bills_fan

Interesting. It appears I may been wrong. Maybe he will be our starting LG. If he's healthy, maybe that works out.

From KFFL..... Noone is sure if they signed him as a starter or a backup. It appears backup.

Cause Price is 32 or 33 and Gandy is 26.

Introducing your new backup swing tackle to replace Marcus Price....

You are right. I should have said top 3 RT's in football rather than used the Pro Bowl as the standard. If he continues playing next to Villarial and under McNally, Willis ought to be able to run right for 4 yards anytime he wants next year (except obvious overload situations). If that happens, I would consider him top 3 RT's in football.

Form previous threads on MW's contract, if we cut him this year he would count 7 mil aginst our cap. Since he currently counts 9.2, that would save us 2.2 mil. The dead money would be off next year which, combined with Bledsoe's dead money, would give us 11.3 mil in cap room from those two alone. I was in favor of cutting him, if we could have re-signed Jonas and made the Shelton deal, thereby giving us two legit tackles. With Jonas gone to SF and the Shelton deal seemingly shelved, it makes no sense to cut him. However, if he won't restructure, then hopefully TD makes plans to dump his overpaid bloated a$$ next offseason. That is, unless he develops into a Pro Bowler. Then he must be extended and kept. Pay for performance, not potential.

I really couldn't agree more. I actually favored cutting MW b/c he would not renegotiate and using the money to sign Jonas. Then making the Shelton deal. Since that didn't happen, if MW does not re-do his deal next year, he should be cut. We need the money to re-sign Nate and keep Moulds. We need Moulds for 06 to take our one big shot in 06 before armageddon.

I think what is more likely to happen is that the right side will stay as is, Tucker will be our new C (and I like him b/c he plays with attitude), Teague will be our new LT (MW doesn't have the footspeed for the position), and we will sign a LG, probably Keydrick Vincent from Pittsburgh. Now, if the Henry-Shelton deal goes thru, I can see Shelton being our new RT, MW moving to LG with teague at LT and Tucker at C. This speculation is from McNally's article last year that said the line could be reshuffled. Either way, I think teague could be our new LT (with our 2nd rd pick going that way as well b/c Teague is a FA after 05) and Tucker being our new C.

I have run the 40, we used it for HS football. I ran it every year. I was a QB. My best time, after I had worked out & ran all summer to get ready for my senior year, was 5.15. 4.86 is a damn good time for a normal human, not so good for an NFL RB. I'd be willing to bet that noone on this board could break 4.86 in the 40.

See Bell, Marcus. UFA run-stuffer.

Leave him alone, he's not talking sh-- & neitehr should we be. Since we haven't been to the playoffs in this century, we have nothing to brag about. Thanx TD.

I totally agree.

Teague is not a RT. LT maybe. But we need a mauler next to him at LG. At least Kendrick Vincent (Pit) hasn't signed yet. Tucker can be an adequate C. The problem really is that we would then have no depth. We should re-sign M. Price, but TD hasn't contacted him. Finally, just wonder if McNally sold TD on the idea that Bannan could be starting LG. He's big enuff, but could he pick up the position fast enough? Not sure. I'd be worried going into next year with the following line... LT - Teague LG - Bannan C- Tucker RG - Villarial RT - MW But I fear that is what our OL will look like. I'd be much happier with the following... LT - Shelton LG - Vincent C - Teague RG - Villarial RT - MW Backup C - Tucker Backup G - Bannan Backup T - M. Price I'd be happy with this line.

What about adding Marcus Bell to the rotation. He a huge space eater. He's the answer to the problem.

After the way TD treated Christie, Steve may not want to play here. And frankly, I don't blame him.

I can't remember if he said how. Was Teague going to be LT and MW LG? Then we'd have Tucker or a pick at C and be short a RT (Shelton?)

Actually, LA, I negotiate often as part of my job. The problem is, and I learned early on in my career, that sometimes you don't deal from a position of strength. At that point, you make the move you have to make in order to get what you need. It is better to overpay and actually have what you need, than to not pay at all and have nothing. At this point in time, there are very few quality LT options available to the Bills. We are starting a rookie QB. We just lost our starting LT to FA. Our O was called out by our GM and blamed for a non-playoff season. Conversely, from Arizona's perspective, there are plenty of options at RB. Arizona is actually dealing from a position of strength here. Not us. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to overpay within reason (4-5th rd pick) and have a starting quality LT, than to have no LT at all. You can overplay your hand when negotiating and TD may do it this time.

You're probably right. But I truly hope we don't have to "piece" together a line. Please upgrade the friggin line.

BUt, ya know what...the Pats got it done. We have no LT, and TD is playing poker with Green, a nut. Just throw in the pick TD and let move on to signing a G, DT, TE, RB, etc.

I could live with this guy in the rotation with Sam, Edwards and Anderson. That would be pretty good. I'll bet we get this guy for a Ron Edwards-type deal.

But if we could get this guy for a cheap, inexpensive deal (a ala Marcus Price or Posey) he might be worth it. I agree we NEED OL help bad, but we can't have the D slip even a little. There is no guarantee the O will be much better.

Anybody know anything about this guy? Anyone from Detroit, watching the Lions?

I can see that one coming. Pretty soon we'll be headed in Year 6 of Mr. Smug's reign, no playoffs.

Just please don't let Jonas and PW go to the Jets. I can't deal with that.

\ weathervane??? I truly hope you don't mean that I flip-flop with regards to TD. You are welcome to search any of my past posts. My opinion of him has remined consistent.