres aren't tough and the Bills haven't drafted O-linemen well. Great work Larry. What's next, JP Losman was a disappointment? Now you have to turn into a bash JP thread? GO BILLS!!!
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Now you have to turn into a bash JP thread? GO BILLS!!! Any chance I get. But seriously, I thank LF for sharing those pearls of wisdom.
spartacus Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I agree with everything but I still think Dockery was a good gamble. He played on a very good rushing team in Washington and seemed like he would be a great partner with Peters for years. By a lot of accounts, DD became soft after he got his payday. It is best to get players who are young and hungry and trying to prove themselves. more likely our brilliant OL coach with zero experience couldn't figure out what blocking scheme to use with the largest OL in the league. The skins sure did not have a problem taking Dockery back for $26 mil the day after the Bills ran him out of town.
spartacus Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I'd chime in that Mike Williams wasn't a reach that year. Just about everyone thought he was a solid pick. He just sucked. Sometimes that happens. I want to get back to the part of this thread arguing about Felser's article's intent. Mike Williams was a bad pick at #4. He was a right tackle and would never be able to play LT. as we saw so clearly with the Peters saga, LTs command far more money than RTs. You do not spend the 4th pick in the draft and $40 million on a unmotivated RT with an eating disorder (who played for Mack Brown-no less) when a stud LT who hasn't allowed a sack since high school is still on the board. As noted above, when the Bills have addressed the OL, they have not done it very smartly.
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 I'd chime in that Mike Williams wasn't a reach that year. Just about everyone thought he was a solid pick. He just sucked. Sometimes that happens. I want to get back to the part of this thread arguing about Felser's article's intent. Sorry Brother but imo if he wasn't a reach, he was at least almost a reach. Guys that play RT are not drafted in the top 5. I don't think it has ever happened. Even the top 15 would be pretty rare. Jeremy Trueblood was a real good RT in 06, and he went late in round 2. Oh and yes, I was nagging R.Rich via PM, etc. that we should draft him. Williams played RT in college, but his qb was left handed so he was given a pass in this regard. The plan simply had to be to move him to the left, or he wouldn't have been drafted this early imo. If I am correct, this left us with a fat RT who had a chronic ankle problem, and he was going to have to learn to play LT at the pro level. This with a #4 selection. McKinnie was sitting there but TD hated the guy. He made weird statements about him at the time. The whole thing was strange. Btw, a RT could be worth a #4 overall imo, but we would have to be looking at an Erik Williams or Bob Brown. Again, this is merely my opinion. Ironic that when the Bills DID use early resources on the OL, they failed miserably. The good news is that Wood and Levitre both look like great selections. It's about time.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Good one.... I suppose that is your personal theme song. It follows you wherever you go and begins playing when you enter a room.
The Dean Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 But, ya gotta admit he should lose the wig, right? Über gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
billybob Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/columns...ory/724105.html That hits the nail right on the head with the Bills offensive woes for a decade. There's a reason you can plug any also-ran into the Denver backfield and they go to the Pro Bowl for a decade and it's not because of the high altitude. That line has been nothing short of amazing--but also a priority. A commitment to the line--in this case a smart commitment that doesn't involve overpaying for useless sacks of excrement like Dockery--will yield great results. It will take time and doesn't sell season tickets but with a stud line, you get a stud RB just "because" and you will likely get at least a good QB. Anyone man enough to disagree with me to my face? yeah right here- I'm going with Joe D on this one- he's said on numerous occasions that the Bills use very passive blocking techniques and schemes- and this is why it seems like every Offensive lineman "blocks like a pu$$y" me paraphrasing- I don't know if that ended with McNally or not- the deeper question is will drafting tough guys make the Bills tougher or will Juaron Pussafy them first.
Recommended Posts