If & When Demetrius Bell Takes Over at Left Tackle

[Thurman#1]

Our season is over. 2009 was down the sh*tter the moment they didnt fire Dick. I would love to see Bell start all 16 games at LT just to see how he does. Then, when we are drafting top 5, we will have a pretty good idea if we need a LT or not.

 

 

And if we do that, and we do need an LT, we could also all send flowers to Trent at the hospital. If Bell's not ready, at least Walker can handle everyone but the speed rushers and knows what he's doing. If Bell is ready, I'm all for it, but if he's not, much as I hate the idea of Walker at LT, he would be better than a guy who simply isn't ready.

[ThereIsNoDog]

OK, a quick change, hunh? You know, if you meant production from an O-line standpoint, why didn't you say it? Because in fact, you didn't mean it, you just meant production, but then you just realized that I had a point and so you wanted to skip right past it without acknowledging it.

 

But OK, let's ignore the very real achievements Peters had on STs. Well, from an O-line standpoint again, Bell has already been beaten by Peters. Peters never played o-line in college. Less than five months after Peters took his first o-line practice rep of his entire life, he was an NFL starter. Again, there is no way for Bell to match that.

 

And yeah, you indeed did say he'd still be in Buffalo. And when you said it you had no more proof than you do now, none whatsoever. It is certainly possible, but it flies in the face of logic when you only look at what the Bills did in negotiating his contract.

 

You say "And the history of the NFL is littered with athletic freaks who didn't amount to a hill of beans." Littered? You don't seem to understand the nature of a freak. There aren't that many of them in the first place. That's why they're called freaks.

 

Tell me, how many two-time Pro-Bowlers are there who don't amount to a hill of beans? Peters has already had a career better than 95% of NFL players.

 

You know what the NFL is REALLY littered with? Guys who are NOT athletic freaks who didn't amount to a hill of beans. Tens of thousands of them. Let's hope Bell isn't one of them.

No, I meant O-line production, because that's what's most important to the team, not their ST's play (or lack thereof) for a year. I know you feel it's another feather in Peters' cap, but while he played a season there and did well, the Bills' ST's still dominated after he stopped playing them. Will the same happen at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did? Stay tuned.

[Thurman#1]

No, I meant O-line production, because that's what's most important to the team, not their ST's play (or lack thereof) for a year. I know you feel it's another feather in Peters' cap, but while he played a season there and did well, the Bills' ST's still dominated after he stopped playing them. Will the same happen at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did? Stay tuned.

 

 

If you'd meant o-line, you would have said it.

 

You said "I meant O-line production, because that's what's most important to the team, not their ST's play (or lack thereof) for a year." This is nonsense, and you know it. Bell did not touch the field in his first year. Peters blocked a kick, scored a touchdown and was a feared wedge-breaker. There is no way to say that Peters didn't do more. It's crap. You are saying that you meant only OL play because that way you can overlook a way that Peters had a part in this team's success and Bell didn't in their first years.

 

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, man, that is funny. I didn't catch what you said until I read it the second time around. You say "Will the same happen at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did?" So now you're also trying to look past Peters's contributions as a starter at RT, even Belichick said he was the best player on the offense at RT. More proof that you will do absolutely anything to attack Peters, or to get past any way he helped the team. Oh, man, I actually had to wipe the tears from my eyes you had me laughing so hard. It's really funny and I have the feeling that you actually think that you're being fair-minded, which makes it even funnier.

 

Again, Peters didn't play OL at all in college. Less than five months after Peters took the first o-line practice reps of his LIFE, he was a starting NFL lineman. Bell is already about three and a half years behind. There's no way to catch up.

 

You said "at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did." Bell played LT for three years in college and one year in the pros. Peters took his first practice reps at ANY OL position a year and a half before he was a starting LT. The race is over. Peters developed much much faster.

 

Again, let's just hope Bell becomes a good LT. Comparing him to Peters at speed of development is like the idiots who compared Trent to Montana last year. No comparison except a very negative one, on a guy who may well become a success a little way down the road.

[ThereIsNoDog]

If you'd meant o-line, you would have said it.

 

You said "I meant O-line production, because that's what's most important to the team, not their ST's play (or lack thereof) for a year." This is nonsense, and you know it. Bell did not touch the field in his first year. Peters blocked a kick, scored a touchdown and was a feared wedge-breaker. There is no way to say that Peters didn't do more. It's crap. You are saying that you meant only OL play because that way you can overlook a way that Peters had a part in this team's success and Bell didn't in their first years.

 

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, man, that is funny. I didn't catch what you said until I read it the second time around. You say "Will the same happen at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did?" So now you're also trying to look past Peters's contributions as a starter at RT, even Belichick said he was the best player on the offense at RT. More proof that you will do absolutely anything to attack Peters, or to get past any way he helped the team. Oh, man, I actually had to wipe the tears from my eyes you had me laughing so hard. It's really funny and I have the feeling that you actually think that you're being fair-minded, which makes it even funnier.

 

Again, Peters didn't play OL at all in college. Less than five months after Peters took the first o-line practice reps of his LIFE, he was a starting NFL lineman. Bell is already about three and a half years behind. There's no way to catch up.

 

You said "at the LT position, which Bell may end-up playing a year and a half before Peters did." Bell played LT for three years in college and one year in the pros. Peters took his first practice reps at ANY OL position a year and a half before he was a starting LT. The race is over. Peters developed much much faster.

 

Again, let's just hope Bell becomes a good LT. Comparing him to Peters at speed of development is like the idiots who compared Trent to Montana last year. No comparison except a very negative one, on a guy who may well become a success a little way down the road.

No, I was talking about O-line. I mostly forgot that Peters played ST's for the 5 games in which he appeared in his rookie (2004) season, and until he became the full-time starting RT in the 8th game of his 2nd season (although he made a start in the 6th game, for the ailing Mike Williams). The blocked punt for a TD in 2004 was impressive, but didn't affect the outcome of the game (the Bills beat the Bungles 33-17). As for "having a part in the success of the team" in those 5 games in 2004, I don't recall the ST's winning any of those games for the Bills, and the Bills have had stellar ST's during the 5 years April has been around, and even after Peters stopped playing them. Essentially he was another piece in the puzzle for April, but yes, technically he was more productive than Bell was in his rookie season.

 

And the point with "playing LT 1-1/2 years earlier than Peters" is that they trust Bell to play LT sooner than they did Peters. Time spent at the position in college and "rate of development in the NFL" is meaningless, although Peters was a blocking TE in college, and was essentially another O-lineman. And Peters played at a better school with better coaches than Bell.

 

Look, I know you "don't really care about Peters" , but you've somehow managed to deify the guy for 12 games of ST's play and 1-1/2 years of playing OT well. I think it's safe to say that there are serious concerns that he won't ever re-achieve, much less consistently sustain, what he showed in 2007, his first and only deserved Pro Bowl season, and those concerns don't even take into account the $10M/year he's now getting. His behavior during the 2008 off-season was unprofessional and inexcusable, although some (ahem) have tried. Otherwise he'd still be here.

[toddgurley]

Why can't Butler go to the bench? In his time manning the guard position, we didn't exactly dominate those short yardage situations. They only thing Butler has shown me is that he can play too upright and grow a red beard.... although even the beard is a bit scraggly.

 

 

I think (and alot of people would agree) that Brad Butler has agruable been our BEST O-LINEMAN the past 2 years. Granted that was at guard, not tackle.

 

I would like the line to be Bell-LT,Wood-LG,Hang-C,Butler-RG,Walker-RT but it may be too late to try and move everyone around again. Levitre would be the 1st sub, cause he needs to work on a couple of things still. Like technique and add some weight and strength.

[Thurman#1]

No, I was talking about O-line. I mostly forgot that Peters played ST's for the 5 games in which he appeared in his rookie (2004) season, and until he became the full-time starting RT in the 8th game of his 2nd season (although he made a start in the 6th game, for the ailing Mike Williams). The blocked punt for a TD in 2004 was impressive, but didn't affect the outcome of the game (the Bills beat the Bungles 33-17).

 

 

 

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you forgot about the STs. That's why when you remembered about it, and that Peters had been a positive, you "moved to strike" by changing what you were talking about. You try as hard as you can to forget anything good about Peters, and if someone reminds you, you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "Doesn't count." Well, it counts.

 

You can try as much as you like to devalue that TD and that block. They were huge. They changed momentum, and we have no idea how the game would have been different without them. They came in the 1st quarter and the score was tied 7 - 7.

 

There's only one reason you're saying that they don't matter, and that reason is because Jason Peters is the one who did them. You just aren't willing to hear anything positive about the guy.

[Thurman#1]

I think (and alot of people would agree) that Brad Butler has agruable been our BEST O-LINEMAN the past 2 years. Granted that was at guard, not tackle.

 

I would like the line to be Bell-LT,Wood-LG,Hang-C,Butler-RG,Walker-RT but it may be too late to try and move everyone around again. Levitre would be the 1st sub, cause he needs to work on a couple of things still. Like technique and add some weight and strength.

 

 

Yeah, Butler was almost certainly the BEST O-LINEMAN on the Bills the past two years. After Peters, of course. But yeah, he's good, very good.

 

But again, moving Wood to LG would put him right back to ground zero. They simply will NOT do this.

[Thurman#1]

Wouldn't that suck if this "developmental project" started, and played well, faster than the last LT developemental project the Bills had?

 

You are the one who brought up development. You are the one who brought up "playing well" fast as the barometer.

 

 

Thurm knew what I was saying.

 

Yes I did. Even when you tried to back off from it.

 

 

And the point with "playing LT 1-1/2 years earlier than Peters" is that they trust Bell to play LT sooner than they did Peters. Time spent at the position in college and "rate of development in the NFL" is meaningless, although Peters was a blocking TE in college, and was essentially another O-lineman. And Peters played at a better school with better coaches than Bell.

 

 

"'Rate of development in the NFL' is meaningless?"

 

YOU are the one who brought up speed of improvement, NOT ME!!! And yet you say "Time spent at the position in college and "rate of development in the NFL" is meaningless..." Tell me, DOG, HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE DEVELOPMENT?

 

Would you rather measure it by ounces per meter? Decibels per hour? Millibars per minute?

 

Look, improvement is measured like this: IMPROVEMENT / TIME. That's how you measure development.

 

The only other thing is to figure out when the time starts. Maybe we should start by seeing how much they have improved since they were weaned? Since they lost their virginity? First trip to McDonalds? Only an idiot would find this to be a difficult question. You start the time when they began working towards that goal. Bell has been working towards that goal for four years, plus OTAs and training camp this year. Since that start, he has not managed to play one snap in anger in the NFL. So he loses, because after Peters started working towards the goal (being a lineman), he took OTAs, training camp and five games, about five months total till he was a starting NFL lineman.

 

"Rate of development in the NFL" is a reasonable thing to look at, and it only helps Bell, not Peters. Peters has the same time, five months. Bell on the other hand, goes way down, to one year plus OTAs plus camp. That's why I used it, because it is far kinder to Bell.

 

Either way, progress over time is the ONLY way to measure development.

 

--------------

 

I know you're never going to admit that Peters is as good as he is. It would be like getting Pat Robertson to support gay marriage. Present all the arguments you want, and it still ain't going to happen, because the mind is closed and made up.

 

That's not my goal in arguing here. My goal is to make sure that any reasonably neutral reader knows what's what. And I've already done that. Your last few posts have been bad attempts at switching the grounds of the argument, attempts to argue that you didn't really mean what you said, and repeating the same things over without presenting any evidence. Frankly, unless you come up with something that might convince a neutral reader, I'm out of this thread.

[ThereIsNoDog]

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you forgot about the STs. That's why when you remembered about it, and that Peters had been a positive, you "moved to strike" by changing what you were talking about. You try as hard as you can to forget anything good about Peters, and if someone reminds you, you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "Doesn't count." Well, it counts.

 

You can try as much as you like to devalue that TD and that block. They were huge. They changed momentum, and we have no idea how the game would have been different without them. They came in the 1st quarter and the score was tied 7 - 7.

 

There's only one reason you're saying that they don't matter, and that reason is because Jason Peters is the one who did them. You just aren't willing to hear anything positive about the guy.

Ah yes, I see. I remembered his awesome ST's work for those 5 games, but chose to ignore it because it was so amazingly awesome, that it destroyed my argument. And then I lied about it and said I was just talking about O-line, which is where both currently play. Got it.

 

True Thurm, I don't have a lot of positive to say about Peters, and I wouldn't talk much about his ST's work even if I did. Something changed in him after the 2007 season. I don't know if it was the injury, the Pro Bowl bid inflating his ego, McNally leaving, or if there was something else. But he played it like he wanted out of Buffalo, because they somehow treated him poorly. Poor baby.

[Thurman#1]

Frankly, unless you come up with something that might convince a neutral reader, I'm out of this thread.

 

 

 

Outta here.

[ColdBlueNorth]

We have been hearing for weeks that "there is a growing belief among the offensive coaches that Bell should start".

 

Perhaps this was just one more area where Turk was being stubborn and not listening to the rest of the offensive staff.

 

Perhaps it is a move that should be made.

 

Walker is slow, fat, but dedicated. He doesn't play well in the space that he has on the left side. At this point is there a reason not to start Bell?

 

Seriously, nobody now expects great things and we might as well give this kid a year to develop in the trenches.

[ThereIsNoDog]

We have been hearing for weeks that "there is a growing belief among the offensive coaches that Bell should start".

 

Perhaps this was just one more area where Turk was being stubborn and not listening to the rest of the offensive staff.

 

Perhaps it is a move that should be made.

 

Walker is slow, fat, but dedicated. He doesn't play well in the space that he has on the left side. At this point is there a reason not to start Bell?

 

Seriously, nobody now expects great things and we might as well give this kid a year to develop in the trenches.

I don't expect any different from the offense than I did before. If anything, something new versus the same-old same-old crap has me feeling more optimistic. But it could just as easily be the same-old same-old, or worse. I guess we'll find out.

[spartacus]

We have been hearing for weeks that "there is a growing belief among the offensive coaches that Bell should start".

 

Perhaps this was just one more area where Turk was being stubborn and not listening to the rest of the offensive staff.

 

Perhaps it is a move that should be made.

 

Walker is slow, fat, but dedicated. He doesn't play well in the space that he has on the left side. At this point is there a reason not to start Bell?

 

Seriously, nobody now expects great things and we might as well give this kid a year to develop in the trenches.

 

the only place Walker is dedicated is at the snack bar.

 

Carrying 60 - 70 extra pounds which is hindering him from becoming a dominant player sure doesn't look like dedication to me