beausox Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 I agree with a lot of posters that the Bills draft was surprising in that DT and OL was addressed so late and with little fanfare. Could it be that Gandy and Anderson, as far as McNally and Mularkey are concerned, answered a lot of questions and further that Peters and to a lesser extent Bannon round out the contenders for the o line? Could it augur a "massive" cut along the line that would free up $ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 I agree with a lot of posters that the Bills draft was surprising in that DT and OL was addressed so late and with little fanfare. Could it be that Gandy and Anderson, as far as McNally and Mularkey are concerned, answered a lot of questions and further that Peters and to a lesser extent Bannon round out the contenders for the o line? Could it augur a "massive" cut along the line that would free up $ ? 317460[/snapback] TD's post draft news conference stated Bannan is being moved back to DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyMark Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 I agree with a lot of posters that the Bills draft was surprising in that DT and OL was addressed so late and with little fanfare. Could it be that Gandy and Anderson, as far as McNally and Mularkey are concerned, answered a lot of questions and further that Peters and to a lesser extent Bannon round out the contenders for the o line? Could it augur a "massive" cut along the line that would free up $ ? 317460[/snapback] I generally agree with your points, except the last line which I cannot decipher. That said, looking at the Bills roster the potential for an adequate and competent offensive line is more reality than fiction. Certainly no one will mistake our line for perenial pro-bowlers, but with some decent coaching plus an agile QB combined with as tough a RB as Mcgahee is, our OL should not be the "red flag" of our season as some here want or predict. We got some big boys up front and with some above average coaching from McNally they very well could form into a solid group. Truly, this years draft regarding OL probably would not have offered better than what we have, by not heavily drafting the OL we did NOT take a step back like some here think. We landed a couple of solid prospects with a bit of nasty in them. Rather, we used our high picks to try and get JPL as many tools / weapons as possible. So we basically addressed our weakness - offense - clever I know, but needed nonetheless. Was the draft exciting for us? No. Is TH still here, in spite of the published reports? Yes. So what. It is what is - a draft with the potential to be very good or very bad (only time will tell). For all we know the Minn and Ariz drafts will be considered busts in three years and ours could be the strongest one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 I think it depends what you consider to be a "Red Flag". I still feel the O-line is our weakest area. But that doesn't mean that it is going to be as awful as most think. While only a draftnik from Jan-April each year, i can't state how the oline looks in next years draft. I do have to believe though the Bills have targeted players in next years draft that they would love to have, so no need to sign long term solutions this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 I think it depends what you consider to be a "Red Flag". I still feel the O-line is our weakest area. But that doesn't mean that it is going to be as awful as most think. While only a draftnik from Jan-April each year, i can't state how the oline looks in next years draft. I do have to believe though the Bills have targeted players in next years draft that they would love to have, so no need to sign long term solutions this year. 317604[/snapback] Yeah, I mean, because who would want to win now? Look, this is a problem going on its tenth year. THink about it. From the time that Jim Kelly got killed until today, there has been no significant improvement in OL play. That's a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyMark Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Yeah, I mean, because who would want to win now? Look, this is a problem going on its tenth year. THink about it. From the time that Jim Kelly got killed until today, there has been no significant improvement in OL play. That's a long time. 317658[/snapback] Was Reuben really around that long? Ol' Reuben was a mainstay on the line during the time you cited. I agree we overlooked the line because we were lulled into thinking he was Pro-Bowl material (I know he made it but that is all popularity there). Yet, look at the line coaches during the time you cite....not real stellar huh? We now have a top flight coach and decent prospects - last year was a big improvement as will be this year. So are you arguing, with the time frame that you cite, that John Butler set us up for failure? If so, I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Don't forget, our OLine improved quite a bit last year near the end (until the Pittsburgh game). I know we lost Jennings, but I never thought JJ was anything that great to begin with, to me he was only average. The improvement, I'm sure had a little to do with coaching. We'll be okay this year on the line, not great, but we'll be fine. The other major improvement on the line this year is, we have a MOBILE quarterback. He won't stand around waiting to get hammered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts