nodnarb Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 this has really become amusing. if you meant only in occasional goal line run plays when the matchups are right, then i agree with you. i thought you were suggesting that bannan should be our LG. If I'm in error, my mistake. And extrapolate *shouldn't* be a "big word". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I actually called in to the MM show last night and asked Mike if, going forward, he would be using a counter action play or two to go along with the ones where they used Bannan pulling to the right. He said that on one occasion in the game, they actually did do that already. I can't remember if he said it was a pass or simply a run to the left but he did confirm that there was one play where Bannan was in and did not pull to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 One goal line block does not make a good O lineman. As I've continued to say, our OL is not that bad at all. We have RBs that have rushed well and a QB that has always been prone to the sack. In New England they thought their O-lines were terrible until they replaced one player and all of a sudden the awful O-line was a bunch of Super Bowl champs the same season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 One goal line block does not make a good O lineman. As I've continued to say, our OL is not that bad at all. We have RBs that have rushed well and a QB that has always been prone to the sack. In New England they thought their O-lines were terrible until they replaced one player and all of a sudden the awful O-line was a bunch of Super Bowl champs the same season. 97604[/snapback] Interestingly enough, the Bills replaced one player on offense for the Cardinals game and scored 4 offensive TDs without giving up a sack or a turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think you have to be pleased with how effective the redzone offense was with Bannan and particularly because there does seem to be less of a role for Bannan in our DT rotation (Edwards seems to have found his game and though calls for him to start are a bit over the top and calls to move him to DE seem pretty stupid he has clearly pused Bannab to the #4 DT slot. Anderson will be given every chance to beat him out this off-season so the only way I see for Bannan to stick is for us to lose either Phat Pat or Adams or for him to provide other benefits). However, I think nodnarb is right that a reasonable expectation or hope for Bannan at OG is not the idea that he is going to become our starter or that he will be useful at OG beyond a few situations. I think we will and we should make noises about him playing LG in the redzone and perhaps at other times simply because it will waste opposing defenses time trying to figure how how to exploit him. I would use him if I could as a position player a few times, but only as a fake to occupy the minds of opponents. Leonard Smith has not been adequate as a starting LG, but he has made phenomenal progress even though the judgment of him as not being good enough (yet) is true. He has moved from the practice squad of another team as a UDFA to being a starter in a incredibly short amount of time. He merits working with to see how far he can go. However, my sense is that once opponents get some film on Bannan at LG his production will drop unless he works hard and full time at guard play and develops some additional skills and tricks. In the end, the thought that he should be used as a regular in the redzone at LG and certainly as a regular player at LG actually means that you are expressing more confidence than would seem to be warranted by his play in Tim Anderson as our # 4 DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 In New England they thought their O-lines were terrible until they replaced one player and all of a sudden the awful O-line was a bunch of Super Bowl champs the same season. 97604[/snapback] You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Compared to the previous season, the Pats had 3 new fulltime starters on their O-line (Compton, Robinson-Randall, and Light) in 2001. And Light, one of the best LT's in the game, made his first start in the 2nd game against the Jets. Another thing to note is that Antowain didn't get more than 10-11 carries in either of Bledsoe's starts in 2001, and didn't run too well with averages in the 2's (but that's Bledsoe's fault, right?). Last of all, in those 2 games of 2001, Bledsoe was sacked 5 times, which was less per game than Brady was sacked that season (2.5 versus 2.9). So obviously there were other factors, and I already mentioned Brady's need for a top-6 scoring defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seq004 Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 this has really become amusing. if you meant only in occasional goal line run plays when the matchups are right, then i agree with you. i thought you were suggesting that bannan should be our LG. If I'm in error, my mistake. And extrapolate *shouldn't* be a "big word". 97599[/snapback] No harm, no foul. It would not surprise me to see him back in that spot for some plays in the Jets game. They should use him more if it continues to work on the trap play to the right. He looks a lot better than our regular LT. He flattened everyone he hit. Our guards and tackles are to dam slow and I think that has something to do with so many sacks. I would think that's the reason their using him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts