Heels20X6 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I miss Gibran.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Thanks for the thought Bandit, I appreciate it. No sweat, I spent many-a-day cranking out SWPPPs...they are relatively useless in the end because nobody follows them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I miss Gibran.... I kinda feel bad about it myself because I had just dissed Hamdan a couple of days before they let him go and I wish I wouldn't have now because he's a real nice guy and the timing is horrible right before the holidays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I miss Gibran.... Hamdan STILL Rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I would argue that Hangartner is not exactly an upgrade - do you not notice him getting bowled over every week? Second, with the HUGE drop off we have seen at Tackle, I wouldnt say our OL has more talent at all. Peters 10x better than whoever we haev tried. Walker 20x better than everyone we have tried minus Butler for 1 game Wood while good is now injured with career in jeopordy, and even before was he an upgrade over Butler? Not really. Levitre is better than Dockery, but its almost a push. Hangartner is better yes, but still bad Our OL has more promise for the future (or at least it did before Wood and Butler were lost) but in no way is it better than last year. I get what you are saying, but I think you and I are kind of referring to two different things. You seem to be more or less describing the current state of our O line, including injuries, where as I was more referring to that actual individual talents of the players versus the players they replaced. Hangartner, while not great, to me though is better than Fowler. I think he will be better once the line is solidified and healthy too. Yes, like I said, Peters is definitely better than what we have at LT right now, which is the position I think we must address first. But I think Butler is solid at RT when healthy. Wood and Levitre are better than the guys they replaced. So, if 3 of our 5 starters are better, to me thats a more talented line. And I think Butler is a push at RT when healthy compared to Walker. Our issues on the line are inexperience, injuries and LT. So really, the only starter spot on the line where I think we have less talent is LT. So just to be clear, I am not saying our O Line is currently playing better than last year, but I am saying that I beleive the talent level of the starters is higher when healthy with the clear exception at LT. I would also note, that the O line is playing better with Fitz under center and giving up far less sacks than earlier in the year too despite all the injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I get what you are saying, but I think you and I are kind of referring to two different things. You seem to be more or less describing the current state of our O line, including injuries, where as I was more referring to that actual individual talents of the players versus the players they replaced. Hangartner, while not great, to me though is better than Fowler. I think he will be better once the line is solidified and healthy too. Yes, like I said, Peters is definitely better than what we have at LT right now, which is the position I think we must address first. But I think Butler is solid at RT when healthy. Wood and Levitre are better than the guys they replaced. So, if 3 of our 5 starters are better, to me thats a more talented line. And I think Butler is a push at RT when healthy compared to Walker. Our issues on the line are inexperience, injuries and LT. So really, the only starter spot on the line where I think we have less talent is LT. So just to be clear, I am not saying our O Line is currently playing better than last year, but I am saying that I beleive the talent level of the starters is higher when healthy with the clear exception at LT. I would also note, that the O line is playing better with Fitz under center and giving up far less sacks than earlier in the year too despite all the injuries. Yea good points. Not playing great this year but better going forward into 2010. We really need Wood and Butler back at 100%. And Im not the biggest fan of Hang either.... too easily dominated physically IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If the guy was any good do you really think the Packers would have left him on the practice squad where any team was free to sign him? The Packers did that with Matt Hasselbeck his rookie year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDogg20 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But Romo and Brady both had an experience QB to be a mentor to Romo and Brady (Drew Bledsoe both times). Who does Brohm have for that... a career backup in Fitz and a 3rd year QB, neither of which will teach him anything. He may be good but you can't compare this situation to Romo or Brady There's an idea. Drew Bledsoe for QB coach? It makes sense to me. He's mentored 2 superstars in this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I would argue that Hangartner is not exactly an upgrade - do you not notice him getting bowled over every week? Second, with the HUGE drop off we have seen at Tackle, I wouldnt say our OL has more talent at all. Peters 10x better than whoever we haev tried. Walker 20x better than everyone we have tried minus Butler for 1 game Wood while good is now injured with career in jeopordy, and even before was he an upgrade over Butler? Not really. Levitre is better than Dockery, but its almost a push. Hangartner is better yes, but still bad Our OL has more promise for the future (or at least it did before Wood and Butler were lost) but in no way is it better than last year. I would argue Hanggartner is a HUGE upgrade over Fowler. With a ROOKIE on either side of him, there has been MUCH less push from defenses in the middle of the line this year than last. The pressure this year is from the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 There's an idea. Drew Bledsoe for QB coach? It makes sense to me. He's mentored 2 superstars in this league. But he really didn't do that. I remember him saying in Buffalo & when he went to Dallas also "my job is to be the starting QB, not to coach my back up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I would argue Hanggartner is a HUGE upgrade over Fowler. With a ROOKIE on either side of him, there has been MUCH less push from defenses in the middle of the line this year than last. The pressure this year is from the edges. I like Wood ,but I'm not sold on Levitre. It seemed like the pressure up the middle eased up when Levitre was moved to LT and as a whole the O-line performed its best. I like Levitre's athleticism and heart, but I question his size and strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 The Packers did that with Matt Hasselbeck his rookie year. Kurt Warner didnt even make the Packers practice squad. Just saying..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 If you consider the 19th overall pick in the draft low, then you certainly have high standards. Favre was a 2nd round pick the year before, and commanded a 1st next spring. A bit different story than a high 2nd round pick who couldn't make an active roster the next spring. 56 would be considered a low 2nd round pick I think... The Packers offered what we did, so they clearly have at least as much value placed on him as we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyd19 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I like Brohm a lot too - but he needs a veteran to show him the way. The Bills would be doing themselves a huge favor if they signed Chad Pennington this offseason to mentor Brohm, or any other QB they may draft. Hello.....what do you think Fitz is there for....he's been through WARS!!! Sarcasm rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Maybe it's me, but Romo comparisons are weak, as Romo sucks without T.O. But hey, Brohm wiil have T.O. for seven more games, so hey!! Cool! I just wanna see the kid go in for Fitz to see Footsteps just bust out and cry on the sidelines as he realizes he's #3 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 While Brohm did not cost much (other than a roster spot and the resources that will be expended in trying to bring him along) it is right to avoid having high expectations. Had he come out his junior year there were some (Sporting News) that projected him as high as #1 overall. He had a lousy combine, particularly in the passing drills and wound up going late in the second round (56th I think). Some people think that he should have had a leg up because they think Louisville's offence was "pro-style". I think it was still very much a system. While his drops should be well rehearsed its when he comes out of them that you have a problem. B. Petrino's offence was a "one read" scheme for the QB, which is the farthest thing from replicating the demands that the pro-game (specifically NFL defences) impose on the QB position. And sure enough he has to date been unable to adjust to the speed of the game and been unable to read NFL defences or see the field. Hence lots of checkdowns and a reluctance to go downfield. Sound familiar? He obviously has some skills and here's hoping that he will be successful but he is probably facing an especially step learning curve because I suspect that he needs not only to learn to transition well but also perhaps unlearn certain things as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 This still seems like Craig Nall part II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts