MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 So you think yourself and those others who discussed Shelton last year might know more about offensive lineman than Hudson Houck? Because it seems to me that is what you are implying.....I'm gonna go with the guy who is regarded as one of the very best O-Line coaches in the NFL on this one.... Let me ask you this, DCM: what OTHER LT is out there for the Dols to sign? There wasn't/isn't one. As for Brees or Culpepper.....as much as a buyer beware factor is present....I have to like either one of these former pro bowlers over anyone else that is available to the Fins at present time. I'm hoping to get either player and be able to keep Frerrotte as insurance IF he is willing to take a paycut. Personally I'd take someone healthy right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Not sure where you got the sack numbers from but if it is the same place that had the stats showing Teague only gave up one half of a sack last year, they they lie. You got a better site? This is the company the NFL uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 FWIW, Pat Kirwan on NFL Radio was ripping the Bills for the deal they gave a player like Royals. 627313[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 What a difference a year (and 12 million dollars or so in the cap) makes! After the Browns signed Shaffer to replace Shelton, Randy Cross rated Shaffer a 5.5 out of 10, and went on to say that he was STILL an upgrade over Shelton. Last year, Shelton struggled to get a one year deal, and TD refused to part with the like of Travis "Hop Head" Henry for him in a trade. Nah, I'm not to scared by this signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 You got a better site? This is the company the NFL uses. 627935[/snapback] Well again, if you believe those stats, BTW that is a fantasy stats site and not official NFL stats: http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=5930&Submit=Go http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=4429&Submit=Go Then we should keep Teague and never thought about Bentley because he gave up 2.5 sacks and Teague only .5 Again individual sack allowed are not official stats because it is difficult to ascertain who the sack really should be assigned to especially since it could be as simple as someone not running the right blocking scheme and it looks like someone else forgot to pick up a blitzer. Or hell Levi Jones only 1 less sack then Shelton, I guess he sucks too. http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=5896&Submit=Go Or Pace who gave up as many plus as many penalties. http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=3951&Submit=Go Again, stats don't tell the wholestory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Well again, if you believe those stats, BTW that is a fantasy stats site and not official NFL stats: http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=5930&Submit=Go http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=4429&Submit=Go Then we should keep Teague and never thought about Bentley because he gave up 2.5 sacks and Teague only .5 Again individual sack allowed are not official stats because it is difficult to ascertain who the sack really should be assigned to especially since it could be as simple as someone not running the right blocking scheme and it looks like someone else forgot to pick up a blitzer. Or hell Levi Jones only 1 less sack then Shelton, I guess he sucks too. http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/player...=5896&Submit=Go 628225[/snapback] So exactly why do you use sacks against totals when it fits your argument and pooh-pooh them when it doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 So exactly why do you use sacks against totals when it fits your argument and pooh-pooh them when it doesn't? 628230[/snapback] Because when I saw they had teague only gave up .5 sacks I knew it was BS and fantasy crap numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Agree. Especially 'bout facing Culpepper. I can still see Randall Cunningham ducking under Bruce to avoid a safety, and then completing a huge pass. Schobel can sack Brees, he might get hurt if he hits Culpepper. 627390[/snapback] Both Brees and Culpepper are coming off very serious injuries. I would be reluctant to sign either of them for the money they are demanding. I'm in the minority, I'm sure, but I think the teams who get either of them are going to regret the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I follow the Browns, and I am glad to see him go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Because when I saw they had teague only gave up .5 sacks I knew it was BS and fantasy crap numbers. So because they're "fantasy crap numbers," they're wrong or less believable? Again this is the ONLY site I've seen where they do this. If you've got another, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I'm not a huge fan of Shelton to be honest. He's a below-average player imo who we could easily match in the draft for less money. 626965[/snapback] I absolutely agree! We had a shot at him last year when the Cardinals let him go. He didn't do anything special in Cleveland. This is no big deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 So because they're "fantasy crap numbers," they're wrong or less believable? Again this is the ONLY site I've seen where they do this. If you've got another, let me know. 628410[/snapback] But you said they "NFL" numbers and they are not. They are fantasy numbers only. Actual sack stats are only kept by the teams as they are the only ones who really know/understand the blocking assignments and can really determine the fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 i'd say gandy is at least as good as shelton. also, i think brees and pep each had a very solid O around them and a truly great offensive weapon to exploit, AND are coming off injuries. i think they will both not be that great for their new teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 But you said they "NFL" numbers and they are not. They are fantasy numbers only. Actual sack stats are only kept by the teams as they are the only ones who really know/understand the blocking assignments and can really determine the fault. So basically we have no objective way to measure O-linemen. In any case, I think Shelton has proven to be a lazy, unmotivated player who has underperformed. And he committed 9 penalties last year, which CAN be measured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts