Jump to content

Patience

Community Member
  • Posts

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

409 profile views

Patience's Achievements

RFA

RFA (5/8)

135

Reputation

  1. Where did I say it wasn't a big issue? Where did I say we could "get away with bad linemen?" Reread my posts and then get back to me. I'm not fooling myself into anything - I'm aware that the team needs to work within the confines of the players we have available. I know it's a big issue. You seem to be the one fooling yourself into thinking we can find and/or develop "good linemen" by Sunday. Of course it'd be ideal to have good linemen to run a screen play - that doesn't take much analysis at all. But the point is - we do not. And we need a gameplan with the linemen that are on the roster. Unless you want to pull "good linemen" from who knows where to execute a different gameplan?
  2. Being on the lookout for out creates hesitation on the defensive line, no? Which may be of assistance in pass blocking, wouldn't you say? And you seem to miss the same point others are - unless you know of "good linemen" to pick between now and Sunday afternoon, this is what we have. Saying we need "good linemen" does what, exactly?
  3. In an ideal scenario, yes, you'd have five good linemen blocking for a screen play. However, as things happen (like the subject of this thread), you work within the confines of what you have available. Running more screens and quick passes helps to compensate for a line that can't hold pass protection for a typical longer-developing pass play.
  4. Wasn't it Willis McGahee who advocated for the Toronto move?
  5. Loved the Bevilacqua hit. Giving him the false sense of security, a (diet) Fanta, and Tony saying "you finished?" before he and Bompensiero opened up on him.
  6. Makes sense. Plenty of talent, so lots of bang for the visiting buck.
  7. All of which I agree with. My only criticism is throwing that in there without any surrounding support or context. Hell, your post here provides more than that article did.
  8. Even if it's interpreted that way, it still doesn't make sense. The author's line of reasoning breaks down to: "well, you're now spending this money on Penn Station, which gets a ton of use, so it's time to spend a significant amount of money on a stadium, which gets relatively little use."
  9. Wrong, but not surprised. I'm talking about the author of the article making the comparison, not Termini. The portion of the article you quoted came from the author, did it not?
  10. The what, is that it's a stupid comparison. Invest in Buffalo, yes, I'm all for it. My post had nothing to do with that. Don't compare a football stadium to Penn Station, which gets 600,000 people through it a week - that's what my post was about. Dumb.
  11. Last I checked, Penn Station is used a wee bit more than a few hours on 8-12 days per year. Dumb comparison.
×
×
  • Create New...