Bufcomments Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Sorry but Mark Kelso was way better than Whitner. How quickly you guys forget. Kelso used to hit people so hard they had to make a special helmet for him so he would not knock his own self out. And Kelso made many big INTs during his career and certainly had more than 3 in a season ,which is more than Donte has in his career.... MaGee makes it opposite Odomes Stroud over Wright Lofton with T.O. on the outside with Reed in the slot would be ridiculous. Evans = Beebe but Don was faster than Evans by a tad. Hanson over Schobel simply because of the 3-4 D Moorman. Thats just 4.
billsfan714 Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Kelso played 50 yards off the ball, I remember the Raiders playoff game, Tim Brown catches a pass runs like 40 yards and you finally see Kelso coming in the picture from the other direction. . Guess he didnt want to give up the 80 yard bomb only the 50 yard crossing pattern. Donte Whitner couldnt hold Henry Jones's jock.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 hmmmm, be careful, SGBF, you could be right about No. 1 but remember, it is 35 year old T.O., not Hall of Famer T.O. In other words, does he still start at 35 years old over a later 20s Adre Reed and a 32-34 year old Jame Lofton? I don't know, I'm just asking. I haven't entirely bought into this idea of a "diminished" TO. He drops passes. He always has. He still commands double coverage by virtually every team that lines up across from him, and he still puts up impressive numbers in virtually every statistical category. At no point was Andre Reed ever better than TO, even this late in TO's career (Andre Reed is also my favorite player from the 90s teams, so it isn't bias). And James Lofton was as long in the tooth then as TO is now, so yea, I think I still go with TO over either of those two. Lee Evans on the other hand wouldn't stand a prayer. In every dynamic in which Evans is strong, Lofton was superior. And Reed was able to dominate over the middle and against smaller DBs, where Evans is substantially weaker, as well as being a legitimate deep threat. When considering the dynamics of Evans game, it is hard to even say with certainty that he would be superior to Don Beebe. So at best Evans gets into the games in the slot, and he quite possibly has games that he never steps foot on the field (How many times did we ever see an empty backfield during the Thurman Thomas era?).
Proteus Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 I'm sorry but I would take Don Beebe over Lee Evans every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Not sure where the idea that Evans is so awesome comes from. There is a game called football that you might want to watch sometime.
DaGimp Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Sorry but Mark Kelso was way better than Whitner. How quickly you guys forget.Kelso used to hit people so hard they had to make a special helmet for him so he would not knock his own self out. And Kelso made many big INTs during his career and certainly had more than 3 in a season ,which is more than Donte has in his career.... MaGee makes it opposite Odomes Stroud over Wright Lofton with T.O. on the outside with Reed in the slot would be ridiculous. Evans = Beebe but Don was faster than Evans by a tad. Hanson over Schobel simply because of the 3-4 D Moorman. Thats just 4. I don't usually personally attack someone, but are u retarded? Sorry for the rough terminology but Kelso was a complete joke. If we had some real safeties along with someone to help Bruce out -we would have won multiple Super Bowls
dollars 2 donuts Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 I haven't entirely bought into this idea of a "diminished" TO. He drops passes. He always has. He still commands double coverage by virtually every team that lines up across from him, and he still puts up impressive numbers in virtually every statistical category. At no point was Andre Reed ever better than TO, even this late in TO's career (Andre Reed is also my favorite player from the 90s teams, so it isn't bias). And James Lofton was as long in the tooth then as TO is now, so yea, I think I still go with TO over either of those two. Lee Evans on the other hand wouldn't stand a prayer. In every dynamic in which Evans is strong, Lofton was superior. And Reed was able to dominate over the middle and against smaller DBs, where Evans is substantially weaker, as well as being a legitimate deep threat. When considering the dynamics of Evans game, it is hard to even say with certainty that he would be superior to Don Beebe. So at best Evans gets into the games in the slot, and he quite possibly has games that he never steps foot on the field (How many times did we ever see an empty backfield during the Thurman Thomas era?). Very good points, SG. I love Lofton, but many of us seem to forget in his best year here I believe he only caught about 53 balls. he was a deep threat, but I am not sure how consistent a threat he was. BTW, you know what variable I just realized which I hadn't considered...Jim Kelly...wow, can you imagine Jim Kelly in his prime throwing to T.O. ...I have to go sit down now.
truth on hold Posted September 24, 2009 Author Posted September 24, 2009 I don't usually personally attack someone, but are u retarded? Sorry for the rough terminology but Kelso was a complete joke. If we had some real safeties along with someone to help Bruce out -we would have won multiple Super Bowls marv loved him. i remember him saying kelso never made mistakes
MRM33064 Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 This is a little off-topic, but the criticism for the Great Gazoo is a little overdone. I used to get a little more frustrated with the (now cliche) Walt Corey "bend-don't-break" approach more than Kelso, per se. When he'd give more cushion than City Mattress, I'd bank on the fact he was doing what he was told. Kelso was a good Bill. All that said, I think Whitner at FS would compete, especially considering he's probably got 30 pounds on Kelso (even counting the space helmet) and from a fan view it feels like he's got equal, if not superior, reaction speed. Owens makes it. Stroud. Lindell might have a shot. That's about it for me.
billsfreak Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 I would also take Lindell over Norwood. I probably would too, but not over Steve Christie
manbeast Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 mcgee and mckelvin might at corner, and whitner might now that theyve moved hin to FS. other than that im hard pressed to come up with any current bill at LB, on the Dline (which is a bit unfair because they used to play 3 - 4), but in any scheme im not sure jeff wright sits. on offense a similar picture emerges: no way edwards over kelly, or lynch or jackson over thurman, and none of the current offensive line or tight ends. but like defense, the further away from the line you get the better the current team might fair. andre reed was great but is he really a no-brainer over owens? also i see i give evans a slight nod over lofton. for 3rd receiver im staying with tasker over josh reed.for kicking game ill take morman at punter, but christie at field goals. so at most it seems like 4 to 6 of the current bills would find a spot on the early 90's team. makes you realize how talented the early 90's team was. whitner over Jones lmao I like whitner though. probably TO, Mitchell, Mcgee, Schobel opposite side of Bruce, and Stroud thats probably it the linemen don't make If we run the 3-4
manbeast Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Mcgee, Stroud, TO, Evans, Whitner, Wood, WOW your crazy our O-line was awsome back then Lets wait a few years before we put wood on that team
manbeast Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Yes, but he was still an excellent deep threat with very good hands. It isn't even about him it's about Lofton and Reed so it'a only TO or Evans not Both
manbeast Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Conlan was absolutely terrific as a run stuffer. Until his injuries anyway. You would take him over Poz any day. We lost 4 SB's because our LB's were never great tandoms we never had more that one good linebacker at a time
Fewell733 Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 WOW your crazy our O-line was awsome back then Lets wait a few years before we put wood on that team it was a good line, but Kelly took a beating compared to a lot of the other top QBs of the day.
manbeast Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 OK we are trying to compare recievers from the current pass first spred offence era and teams from the post salary-cap free agency era with the run first pre salary-cap free agency era you start any team including the 2007 pats against the play-off contenders of the early 90's and I bet they lose
truth on hold Posted September 24, 2009 Author Posted September 24, 2009 We lost 4 SB's because our LB's were never great tandoms we never had more that one good linebacker at a time bennett, talley, conlan ... seemed pretty darn good to me
Fewell733 Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 OK we are trying to compare recievers from the current pass first spred offence era and teams from the post salary-cap free agency era with the run first pre salary-cap free agency era you start any team including the 2007 pats against the play-off contenders of the early 90's and I bet they lose well they lost to the 2007 Giants... really though to compare you need to act as though those same players from the late 2000s were players as they would have been in the early 90s, or vice versa. Jim Ritcher, a great guard, played at around 270 lbs. Jeff Wright at noseguard was around 270 as well. Even Kent Hull was only 284. Those guys would be considered dangerously undersized today. The guys back then that were 310 or over - like Ballard and Glenn Parker - were kind of more like big fat guys rather than the athletes at that size you see today. Fitness science and nutrition has very much changed the players - the size/speed ratio is just drastically different today.
Endzone Animal Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Sorry but Mark Kelso was way better than Whitner. How quickly you guys forget.Kelso used to hit people so hard they had to make a special helmet for him so he would not knock his own self out. :lol:
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 well they lost to the 2007 Giants... really though to compare you need to act as though those same players were players in the early 90s rather than as they are in the late 00s, or vice versa. Jim Ritcher, a great guard, played at around 270 lbs. Jeff Wright at noseguard was around 270 as well. Even Kent Hull was only 284. Those guys would be considered dangerously undersized today. The guys back then that were 310 or over - like Ballard and Glenn Parker - were kind of more like big fat guys rather than the athletes at that size you see today. Fitness science and nutrition has very much changed the players - the size/speed ratio is just drastically different today. The difference is size of players does make comparisons between eras so difficult. When you go back to the electric company of the 70's that got OJ all those yards the OL had players that were as low as 235 and 245-250 was quite common. Another major issue is that one or two great players can raise the level for everyone else. If you put Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas in their early '90s prime into our current lineup we might be talking SB even with the young OL. What if Kelly was throwing to TO and Evans instead of TE and what if TE was the QB throwing to Reed, Lofton, and Beebe. And Thurman was a rare talent who was a fantastic runner, receiver, and blocker. Kelly said the Thurman Thomas's versatility was the key to being able to run the K-gun. It is easy to forget how fantastic Thurman was. I remember one game against Miami where the linebacker had Thurman wrapped up a yard short of a first down with both arms completely around Thurman. First of all Thurman refused to go down and then slowly twisted his body around completely and fell backwards past the first down marker. The sheer strength of Thomas was never fully appreciated.
Fewell733 Posted September 24, 2009 Posted September 24, 2009 Another major issue is that one or two great players can raise the level for everyone else. If you put Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas in their early '90s prime into our current lineup we might be talking SB even with the young OL. What if Kelly was throwing to TO and Evans instead of TE and what if TE was the QB throwing to Reed, Lofton, and Beebe. And Thurman was a rare talent who was a fantastic runner, receiver, and blocker. Kelly said the Thurman Thomas's versatility was the key to being able to run the K-gun. that's a great point.
Recommended Posts