Walker to LT; Butler to RT

[thebandit27]

Arms are too short. A KILLER attribute to have as a tackle in the pros where you can't, like Levitre did in college, get away with superior athletic ability against less gifted collegiate opponents.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Long arms help, but the lack thereof is hardly a "killer". In fact, there is only a moderate correlation between arm length and success in pass blocking. This should explain:

 

http://profootballweekly.com/2009/04/14/ar...ate-olt-success

 

Levitre has similar arm length to guys like Michael Roos and Sam Baker, so it's really not all that crazy to say he could be an NFL tackle despite his arm length. Now, there may be other attributes that would prevent it, like the premise that he lacks a great kick-slide and isn't very strong from the hands through the forearms, but that's correctable.

[K-9]

Long arms help, but the lack thereof is hardly a "killer". In fact, there is only a moderate correlation between arm length and success in pass blocking. This should explain:

 

http://profootballweekly.com/2009/04/14/ar...ate-olt-success

 

Levitre has similar arm length to guys like Michael Roos and Sam Baker, so it's really not all that crazy to say he could be an NFL tackle despite his arm length. Now, there may be other attributes that would prevent it, like the premise that he lacks a great kick-slide and isn't very strong from the hands through the forearms, but that's correctable.

 

OK, not killer. How about SERIOUS CAREEER JEOPORDIZER OTHERWISE?

 

What part of not having superior athletic ability to compensate for short arms, like Roos, do you not get? 'Cause a T in the NFL with short arms is at a consiberable disadvantage in the absence of that ability. The article you link supports what I posted and most personnel people in football already know about long arms and their relevance to the OT position. Hey, it would be nice if Levitre had the compensating athletic ability of Roos but he doesn't at this juncture. That's why he was projected as a G in the NFL. But I hear he's GREAT at reading safeties so maybe the Bills will move him to T just for that reason alone.

 

And as an aside, I am extremely leary of any article that quotes the ole "sacks given up" stat. It is not valid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Dean]

Bills Draft board

 

 

OK, I'm confused. How does this relate to your claim that the Bills didn't adjust their draft board after trading Peters?

[thebandit27]

OK, not killer. How about SERIOUS CAREEER JEOPORDIZER OTHERWISE?

 

What part of not having superior athletic ability to compensate for short arms, like Roos, do you not get? 'Cause a T in the NFL with short arms is at a consiberable disadvantage in the absence of that ability. The article you link supports what I posted and most personnel people in football already know about long arms and their relevance to the OT position. Hey, it would be nice if Levitre had the compensating athletic ability of Roos but he doesn't at this juncture. That's why he was projected as a G in the NFL. But I hear he's GREAT at reading safeties so maybe the Bills will move him to T just for that reason alone.

 

And as an aside, I am extremely leary of any article that quotes the ole "sacks given up" stat. It is not valid.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Wow, K-9, I guess I didn't realize how big of a jerk you really are. Now that I know, I'll take the gloves off and tell you how I really feel:

 

You are a confrontational, egotistical, short-sighted bag of wind that routinely contradicts himself and refuses to admit to being wrong about anything.

 

You didn't mention ANYTHING about Levitre "not having superior athletic ability to compensate for short arms, like Roos". In fact, in your ONLY post on the topic, you used the words "superior athletic ability" to describe Levitre. I quote:

 

Arms are too short. A KILLER attribute to have as a tackle in the pros where you can't, like Levitre did in college, get away with superior athletic ability against less gifted collegiate opponents.

 

Look, you said Levitre has short arms, and that's the KILLER trait that's keeping him from playing tackle in the NFL. You didn't mention anything about limited athletic ability. In fact, I'm the one that mentioned his weak kick-slide (for a tackle) and his lack of lower arm strength. It's ok if you piggyback off of my point, but to do so and then insinuate that I'm the uninformed one is misguided to say the least.

 

As to the sacks given up stat, I'm well aware that it's not a real stat. In fact, I don't remember ever claiming that it was. The point of posting the article that I linked to was to show that--indeed--a tackle with short arms can succeed at the NFL level, which was converse to the inaccurate statement you made in your post.

 

You had 2 choices on this one: amend your argument or admit you're wrong. Instead, you chose to be insulting and to dredge up a debate that you claimed you were "moving on" from (just as I said I would). I can assure you that this is the last response to you that you'll ever read from me, as I refuse to debate with closed-minded, self-righteous morons.

 

Peace.

[Nostradamus]

it isn't like walker hasn't played LT for us before and hasn't butler played RT his entire college career?

 

These aren't exactlty positiotns they never played before.

 

Roscoe Parrish was also an all state quarteback in the state of Florida when he played high school football. But I don't think this team would improve if we traded Trent Edwards and inserted Roscoe into the starting line up.

[K-9]

Wow, K-9, I guess I didn't realize how big of a jerk you really are. Now that I know, I'll take the gloves off and tell you how I really feel:

 

You are a confrontational, egotistical, short-sighted bag of wind that routinely contradicts himself and refuses to admit to being wrong about anything.

 

You didn't mention ANYTHING about Levitre "not having superior athletic ability to compensate for short arms, like Roos". In fact, in your ONLY post on the topic, you used the words "superior athletic ability" to describe Levitre. I quote:

 

Arms are too short. A KILLER attribute to have as a tackle in the pros where you can't, like Levitre did in college, get away with superior athletic ability against less gifted collegiate opponents.

 

Look, you said Levitre has short arms, and that's the KILLER trait that's keeping him from playing tackle in the NFL. You didn't mention anything about limited athletic ability. In fact, I'm the one that mentioned his weak kick-slide (for a tackle) and his lack of lower arm strength. It's ok if you piggyback off of my point, but to do so and then insinuate that I'm the uninformed one is misguided to say the least.

 

As to the sacks given up stat, I'm well aware that it's not a real stat. In fact, I don't remember ever claiming that it was. The point of posting the article that I linked to was to show that--indeed--a tackle with short arms can succeed at the NFL level, which was converse to the inaccurate statement you made in your post.

 

You had 2 choices on this one: amend your argument or admit you're wrong. Instead, you chose to be insulting and to dredge up a debate that you claimed you were "moving on" from (just as I said I would). I can assure you that this is the last response to you that you'll ever read from me, as I refuse to debate with closed-minded, self-righteous morons.

 

Peace.

 

Please allow me to clarify.

 

Re: my first post mentioning Levitre's 'superior athletic ability' pertains to the advantages he enjoyed IN COLLEGE. Period. Unlike COLLEGE, he will be facing SUPERIOR athleticism in the NFL. What, that wasn't clear enough for you in my first post? Well, excuse me.

 

Is it possible he can DEVELOP those skills in the pros? Yes. But he is NO WHERE NEAR Roos in terms of ability. That's why, AGAIN, he was projected as a G in the NFL.

 

I don't see where I contradicted myself at all. Indeed, the article supports the generally accepted axiom that long arms are a benefit in the absence of other gifts, like the footwork you mentioned. Not sure how I piggybacked off your point in the least.

 

So while I appreciate the link to an article that shows a man with short arms CAN SUCEED a la Roos, it is the exception to the rule. That's all I was pointing out. Sorry you freaked about it. I get the impression that once you start getting tweaked while reading a post from someone that makes you defensive you tend to miss the point. Now, dont't get pissed at THAT. We ALL do that from time to time.

 

As for the reference to our previous debate, lighten up. I was just busting chops. My apologies if you were offended.

 

Likewise, peace.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[spartacus]

Please allow me to clarify.

 

Re: my first post mentioning Levitre's 'superior athletic ability' pertains to the advantages he enjoyed IN COLLEGE. Period. Unlike COLLEGE, he will be facing SUPERIOR athleticism in the NFL. What, that wasn't clear enough for you in my first post? Well, excuse me.

 

Is it possible he can DEVELOP those skills in the pros? Yes. But he is NO WHERE NEAR Roos in terms of ability. That's why, AGAIN, he was projected as a G in the NFL.

 

I don't see where I contradicted myself at all. Indeed, the article supports the generally accepted axiom that long arms are a benefit in the absence of other gifts, like the footwork you mentioned. Not sure how I piggybacked off your point in the least.

 

So while I appreciate the link to an article that shows a man with short arms CAN SUCEED a la Roos, it is the exception to the rule. That's all I was pointing out. Sorry you freaked about it. I get the impression that once you start getting tweaked while reading a post from someone that makes you defensive you tend to miss the point. Now, dont't get pissed at THAT. We ALL do that from time to time.

 

As for the reference to our previous debate, lighten up. I was just busting chops. My apologies if you were offended.

 

Likewise, peace.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

ah-

 

the "I was only kidding" defense

 

good one

[billsfan89]

I do not disagree with these moves. However, doesn't anyone find it disconcerting that the Bills talked to Walker and Butler AFTER the draft to see if they would be ok with these moves? What if Walker said I can't play LT or didn't want to make the switch? Holding my breath these OL moves will work out.....

 

I don't remember hearing that the Bills talked to Butler and Walker after the draft about the switch. I would like to think that they talked to them before hand about a possible switch. I would like to think any NFL team plans these things out far in advance.

[BillsVet]

OK, I'm confused. How does this relate to your claim that the Bills didn't adjust their draft board after trading Peters?

 

Jauron: "We've addressed our needs, no doubt about that, and we did it by staying true to our (draft) board," coach Dick Jauron said."

 

In all probability, their draft board was complete by the day Peters was dealt (4/17). And I'm quite sure DJ knew about the front office's breakdown in negotiations with Peters and subsequent interest in dealing him. As a contingency, I'd expect them to have tackles ranked given Peters' situation. Apparently they'd rather go into the season with a converted RT, converted G, an untested guy in Bell, and depth like Chambers.

 

It's their prerogative to remain true to their draft board. But I find it strange they'd trade their best OL and not sign another veteran OT heading into camp. Their depth at OT is extremely shaky.

[The Dean]

Jauron: "We've addressed our needs, no doubt about that, and we did it by staying true to our (draft) board," coach Dick Jauron said."

 

In all probability, their draft board was complete by the day Peters was dealt (4/17). And I'm quite sure DJ knew about the front office's breakdown in negotiations with Peters and subsequent interest in dealing him. As a contingency, I'd expect them to have tackles ranked given Peters' situation. Apparently they'd rather go into the season with a converted RT, converted G, an untested guy in Bell, and depth like Chambers.

 

It's their prerogative to remain true to their draft board. But I find it strange they'd trade their best OL and not sign another veteran OT heading into camp. Their depth at OT is extremely shaky.

 

 

In all probability their draft board was made with trading Peters in mind, and if not, was adjusted before the draft. Thinking otherwise, based on that quote is basically calling them "incompetent fools". You just cant get your mind around the likely fact that their draft board wasn't the same as yours.

 

There is absolutely nothing in that quote to lead one to believe they didn't factor-in losing Peters, when making up the board.

[BillsVet]

In all probability their draft board was made with trading Peters in mind, and if not, was adjusted before the draft. Thinking otherwise, based on that quote is basically calling them "incompetent fools". You just cant get your mind around the likely fact that their draft board wasn't the same as yours.

 

There is absolutely nothing in that quote to lead one to believe they didn't factor-in losing Peters, when making up the board.

 

First, I didn't have a draft board, nor did I advocate for an individual tackle. In all probability, there wasn't an OT aside from the top two (Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe) I'd feel decent about starting from Day 1.

 

Secondly, big time trades are generally not made in April. At least not that close to draft day and not involving a player in return (as with Cutler) to replace the traded guy.

 

It would be one thing for me to rip the front office for everything if they had a track record of success. That's hardly the case, and when you aren't proven (and Levy, Brandon, Guy, and Modrak of late were/are not) there should be plenty of criticism levied against them. I'm not willing to rubber-stamp failure as often as you are, especially when I see other small markets winning regularly while this one struggles to remain relevant.

 

We'll see how this experiment in moving a career RT/G to LT works out. Doubtless he'll need plenty of help, but that in and of itself will affect how the offense is run.

[The Dean]

First, I didn't have a draft board, nor did I advocate for an individual tackle. In all probability, there wasn't an OT aside from the top two (Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe) I'd feel decent about starting from Day 1.

 

Secondly, big time trades are generally not made in April. At least not that close to draft day and not involving a player in return (as with Cutler) to replace the traded guy.

 

It would be one thing for me to rip the front office for everything if they had a track record of success. That's hardly the case, and when you aren't proven (and Levy, Brandon, Guy, and Modrak of late were/are not) there should be plenty of criticism levied against them. I'm not willing to rubber-stamp failure as often as you are, especially when I see other small markets winning regularly while this one struggles to remain relevant.

 

We'll see how this experiment in moving a career RT/G to LT works out. Doubtless he'll need plenty of help, but that in and of itself will affect how the offense is run.

 

 

I think you have every right to criticize the FO for moves you believe hurt the team. Nobody should be exempt from criticism, IMO. But when you make crazy speculations, based on out-of-context statements that don't even support your speculation, you've gone from critic to conspiracy theorist (or something close to that, anyway). Thinking they didn't consider the loss of Peters when drafting is simply outrageous, and you have no basis for the claim.

 

BTW, I agree their solution to the OL problem is questionable, and we will have to wait-and-see how it works out.

[Kelly the Dog]

Jauron: "We've addressed our needs, no doubt about that, and we did it by staying true to our (draft) board," coach Dick Jauron said."

 

In all probability, their draft board was complete by the day Peters was dealt (4/17). And I'm quite sure DJ knew about the front office's breakdown in negotiations with Peters and subsequent interest in dealing him. As a contingency, I'd expect them to have tackles ranked given Peters' situation. Apparently they'd rather go into the season with a converted RT, converted G, an untested guy in Bell, and depth like Chambers.

 

It's their prerogative to remain true to their draft board. But I find it strange they'd trade their best OL and not sign another veteran OT heading into camp. Their depth at OT is extremely shaky.

I know for a fact they were looking for tackles in round one. I can only surmise, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that they simply didn't have good grades from their scouts on Oher to pick him that high and to pay him that much money. I'm not certain about it, but I would bet that if either of the other three tackles were available at their pick, they would have taken him.

 

No team goes into any round saying I am taking the best tackle left with extremely rare exceptions like you know you have the top pick and know you're going to take a QB. Once it played out, by the time they got to Wood and Levitre, without question they were asking themselves are we better with Tackle X (the best tackle left on their board) or Wood at OG/C and they decided on Wood. Are we better with Tackle Y (the best tackle left on their board) or Levitre at G, and made their decisions on those two players.

[BillsVet]

I know for a fact they were looking for tackles in round one. I can only surmise, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that they simply didn't have good grades from their scouts on Oher to pick him that high and to pay him that much money. I'm not certain about it, but I would bet that if either of the other three tackles were available at their pick, they would have taken him.

 

No team goes into any round saying I am taking the best tackle left with extremely rare exceptions like you know you have the top pick and know you're going to take a QB. Once it played out, by the time they got to Wood and Levitre, without question they were asking themselves are we better with Tackle X (the best tackle left on their board) or Wood at OG/C and they decided on Wood. Are we better with Tackle Y (the best tackle left on their board) or Levitre at G, and made their decisions on those two players.

 

I actually don't mind that they didn't go OT in round 1 or 2. Taking Maybin shows they weren't drafting totally for need, which is correct IMO. With the 28th pick, I liked the Wood selection and would have hated to see them take the Eben Britton purely out of need. Besides, I liked Levitre at G more than Britton at OT.

 

The argument isn't so much that they didn't draft an untested OT, but rather that a veteran wasn't acquired after Peters was traded. The depth at OT is marginal, especially in light of Butler's being banged up both in 07 and 08. They obviously feel fine with Chambers at swing OT, but I'm not keen on that option for a long term should Butler get hurt or Walker can't hold up over the long haul. He's never played the position long term in 7 seasons.

[Kelly the Dog]

I actually don't mind that they didn't go OT in round 1 or 2. Taking Maybin shows they weren't drafting totally for need, which is correct IMO. With the 28th pick, I liked the Wood selection and would have hated to see them take the Eben Britton purely out of need. Besides, I liked Levitre at G more than Britton at OT.

 

The argument isn't so much that they didn't draft an untested OT, but rather that a veteran wasn't acquired after Peters was traded. The depth at OT is marginal, especially in light of Butler's being banged up both in 07 and 08. They obviously feel fine with Chambers at swing OT, but I'm not keen on that option for a long term should Butler get hurt or Walker can't hold up over the long haul. He's never played the position long term in 7 seasons.

But the same thing applies with Free Agency, with additional problems attached like how much do we have to pay him and does he want to play for us for that amount we're willing. I would have preferred for them to sign a veteran, too, and I think making Walker an LT is a mistake and may kill us. But it doesn't at all mean that they didn't have a contingency plan, or they weren't or aren't considering tackles. You don't sign a veteran just to sign a veteran for the most part.

 

I was all over the Levi Jones "idea" but I have no idea what kind of health he is in or what kind of contract he wants. I don't see a lot of OTs out there I would sign and move into the starting line-up. And if they are going to be back-ups, that means you probably lose Bell to another team. Maybe that's worth it if the guy is really good but who is that going to be?

[BillsVet]

But the same thing applies with Free Agency, with additional problems attached like how much do we have to pay him and does he want to play for us for that amount we're willing. I would have preferred for them to sign a veteran, too, and I think making Walker an LT is a mistake and may kill us. But it doesn't at all mean that they didn't have a contingency plan, or they weren't or aren't considering tackles. You don't sign a veteran just to sign a veteran for the most part.

 

I was all over the Levi Jones "idea" but I have no idea what kind of health he is in or what kind of contract he wants. I don't see a lot of OTs out there I would sign and move into the starting line-up. And if they are going to be back-ups, that means you probably lose Bell to another team. Maybe that's worth it if the guy is really good but who is that going to be?

 

I agree there are plenty of considerations anytime a team dips into UFA and that the front office must simultaneously plan both for the short term and beyond 09. However, in this division, the situation at LT could be a lot worse considering the defenses Buffalo is up against. Walker is nowhere near a sure thing to handle a new position and neither is Butler.

 

It stands to reason that if the team is going to invest millions into two top WR's, feature a 3rd year QB under pressure to perform and feature a good RB group that they'd pursue veteran options on the OL, particularly OT. I suspect Walker was the option all along, and that they're comfortable with him at LT. We shall see how that decision impedes their ability to run the offense and only time will tell.

[Flbillsfan#1]

I agree there are plenty of considerations anytime a team dips into UFA and that the front office must simultaneously plan both for the short term and beyond 09. However, in this division, the situation at LT could be a lot worse considering the defenses Buffalo is up against. Walker is nowhere near a sure thing to handle a new position and neither is Butler.

 

It stands to reason that if the team is going to invest millions into two top WR's, feature a 3rd year QB under pressure to perform and feature a good RB group that they'd pursue veteran options on the OL, particularly OT. I suspect Walker was the option all along, and that they're comfortable with him at LT. We shall see how that decision impedes their ability to run the offense and only time will tell.

Available Decent OT's are RARE. The Bills probable thought the OT's on the team were better than any they could get.

[Mickey]

it isn't like walker hasn't played LT for us before and hasn't butler played RT his entire college career?

 

These aren't exactlty positiotns they never played before.

Just positions every NFL coach who has seen them play has determined to be positions they shouldn't be playing. These moves may work but they are not the product of shrewd thinking or long range planning, they are the product of necessity. We simply have no choice. If it works, great for us, we are overdue for some accidental brilliance. And if it doesn't? Well, I hardly think any of us will be terribly surprised.

[K-9]

Just positions every NFL coach who has seen them play has determined to be positions they shouldn't be playing. These moves may work but they are not the product of shrewd thinking or long range planning, they are the product of necessity. We simply have no choice. If it works, great for us, we are overdue for some accidental brilliance. And if it doesn't? Well, I hardly think any of us will be terribly surprised.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, if the moves work, then why are they "accidental brilliance?'" Seems to me if the moves were planned and are successful it's anything but an accident.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[VOR]

Just positions every NFL coach who has seen them play has determined to be positions they shouldn't be playing. These moves may work but they are not the product of shrewd thinking or long range planning, they are the product of necessity. We simply have no choice. If it works, great for us, we are overdue for some accidental brilliance. And if it doesn't? Well, I hardly think any of us will be terribly surprised.

Kind of like the "accidental brilliance" of a franchise QB almost dying on the football field and a 2nd-year former 6th round pick backup QB leading the team to SB glory?