Sound_n_Fury Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Being a LT is a lot more about being big and quick than it is technique. 245054[/snapback] 'Ol Albert's turning over in his grave to have his name connected with this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Another player playing the position just as well at a lesser salary 245118[/snapback] TT's salary numbers don't seem that outrageous to me. I'd like to put a better LG next to him and draft a C to develop, but right now, I'm comfortable maintaining some continuity with Trey for 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 TT's salary numbers don't seem that outrageous to me. I'd like to put a better LG next to him and draft a C to develop, but right now, I'm comfortable maintaining some continuity with Trey for 2005. 245167[/snapback] To me it is not a question about who I would like to keep.... I would love to keep Teague and his versatility....but what it boils down to is keeping a certain production at one spot while trying to find ways to IMPROVE glaring weaknesses..... Left Guard is a glaring weakness....and we need veterans not draft picks on our line with a rookie QB..... Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Clumpys numbers are flawed BillsDaily has the correct figures. Theres enough money to address LT, LG, and TE 245133[/snapback] I see no need to chose one as being correct and the other as being all wrong, but a sensible view uses both these resources and tries to sort out the individual cases. As best as I can tell Steve does a wonderful job with Bills' Daily and seems to have his hands full "merely" dealing with the day-to-day beast of the key updates and keeping us fed with a steady dose of guest articles and during the season his individual grades. Great job and I thank and comend his work! However, he is upfront and clear about his sources of information and thus his limitations. His front office is an essential sideline to tracking the Bills. yet it is a sideline and sometimes falls behind the sometimes fast changing worlf of the cap. Things are great right now as he updated it 2/16, but even then he states it is based on media reports and archived data and unfortunately the media often gets things wrong and contract language is not fully released and changes without notification. On the other hand, Clumpy's work is also far from perfect, but on the good side he acknowledges this upfront with detailed disclaimers and he constantly has shown an eagerness to correct his info when better info is provided. Though his info and presentation is sometimes not up to date because there seems to be some slowness in getting the web gurus to record and post it all, he does seem to update in in far more detail than any front office distillation I have seen and more frequesntly as well. While Bills' Daily thankfully devotes massive time to providing fans with immediate highlights the same super-human effort does not seem to go to the cap page as Clumpy seems to diligently peruse resources like the separate NFLPA salary pages for individual players. I think one can accept that these numbers are correct because if they are not then the NFLPA is not serving its members and it is lying to its partners in the NFL. If you must weight these two sites against each other (though I don't know why you would because even we they disagree they are still both valuable resources) then I'd ask for your judgment on the cap impacts of cuttting Prioleau. it has been generally reported on the web that cutting him results in a cap savings over a million bucks. Yet, Bills' Daily reports that a cut of Prioleau actually lowers out cap room by a few hundred K. My guess is from the multiple reports I've seen that Clumpy and the several reports are right and Bills Daily does not reflect reality on this one. I certainly hope Clumpy is right because if he isn't we lost another resource I was counting on to allow us to make a few moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Clumpys numbers are flawed BillsDaily has the correct figures. Theres enough money to address LT, LG, and TE 245133[/snapback] I've followed clump's salary cap page and info for a few years. he has never been off by much. We'll know for sure soon enough, but I tend to believe we are not in as good as shape as well all hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Clumpys numbers are flawed BillsDaily has the correct figures. Theres enough money to address LT, LG, and TE 245133[/snapback] Maybe you should start a thread about that. Actually, why start one thread when you can start 5 threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 To me it is not a question about who I would like to keep.... I would love to keep Teague and his versatility....but what it boils down to is keeping a certain production at one spot while trying to find ways to IMPROVE glaring weaknesses..... Left Guard is a glaring weakness....and we need veterans not draft picks on our line with a rookie QB..... Just my opinion 245205[/snapback] Let's talk about the weakness at LG. From looking at the numbers (I could easily be wrong) I doubt that our budget for what portion of an $84 million cap budget we devote to the OL will allow us to shop for the Villarial level talent we would hope to find as a replacement at LG. The today's cap hits (they can go down with restructuring but this is all uninfluencable and generally unknown to us outsiders) includes $9.7 million for MW, $2.9 million for Villarial, $2.6 million for Teague, and whatever amount it takes to resign JJ and that will not leave much for us to acquire LG talent in any likely budget TD has. If we are not able to upgrade the OL by getting more talent, the question becomes whether we can upgrade the OL internally with JMac eliciting better performance? I for one would love to get more talent, but since I do not think we can afford it, I am actually confident that we can upgrade the OL with exisiting resources. This may not be a much as we could do with better players, but I think it will be sufficient to make out OL better and even adequate with a more mobile QB behind it. Specifically, I don't see why folks view last year's inadequate play from L. Smith as the best he can do. JMac elicitied a level of play from Smith last year that surprised me it was as good as it was. Smith was a PS player for the Ravens in 03 and if he had been made a Bill and improved his game enough to even make our roster I think this would have been impressive. However, he made the extraordinary jump from PS to active (it happens but it is rare in the NFL), but he even made the jump to get starting time. I think his talent level was inadeqaute for a starter and the braintrust miscalculated whether R. Brown could be replaced by Pacillo. This is why Smith even got a chance. However, though Smith was not up to the level we want from a starter, he had specific limitations and actually did a number of things well. I think that it bodes well for us that his problems last year were with run blocking rather than the more difficult to teach pass pro. He also had clear effectiveness issues in the red zone (where strong drive-blocking is of great import. If in the off-season he bulks up a little bit, in voluntry camp he improves his technique to give him a bit more leverage in applying his strength and he makes an attitude adjustment and just plays a little nastier and aggressive in run blocking the jump for his 04 levels to be the blocker we want will actually be much less than the jump from the Ravens PS to starting for us. As far as Tucker, I think he has the smarts as someone trained at my alma mater to improve his LG play now that we have an adult there as position coach. However, I think his most useful role as a Bill is to provide us with a back-up at all three interior line positions as needed. Just as Price was the first call at either tackle slot, if Tucker is the first call at LG, RG, and C, I am comfortable that when we exprience the likelihood of a nick a that position we will not miss a beat. If Smith proves to be a dud at LG even with JMac teaching then Tucker is my plan B. I hope we can somehow sign a Wahle or a Rivera but I don't think we will be able to afford to do this and if so I think we can upgrade the OL with existing resources though we would prefer in a perfect world (which last I checked this isn't) we want better players I think we can do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Being a LT is a lot more about being big and quick than it is technique. 245054[/snapback] I don't mean this in a negative way at all, but did you ever play football? Those that play(ed) know that football is ALL about technique. From how a QB steps back in the pocket, to where a DB positions his hips before a WR's break, to how a LB takes on a FB. It's all technique. But no where is technique MORE important than on the OLine. A LB can get away with bad technique sometimes by using his speed/strength. Same with a QB or DB. But never a lineman. That's why O-Lineman spend most of their time in camp learning exactly where to move their legs and hands. It's all about technique and leverage on the line. If technique wasn't the most important thing, how could McNally be rated as a "good coach"? I have high hopes for Peters, but you cannot turn the position over to him just because he's "athletic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I don't mean this in a negative way at all, but did you ever play football? Those that play(ed) know that football is ALL about technique. From how a QB steps back in the pocket, to where a DB positions his hips before a WR's break, to how a LB takes on a FB. It's all technique. But no where is technique MORE important than on the OLine. A LB can get away with bad technique sometimes by using his speed/strength. Same with a QB or DB. But never a lineman. That's why O-Lineman spend most of their time in camp learning exactly where to move their legs and hands. It's all about technique and leverage on the line. If technique wasn't the most important thing, how could McNally be rated as a "good coach"? I have high hopes for Peters, but you cannot turn the position over to him just because he's "athletic". 245300[/snapback] Yes I did play football. But to clue you in, you don't have to have played football to know that all the technique in the world will not make you any faster or stronger unless you're cramming roids own your throat. He has all of the physical tools to be a good to great tackle. Technique can be taught which is why I think he should start training to be our next LT. Look at all the technique we've tried to teach Teague and yet he still gets bull rushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yes I did play football. But to clue you in, you don't have to have played football to know that all the technique in the world will not make you any faster or stronger unless you're cramming roids own your throat. He has all of the physical tools to be a good to great tackle. Technique can be taught which is why I think he should start training to be our next LT. Look at all the technique we've tried to teach Teague and yet he still gets bull rushed. 245319[/snapback] Then you should know better. If it were that simple, he would be one already. The kid isn't the brightest bulb on the tree, and you are expecting him to learn an entire position (the one that demands the most technically sound fundamentals of anyother on the field) in one season. That's not realistic. Also, many lineman in the NFL aren't the best because they are the fastest or strongest. THey are the best because they have the best technique. What makes Ogden so good? His technique. Pace? Technique. You don't hear analysts/coaches say "he ran the 40 in 4.5 and benched 450 pounds..." fans say that. What you hear coaches say is "they get down so fast, great footwork, quick to the body with the hands...." That's the gravy that you need to learn as a lineman. I don't disagree that athleticism plays a role. Of course it does. This is a sport afterall. But in the NFL, everyone is athletic. What separates the good from the bad is technique. And that is something Peters doesn't have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I think we can to, but I think it would be a better decision to sign a top LG in free agency rather then keep Tucker there. 245376[/snapback] My dream scenario (key word: dream) would still be to trade Henry for Shelton and resign JJ. Shelton's numbers are very reasonable, and the Bills could afford both he and Jennings. Then, bump Shelton over to LG (where he is apparently better suited according to some scouts) and leave JJ at LT. The line would be pretty dominate: JJ, Shelton, Teague, CV, Williams. I would take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts